Loading...
12-22-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 42-2020 Bill Pogonowski 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60 Site Plan No. 49-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 3. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Site Plan No. 21-2020 David Hartmann 3. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Site Plan No. 57-2020 Rockhurst, LLC 4. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35.2 Subdivision No. 16-2020 Harrisena Church 5. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59 Site Plan No. 56-2020 Joseph Leuci 6. Tax Map No. 290.-1-48 Subdivision No. 20-2020 Foothills Builders 6. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 279.15-1-85 Site Plan No. 53-2019 APEX Capital, LLC 7. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2, 315.5-1-2 Site Plan No. 59-2020 Penelope D. Townsend 10. Tax Map No. 227.10-1-22 Site Plan No. 58-2020 Bonnie Rosenberg 14. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-15 Site Plan No. 54-2020 Luxury Box, LLC 27. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-13 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 12/22/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board nd meeting for Tuesday, December 22, 2020. This is our second meeting for the month of December, our thth 19 meeting for 2020 and our 15 meeting under the COVID pandemic guidelines. Please note the illuminated emergency exit signs. In the event of an emergency, that is your way out. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it wouldn’t interfere with our meeting we’d appreciate it. There are some items for which there are public hearings this evening, and we have a telephone link available for those watching this meeting on the Town YouTube channel, and I will remind people in the time where the actual public hearing is to take place, but in the meantime I’ll just let you know if you want to jot down this number. The telephone number to call, if you wish to comment by phone, is 518-761-8225. Those of you in attendance if you’re going to be addressing the Board, when you’re done, there’s some sterilizing wipes on the podium. If you would wipe the mic down so that it’s clean for the next person we’d appreciate that, and I think with that we have quite a number of administrative items actually this evening. The first being that this meeting, the last meeting in December, is our, what we consider our annual meeting, and one of the events that we conduct at that meeting is the election of officers. We changed our procedure back in 2017 to codify the process by which that takes place. There are three officer positions on the Planning Board. There’s a Secretary, a Vice Chairman, and Chairman. The Planning Board votes on the three positions. However, the position of Chairman is confirmed by the full Town Board typically at the first meeting of the Board in January at their annual meeting. One of the duties of the Chair, which I am this year, is to check with the current officers in the month of November to see if they would be willing to serve another term. If they are, then those names are automatically put in nomination for those positions, but in addition to that, we also accept nominations from the floor for those three positions. So I’m happy to report that David, Chris and myself are all ready, willing and able to serve another year in our positions as Secretary, Vice Chair and Chair respectively, and at that point I will open the nominations from the floor for any of those positions. Are there any nominations for Secretary, Vice Chair or Chair from the floor? Okay. Then we’ll entertain the motion to close the nominations and that the Board should vote on the slate of officers according to the draft resolution prepared by Staff. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL MEETING & ELECTIONS RESOLUTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS AND VOTE ON SLATE OF OFFICERS (FOR 2021) MOTION TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS AND THAT THE BOARD VOTE ON THE SLATE OF OFFICERS, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Valentine 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-And with that then we will entertain a motion to vote for the current slate of officers for the 2021 Planning Board. RESOLUTION TO VOTE ON CURRENT SLATE OF OFFICERS FOR THE 2021 PLANNING BOARD MOTION TO VOTE FOR THE SLATE OF OFFICERS FOR THE 2021 PLANNING BOARD (– Chairman,–Vice Chairman, and–Secretary), Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White; Secretary – David Deeb Vice Chair –Chris Hunsinger Chair –Steve Traver nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’ve taken care of that business. I would just like to comment, particularly to David and Chris, David isn’t with us tonight, but I just want to express my appreciation for all the hard work. I think we did well this year. We handled some interesting projects and processed them well as far as I know we have no complaints, formal complaints or litigation based on decisions that we made during the year. So they say any year you can walk away from as a Planning Board. Right? So we’ll look forward to 2021. With that we’ll move on. We do have a number of tablings this evening. The first one is for Site Plan 42-2020 Pogonowski. SITE PLAN 42-2020 POGONOWSKI REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO JANUARY 2021 MR. TRAVER-He is requesting a further tabling until next month. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has submitted revised plans. They need to get reviewed by the Zoning rd Board prior to them coming back to this Board. So the tabling should probably be to the 23 of February. rd MR. TRAVER-The 23, and I think we have a draft resolution to that effect. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, not that one. I apologize. Pogonowski will be back in January. MR. TRAVER-Okay. th MRS. MOORE-And that’ll be the 26. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a 672 sq. ft. detached garage with a floor area of 1,114 sq. ft. and associated site work. Existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. The new garage is to be 23’3” in height. Project includes combining two lots. 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. Tabled to December 17, 2020. Applicant requests further tabling to January 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 42-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the January 26, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by December 15, 2020. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-Next we have a request for further tabling for Site Plan 49-2020, Godnick. SITE PLAN 49-2020 GODNICK REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO JANUARY 2021 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant requests to be tabled to February and they are updating their plans to present to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there a particular meeting date? rd MRS. MOORE-This would be the 23 of February. rd MR. TRAVER-February 23. Okay. So we have a motion for that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant requests to maintain a 188 sq. ft., 10 ft. high shed to replace a shed that has been removed. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. (footprint) with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft., which includes 188 sq. ft. shed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tabled to the December 17, 2020 meeting. Applicant requests further tabling to February 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Tabled until the February 23, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by January 15, 2021. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any questions on that tabling motion? MR. SHAFER-Just a question. Laura, did you say that they were going back to the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. SHAFER-Can you explain why the, have we seen this one before? MRS. MOORE-You have. You did a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. SHAFER-Why would a changed plan go to the ZBA first rather than here? MRS. MOORE-Because it stopped at the ZBA, and this is a change in regards to a permeability request. MR. SHAFER-So we will see it again as a Site Plan? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, when they get through the ZBA they’ll be back for Site Plan. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-Next we have a request for further tabling from Hartmann, for Site Plan 21-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2020 HARTMANN REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO MARCH 2021 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant, maybe you remember this applicant did not attend the Planning Board recommendation stage of the review of the application. However the applicant has experienced another th hardship so they have asked to be tabled to March. So I have March 15 of 2021. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) RESOLUTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN Applicant proposes to remove a 1,513.2 sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a 1,771.6 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a floor area of 3,474.5 sq. ft. Project includes site work for stormwater, landscaping and septic. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback, height and floor area. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Applicant request tabling to the first March 2021 Planning Board meeting. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled until the March 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by February 15, 2021. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-Next we have, under Old Business, Rockhurst LLC, Site Plan 57-2020. OLD BUSINESS: 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. 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. MR. TRAVER-This application is going to be tabled as well. Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application went before the Zoning Board of Appeals and that evening they only had a five member Board. The applicant was given the option to be tabled to have a full Board, and that’s what this applicant chose to do. So they would have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and then back to the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-So do we have a specific date that they’re requesting? th MRS. MOORE-January 26. thth MR. TRAVER-January 26. So they hope to go before the ZBA on, what, the 25? th MRS. MOORE-The 20. MR. TRAVER-All right, and this application, we did hear this as you may recall when we made a recommendation to the ZBA, but we will not be seeing them again for Site Plan Review until they do get a discussion with the ZBA regarding their variances, and we don’t know what changes may take place in their application, but because we will be seeing this again in January we will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And I believe we have a draft motion to table this as well. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 57-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. Project has been tabled by the ZBA, therefore request for tabling to the second meeting in January 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 57-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: Tabled until the January 26, 2021 Planning Board meeting. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-The next item 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. 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. MR. TRAVER-I believe this has asked to be tabled for the same reason, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. There wasn’t a full Board. They asked to come in front of the Board when there was a full Board. th MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I believe they are also to be tabled so we would see them on the 26 as well next month? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB PRELIMINARY STAGE # 16-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board 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 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. Project tabled by the ZBA, therefore, request to table to the second Planning Board meeting in January 2021.. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the January 26, 2021 Planning Board meeting. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-Next we have another tabling request from Joseph Leuci, Site Plan 56-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOSEPH LEUCI. AGENT(S): MATTHEW HUNTINGTON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 277 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE HOME IS 2,796 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SECOND FLOOR IS 1,580 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. FOUNDATION/BASEMENT PLAN INCLUDES BOTH UNFINISHED AND FINISHED BASEMENT AREAS, 1,700 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT WILL INCLUDE NEW ON-SITE SEPTIC AND WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. LOT SIZE: 34.20 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-48. SECTION: 179-6-060. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant has requested to be tabled because they’re making some changes to the plan, th and they will be tabled to February 16. th MR. TRAVER-February 16. It sounds like January and February are going to be interesting months. All right, and we don’t have a draft resolution for this I don’t believe, but it’s a straightforward tabling. MR. DIXON-All right. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 56-2020 JOSEPH LEUCI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home. The home is 2,796 sq. ft. footprint first floor, 1,700 sq. ft. floor area. Second floor is 1,580 sq. ft. floor area. Foundation/basement plan includes both unfinished and finished basement areas, 1,700 sq. ft. floor area. Project will include new on-site septic and well. 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2020 JOSEPH LEUCI; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. Tabled to the February 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 20-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS. AGENT(S): STUDIO A – MATTHEW HUNTINGTON, PE. OWNER(S): PATRICIA WELLS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 84 JENKINSVILLE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 18 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 16.89 ACRE PARCEL. PROJECT IS TO HAVE ONE ACCESS DRIVE WITH A CUL-DE-SAC. AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 0.83 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (S) 11-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 16.89 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.15-1-85. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MR. TRAVER-And last but not least, we were alerted also that Foothills Builders, Subdivision Sketch Plan 20-2020 was on our agenda for this evening and they are not going to be doing a Sketch Plan discussion with us tonight, Laura, I don’t know if you have any additional information. I know you’re going to let us know when they are prepared to get back on the agenda for discussion. MRS. MOORE-Correct. They need to work some details out with DEC and possibly some departments with the Town, and then they’ll provide an updated plan potentially and be back in front of the Board. I don’t know at what time. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay, but we don’t need a tabling motion for that because it’s just a discussion item 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So with that I think those ae all the administrative items that we have before us this evening. So we can actually get some work done. The first section is Tabled Items. We have an item under Unapproved Development which is Apex Capital, LLC, Site Plan 53-2019. TABLED ITEMS – UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. APEX CAPITAL, LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A LANDSCAPE ARCH. DPC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC/MDR. LOCATION: 59 WEST MT. ROAD (MAIN); 47 & 53 WEST MT. RD. (PARKING). (SEQR) APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE WEST MOUNTAIN SKI AREA PARKING LOT, CONSTRUCTION OF A ZIP LINE ATTRACTION, APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING MOUNTAIN BIKING VENUE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PROJECTS. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOWN BOARD REFERRAL FOR A PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PARCELS 315.5-1-3.2 AND 315.5-1-2 FROM MODERATE DENSITY TO RECREATION COMMERCIAL. THE PARCELS ARE TO BE USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-15-040 TOWN BOARD MAY REFER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION, AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A RECREATION CENTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW SEQR. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-2002 CREATE 2 NONCONFORMING LOTS, SP 22-2008 ADDITIONS & DECK, SP 34-2011 ALPINE SLIDE & ZIP FLYER, SP 61-2011 SHED ADDITION; SP 60-2018; PZ 584- 2019 RE-ZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 382.34. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2 315.5-1-2. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-We had this project back in September of 2019 and the applicant has worked diligently with the Town Engineer and our office in regards to stormwater and other details in the Site Plan and they’ve come to resolve, and so this Board tonight could potentially do the SEQR review as well as provide a recommendation to the Town Board for the two parcels that they wish to re-zone. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. Spencer Montgomery is here on behalf of the applicant, and Matt Huntington will be project engineer. Before COVID we were here a bunch, and then we got delayed. Obviously a more important project because it’s something you can do outside safely. There’s always been a parking problem so they acquired the two lots along West Mountain Road. Since the last time we were here, as Laura mentioned, Matt went out with the Town Engineer, Chazen, and did a site visit, site walk, and came up with some stormwater modifications which we submitted. So we’re hoping that at this point you’re going to be ready to do SEQR, because you’re SEQR for both you and the Town Board, make the recommendation to the Town Board so we can go for the re- zoning on those two parcels and then come back and finalize the site plan with you after that, after the re- zoning. The two lots would be Recreation Commercial in the front. MR. TRAVER-And this is specifically for the alterations to the parking area, right? MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Let me correct that. The zip line is no longer part of the project, but there were also some modifications for the mountain bike trails. MR. TRAVER-Yes, which is I think he pre-existing, non-conforming development. Right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. There were some minor changes to some of the paths, and that required a little more work. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? We’re looking at SEQR and if the Board is comfortable we would make a referral recommendation regarding the Town Board’s making a change to the zoning. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m happy moving forward. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there any environmental concerns? John, you look like you have a question. MR. SHAFER-The Fire Marshal had a question about the design of the access roads, and I didn’t see a detailed cross section in the plans. What is the thinking? MR. LAPPER-That we will comply with the Fire Marshal’s request just about access and lane widths. MR. SHAFER-For heavy vehicles? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I do have some public comment to go into the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to the Planning Board. “This letter is a response for the public hearing on 12/17/2020 regarding the re-zoning and subsequent approval of the West Mountain parking lot nd expansion. Our property is the 2 lot from the southern border of the West Mountain property. We are opposed to the change in zoning allowing a parking lot, where a residential property is currently zone. Adjacent property owners will lose privacy, be exposed to increased noise, increased light pollution, and overall decreasing property values. In the event the zoning and parking lot is approved, it is asked that the following contingencies be considered. 1) True Raised Earthen Berm: The current parking lot site plan includes a “vegetative buffer” along with a small, elevated berm. This berm is not true earth and is simply a pile of wood chips left from when the lot was cleared. It is relatively inadequate in providing any line-of site privacy to the neighboring properties. We request that a real berm, aka. small hill of earth, on the order of 10 feet tall, lined with evergreen trees be installed along the length of the parking lot. The current noted “vegetative buffer” on the site plan is limited in the winter when all the leaves are down. 2) Overflow Use Only: If the parking lot is truly needed for overflow use, then it is reasonable to ask that parking be restricted in this lot until capacity is reached in the main lot. To ensure limited use, except in capacity situations, it is asked that an entry barrier such as a gate or rope-off be employed, and only “opened” when needed. This will also prevent un-wanted activity in the far corners of the parking lot, which has occurred numerous times (drinking, drug-use, etc.) 3) Lighting: It is requested that the parking lot lighting only be used, “turned on”, while the parking lot is used. Also, lighting that only illuminates down and lights the parking lot is requested, as opposed to flood lighting that shines into neighboring properties. We respectfully submit our feedback and hope that the planning board will hear and comply with the request of the taxpaying neighbors. Sincerely, Thomas & Mara Powell December 17, 2020” This is also addressed to the Planning Board. “We are writing in opposition to the application to Application 53-2019 for Zoning Reclassification. Currently we are property owners and residents at 10 Apres Circle, (315.10-1-60). We purchased and had our home built here in 2018. To give a brief background, we purchased and built this home with the intent of living near the ski operation. Our family frequents the mountain during the wintertime. We also see the need for a business to thrive and be profitable. This mountain is a large source of revenue for the town and we'd much rather live near a successful business than a failing one. It is critical that we support our local business. We have no complaints as to West Mountain or their ownership however, as a resident, we do enjoy our privacy. We purchased the home knowing full well skiing operations would be part of our winter life hearing the snow guns, the excess traffic during peak days, and festivals. All of those are part of what we acknowledged. The overflow parking and rezoning does present some concerns that should be addressed prior to any approval. As neighboring residents, we would like the ability to reach a fair compromise. We echo a lot of the concerns that previous residents raised in prior hearings. The increased noise, air, and light pollution does give us pause. We live in a two story home that our bedroom faces north toward the mountain's current parking lot. An excess parking lot without proper barriers causes us to feel like our privacy will be infringed. In prior hearings some residents proposed some very good points that we support in order to create an overflow parking lot. We'd like to offer our suggestions in order to compromise on supporting the rezoning. 1. Have lights set on timers or used only when the overflow parking lot is use, to the satisfaction of neighboring parcels. These lights should also only face downward, and the type of lighting/bulb should be considered to reduce impact on surrounding parcels. 2. The overflow parking lot must be strictly for personal automobiles. Using this for idling busses or trucks is unfair to neighboring parcels. There should also be no events or festivals held in that overflow lot. There should be no mixed-usage of this lot. The lot should be locked and only opened on overflow days to ensure it is not used unnecessarily. 3. Create a satisfactory barrier to all neighboring parties. We have seen suggestions of evergreens, year round greenery, and/or fencing. We think privacy and security should be a priority. 4. Maintain open communication, intentions, and transparency between West Mountain Ownership group and neighboring parcels. 5. Concurrent to point 2, these lots should not be developed in the future for anything other than parking. These zones should remain strictly for overflow parking indefinitely. There should be no mixed-usage of this lot. If these issues can be worked out between the neighboring parties, we would support the 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) application. We do not currently see the overflow parking as a necessity. There are a handful of peak days that the overflow would be preferable to parking on West Mountain. We also understand there are legitimate safety concerns. If the overflow is the only alternative to making sure no one is hurt or killed on West Mountain, then it is needed. West Mountain should be allowed to thrive, and residents should be allowed to enjoy the mountain as well as their privacy. We thank you each for your time.” This is Charles Mahoney and Meaghan Mahoney, and that’s the only two comments I have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we have opened the public hearing on this application, and I will remind folks watching YouTube live that if you wish to comment by telephone, you may call us at 518-761-8225, and, Laura, when the Town Board discusses and considers a zoning change, petition, there’ll be public comment at that point as well. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I thought so. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I had some questions, but they’re Site Plan related, and really most of those comments were Site Plan related as well. They didn’t really have to do with the zone change. MR. TRAVER-I seem to recall that when we discussed this part of the project some time ago, there were questions about lighting, when the parking lot, this section of the parking lot was actually going to be used. I mean we can go over all that again for Site Plan, but I know that we had concerns about that, and as I recall many of them, if not all of them, were addressed. MR. LAPPER-Some of those conditions that were requested are absolutely fine. Other ones are a little bit over board, but we would ask that you get this to the Town Board so that we can get through the zoning and we’ll work out conditions with you when we get back for Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, they’re really Site Plan issues. So first we have to consider the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Are there any, do any of these proposed changes trigger any concerns among Board members for environmental impacts? They did complete the Assessment Form. Do you feel comfortable with this this evening? Okay. Then that’s the first step. We have a draft resolution for SEQR review in our packet. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP # 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: (SEQR) Applicant proposes expansion of the West Mountain Ski Area parking lot, approval of an existing mountain biking venue and other associated projects. Project also includes a Town Board referral for a Petition for Zone Change parcels 315.5-1-3.2 and 315.5-1-2 from Moderate Density to Recreation Commercial. The parcels are to be used for overflow parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-040 Town Board may refer proposed amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation, and Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a recreation center shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board to review SEQR and make recommendation to the Town Board. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we consider the request for the zoning change. The Town Board is asking us, much like the ZBA does when we review variances, they’re asking for a recommendation to the Town Board regarding our feelings about the re-zone request. They’re asking to go from Moderate Density Residential to Recreation Commercial for the overflow parking area. Questions, comments for the representative on that issue? Concerns? How do Board members feel about the request for re-zoning change? Is that something that we feel comfortable supporting? All right. Then I believe we have a draft resolution, again, much as we have for the ZBA referral that we make in our packet. RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: SP # 53-2019 APEX Whereas, an application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Town Board for a zoning change. The Town Board referred this application to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020; Whereas, the applicant proposes to rezone parcels 315.5-1-3.2 & 315.5-1-2 currently zoned Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Recreational Commercial (RC); Whereas, the Planning Board will review the applicant’s site plan pursuant to the requirements of Section 179-9-020; Whereas, the State Environmental Quality Review Act has been completed by the Queensbury Planning Board and has issued a negative declaration; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that we find the following: MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING REQUEST FROM MDR TO RC; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. Hopefully we’ll be back soon. MRS. MOORE-You still need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-My apologies. I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you, Laura. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda we have Penelope Townsend, Site Plan 59-2020. OLD BUSINESS: 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 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 34-1994; SEP 50-2019, 758-2005 DECK, RC 739-2018 GUEST HOUSE, RC 540-2019 ALTERATIONS, 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. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to remove an existing garage of 573 square feet and construct a new garage of 676 square feet. This project will have a floor area of 1,352 square feet with storage above. The garage height is 22 feet and the Zoning Board granted that height relief. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins on behalf of owner, applicant Penelope Townsend and our builder Doug McCall is also with us. We were here last week. We talked about this in general. What she proposes to do is replace a failing 22 by 26 dimensional garage with a 26 by 26 garage. So it’ll grow by four feet. The proposed garage will be in essentially the same footprint. Obviously it’ll be a little bit bigger because it’s four feet wider. She’s done a wonderful job restoring this early 1900’s property. This is a parcel that a lot of people would have wanted to tear down the house and build a monster house, and she’s done a really great job maintaining the architecture and it’s beautiful. I hope you’ve been there and had a chance to look at it. This garage will be matching in architecture. It will look the same as the house with the shakes up high and the horizontal siding low. It will be connected to the house with an open walkway out the back of the garage that won’t be visible from the road, but it will allow a connection to the residence. The septic system is modern. The house is buffered, maybe as well as any shoreline property that I’ve worked on. There’s maybe not hundreds, but there’s tens and tens and tens of mature trees surrounding the property. So with that, we’d like your support for Site Plan, and I’ll take any questions. MR. TRAVER-Were there any changes to the plans based on your discussion with the ZBA from what we reviewed? MR. HUTCHINS-No, no changes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I remember the discussion we had with the applicant about the moving dishes and so on up and down the stairs. We had quite a discussion about the need for the second. MR. HUTCHINS-There is a storage area proposed above this garage. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-Just a quick question. I know there was a lot of discussion over the height of the garage last time that you were here. So by the picture and on the plans, the garage doesn’t exceed the height of the house, as well as the garage height doesn’t even co me close to the roof line of the house. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. Correct. The garage is 22 feet by, the way we measure height in Queensbury, which is grade at the garage to the ridge. The house itself is 30 some in the high point. The grade’s a little bit lower, but, no, the garage will not be nearly as high as the ridge of the house. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward on this? MRS. MOORE-You need to open your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. So we’ll open the public hearing on this application, Site Plan 59-2020 for Penelope Townsend, and I’ll remind the viewing public that if they wish to comment they can call 518- 761-8225. (Phone ringing). Hello. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-My name is Chris Navitsky. I was calling in for a public comment, please. MR. TRAVER-Yes. You’re on speaker phone. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’re not really opposed to the applicant’s desire to enlarge the garage. We did reach out to them last week with a couple of our comments. Just wanted to follow up on that. We did have a request to the applicant, and maybe the Planning Board can consider the condition to require additional stormwater management for the existing impervious surfaces to maximize stormwater manage., We should take this opportunity to bring the property more into compliance with the Town Code. We do recognize that there are a lot of mature trees but still we need, if we’re going to improve the water quality of Lake George, we need to provide stormwater management to the greatest extent practicable. We did have a question on how the runoff from the garage was being conveyed to the proposed infiltration basin. We see that there’s a catch basin by the garage, but we’re not sure if it’s being guttered or how the runoff is being collected and conveyed. The existing septic system is located right off the paved area near where the construction will be, and we just wondered if that could be protected during construction with some type of fencing or something along those lines. So those were our comments and recommendations and if there are any questions, I’d be glad to take them. MR. TRAVER-Yes. If I could just ask, when you’re speaking about the, at the beginning of your statement on the stormwater. Are you speaking about strengthening stormwater beyond that which is required by the Town Engineer for signoff? MR. NAVITSKY-That is correct. We are asking, they simply have to provide stormwater for the new impervious that’s proposed, but there’s a lot of impervious on the site that is not managed to my understanding and if we could try to capture some of that, that would improve and reduce the stormwater runoff running towards Lake George. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. NAVITSKY-It is above and beyond. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Anything else? MR. NAVITSKY-No thanks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application this evening? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. This is addressed to Steve Traver. “Dear Sirs: We have spoken with our neighbors regarding their application for a variance to re-build their garage to accommodate two cars and to raise the height to provide storage space above. We have no objection to what is being proposed. Sincerely, James David Michaels 30 Bean Rd. Kattskill Bay, NY (adjoining land owner to the north)” “Dear Sirs: We have spoken with our neighbors regarding their application for a variance to re-build their garage at 32 Bean Road to accommodate two cars and to raise the height to provide storage space above. We are in support of what is being proposed. Rita Whiteman” MR. TRAVER-Is that all the written comment? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I don’t know if you were able to hear Mr. Navitsky’s comments. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and we conversed last week. MR. TRAVER-You did. Okay. And this concern is not as much for the new proposed construction, although he did have a question about stormwater regarding the garage construction I’m sure you can answer, but he pointed out that there’s pre-existing impervious areas on the property and he’s wondering, while you’re doing all the stormwater, could you try to address the stormwater management with regard to the pre-project impervious areas. MR. HUTCHINS-Certainly. There are a number of stormwater controls presently installed around the existing house, most particularly with regard to some recent work that has been done and the remainder of the site is very well managed naturally. There is not, there’s not a stormwater runoff issue. There’s no concentrated runoff emulating from this property at all. It’s wooded. It’s natural. It’s totally vegetated. So what we’ve done is in excess of what’s required and you decide how far do you go? Do you take out a bunch of those trees and put in a big stormwater basin? That really doesn’t make sense to us or the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Well if I understood his remark correctly, he wasn’t talking about, he appreciated apparently that there was a lot of vegetation there. He was talking about the impervious area, not so much the trees and so on. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. HUTCHINS-Right, the impervious area being the house essentially. Everything down gradient from the house is a natural vegetated area with large growth trees. The portions of the house that are recently constructed, there are stormwater controls. There’s eaves trenching and there’s splash pads, and stone areas. So we’re quite comfortable that it’s reasonably well managed . The existing impervious is reasonably well managed, and we are taking provisions to manage the new area, as required. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I’ve talked to Bruce Frank, who’s our Code Compliance Officer, and this project was subject to review back in 2019. So Bruce is on site inspecting those changes to the renovation to the house and to the property and part of the requirements is to have a certified Site Plan at the end and Tom is working on that. MR. TRAVER-I see. Good. Thank you, Laura. MR. VALENTINE-Can I go back? Last time I had mentioned before about you guys having a conversation in the back, and the two of you had a conversation now and you’re telling us that you had the discussion. Does he agree with what you’re telling us now about that? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know. We had an email conversation. Okay. Following our last meeting he sent me an email. We corresponded. I shared his concerns with the owner, and we’re willing to address it, but to install a current stormwater control for the entire house the way we do it today, typically, you build an infiltration area. We don’t feel it’s necessary, and it’s not required. MR. TRAVER-There was also, in public comment, concern raised about protecting the septic system during the construction phase. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we’re very cognizant of that. In fact I’ve had the conversation with the contractors recently that we have to be careful around the septic system, and we know we’re fairly near it with our construction, and that will be a priority. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-You’re going to be pulling that water away from the garage that could come on the, what, say the east side and the back side. MR. HUTCHINS-The east side, yes, that’s all going to go to the stormwater area. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-I mean we don’t always like to use pipes, but in this case we have to use pipes because there’s going to be a wall there. So it’ll be captured and piped beneath the wall alongside the garage. MR. TRAVER-Let’s see, did I close the public hearing? All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Additional questions, comments from members of the Board? We’ve heard the discussion on the stormwater and so on. Do we feel comfortable moving forward? Okay. We have a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 59-2020 PENELOPE D. TOWNSEND The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 12/15/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 12/16/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to12/22/2020, when it was closed, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) 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 12/22/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 59-2020 PENELOPE D. TOWNSEND; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, 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) 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 nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shafer ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you very much. Thank you, Board. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Bonnie Rosenberg, 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 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) 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. 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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct two residential additions. The north side addition is 64 square feet on the upper level and the south side addition is two stories 370 square feet with a footprint of 740 square feet. The Zoning Board did grant relief for shoreline setback and side setback and floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design representing Bonnie and Stuart Rosenberg for this application for Site Plan Review. As indicated we have been to the Zoning Board of Appeals and received the necessary relief, the variances that had been requested. Now we’re here for the next step in the process which is the Site Plan Review. So the project as previously discussed, this is 73 Knox Road, the property that is towards the end of Knox Road. The Rosenbergs have owned this property for 35 year, have reached retirement, would like to live here on a permanent or a primary basis, their primary residence. They propose to make some improvements which we’ve built in a couple of additions to sections of the house. The site improvements related to that physical improvement to the house involve a new wastewater system and some stormwater management as required for the new impervious areas. The wastewater system is an enhanced treatment unit, an ETU. The dispersal area for that is more than 100 feet from the lake. So in that regard it’s beyond what is required by regulations. The stormwater management addresses the new impervious areas and the other issue with shoreline buffer. At the referral meeting the Chairman did comment about that was something you wanted to look at more significantly. So we have actually addressed that with a plan, and Laura asked me just to prepare a sheet, it wasn’t part of your original package. It’s something that we’ve addressed since then. Actually it’s the same Plan Sheet Seven that you had in your packet, just supplemented the planting in certain areas on the site to be let’s say more in keeping with the buffering requirements. I’d have to say from practice now, from application, that that’s a relatively new provision in the Ordinance, a little over a year, and you’ve had experience with it already. I think that there’s some inconsistencies in what it says. The practical application of it is going to be something that you’ll deal with from here on. I won’t because I am really retiring. In some cases I get involved with projects. The Rosenbergs happen to be neighbors. So I am assisting in that effort. That stormwater buffering or shoreline buffering provision, while well intended, is a bit inconsistent. I think that you’ve experienced this already, it might be a little, the densities required might be a little significant. So we’ve prepared a plan which addresses some of the additional plantings, just so that it would be something that would be before you and perhaps that will be adequate, and the owner certainly is willing and interested to provide additional plantings in that area, but even when I went through the pre-application meeting, there was still a little bit of uncertainty as to how to approach this, the mathematical requirements of that ordinance. MR. TRAVER-Well really the intent is the environmental protection of the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. MR. TRAVER-That’s kind of what you keep in mind when you’re thinking about numbers and calipers and all these kinds of things. I know that can get a bit into the, excuse the pun, but it gets a bit into the weeds, but the intent of it is to try to enhance the buffering to protect the lake quality. So we appreciate that you have made an effort to address that and thank you for that additional material. While we continue discussing, I want to also open the public hearing and alert people that are watching on the YouTube channel that if they wish to comment by phone they may do so at 518-761-8225, and I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I thought this was really helpful, the shoreline plantings plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-And I think it’s, at least in my mind, pretty much what we had talked about. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was I think really the main concern that I had with this. Although I should ask, in your discussion with the ZBA, did that result in any changes at all to what you discussed with us previously, other than the shoreline buffer? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I’ll comment. I do like that from what I see is an improvement to the shoreline, an improvement to the wastewater, and an improvement to the stormwater. Those are all wins. Very nice. (Phone ringing) CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky calling in with public comment. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Go ahead. You’re on speaker phone. MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Thank you. I didn’t want to cut off the Planning Board member that was speaking. I apologize for the call in at that time. MR. TRAVER-That’s all right. As you know this is part of the COVID procedure. So it’s a little bit awkward but we’re trying to do the best we can. MR. NAVITSKY-I know. I’d rather be there in person. I went there last week and couldn’t get in the building, and I know there’s others at times that have tried to do that. Again, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’d like to recommend more mitigation measures, and I appreciate the submission that had come in. Obviously haven’t had a chance to take a look at that. So comments may be addressed, but really for this project that’s located in a Critical Environmental Area, especially in light of the recent harmful algae bloom, the property exceeds the impermeable by more than 60%, has steep slopes and really has no current stormwater management. There’s also some questions on the new septic system. We appreciate that it is an enhanced system, but it’s also a fill system that is being put on steep slopes. So we feel that the stormwater management plan does not capture and treat all runoff from new impervious surfaces, and as it was stated it is the minimum. I think that is supported by the Town Engineer letter. Stormwater management should be greatly expanded for the existing impervious surfaces to offset the existing impacts of runoff. I had an onsite meeting with the applicant to discuss various options, which would include eliminating impervious surfaces, installing addition raingardens and install porous pavers and grass pavers. Again this project is 60% over impervious allowable, and there’s also vivid areas of erosion. No test pits have been provided or percolation tests. I think this was noted by the Town Engineer as well, and shoreline buffer, according to us, fails to meet the requirements, but that’s been re-submitted. I’m surprised about statements on inconsistencies. This was approved, went through a serious committee process. I think it’s pretty straightforward about a three tiered approach or canopy approach for the buffer to protect the lake. It’s really straightforward, and we think there should be a determination on whether the wastewater treatment system meets the requirements of Chapter 136. Unfortunately determinations for the septic systems apparently aren’t made until later in the process, but it says built up systems, which this system is, should not be on slopes more than 10%. This is on 16% slopes. It says that they should only be absorption fields. This is an absorption bed. So we just had questions on that. So thank you very much, and if there’s any questions from the Board, I’d be glad to try to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Anything else? MR. NAVITSKY-No. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Do you have any comment on that public comment, in response to that? There seemed to be some question about the compatibility of the waste treatment system. Although that’s really a Board of Health issue, right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-At this point Dave Hatin has reviewed this and has found it to be compliant. There’s obviously other review processes that the applicant needs to go through for the septic, but at this point it does not need a variance. MR. TRAVER-Right, but it does need review and approval. Right? MRS. MOORE-By the Building and Codes Department. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Could I just add a comment about the technology involved? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. MAC ELROY-This is an enhanced treatment unit, or qualifies as such, according to the New York State DOH. It’s a Purasis Sequential Batch Reactor. It’s a little different technology than maybe you have seen. You’ve heard of Clares. You’ve heard of Peat systems and whatever. This is the Sequential Batch Reactor, and that technology is something that’s been used on a municipal level for decades. In fact the Lake George Village Treatment Plant is that technology. MR. TRAVER-There was a concern, and I don’t want to present as knowing anything about these systems, but there was a concern voiced that, something about the slope that the system was installed on. Can you comment on that? MR. MAC ELROY-This will be a cut and fill situation. It’s something that we’ve addressed before. It is something that the Town has found to be acceptable. Laura has indicated Dave has looked at this. The challenge we face on some of these properties around the lake is that they just, they don’t fit into exact parameters of a subdivision type lot for instance. So we’re dealing with trying to come up with a solution that is compliant to an extent, and if not a variance can be applied for, if you’re not 100 feet from the lake, or if you’re not distance from the property line, but in this case I’m not sure exactly some of Chris’ comments, but I feel comfortable with the design that we’ve provided. It is, again, an enhanced treatment unit. There’s another comment I saw somewhere about 30% reduction of the field size, and that’s not accurate. Because it’s an enhanced treatment unit it does get a 30% credit from a conventional system, but that’s the design. That’s what that enhanced treatment unit earns. I’ll give you a numerical example. An Elgin system is a system that’s been around a lot longer around the lake. 1999 was the original Elgin system built on Cleverdale, but they’re very common because they take a smaller footprint, the field area, whether it’s a bed or a trench. So an example of an Elgin is that for a four bedroom design flow in a nominal perc rate of 11 to 15 minutes you require 275 feet of a conventional trench, pipe and stone, 275 feet. With an Elgin unit you require 92 feet. Now that’s 67% reduction, but that’s not requesting a reduction of 67% field size. That’s what the design is. So just like with an enhance treatment unit, you know, they only get 30%. I guess they didn’t have lobbyist in presenting their information. So that field size is what it is. It’s not a request for 30% less. It’s what the design calls for because, again, the effluent that’s produced out of the enhanced treatment unit is of higher quality than a conventional system, and that higher quality effluent requires less field area to put into the ground. Now there’ll be talk about phosphorus. Well there’s no standard for phosphorus reduction. There’s not a residential level design or component that addresses specifically phosphorus removal to the Nth degree or to 90% reduction as an ETU does for other parameters. The best reduction from phosphorus comes from going through the soil, and I’ll repeat what I heard today from a person far more educated about this than I am, but the leaves and debris that come off the trees on the shoreline produce more phosphorus than the properly constructed wastewater system on the site at a proper distance away from the lake. MR. TRAVER-I think the goal is really just to try to reduce the overall amount going into the lake. That’s basically it. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that’s basically it. MR. TRAVER-Can you comment, in public comment they spoke about additional stormwater and apparently there were some discussions with the applicant about that, between the applicant and the Waterkeeper. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. The Rosenbergs invited Chris Navitsky to the site to discuss his thoughts about the project. They reached out to him to get some input. He provided that as he indicated. What’s on the plan is what is required for Site Plan Review. Now that’s not to say that this owner won’t do other things to enhance that site, other stormwater management, and there is some stormwater management on the site. Everybody, just out of, I often say that there’s informal stormwater management because you don’t want the nuisance of what results from runoff on your property. So you do certain things, and that’s happened over the years at that property. Is it to the degree of a minor project? Perhaps not, but the Rosenbergs don’t have any problem with making those improvements. We just don’t necessarily have them on the plan to be mandated by that approval. I mean they’re certainly interested in providing either other stormwater devices or a reduction of permeability, but it’s not something that’s shown on the plan because it’s not needed to show on the plan to go through this Site Plan approval, but it’s not to say that some of that will be undertaken. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? The public hearing is still open. If you would like to address the Planning Board on this application, go right ahead. Good evening. DR. CAROL COLLINS 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) DR. COLLINS-Good evening. My name is Carol Collins. I’ve lived at 79 Knox Road all my life. I also reside at 35 Knox Road. So I’m very familiar with this property. As a lake scientist and principle founder and past chair of the Fund for Lake George and importantly as a neighbor I am very disappointed in this application. Bonnie and Stuart have asked much of this Town to accommodate their interests, but they have not appropriately proposed to mitigate the high impact of this property. I’m going to switch my comments around just to follow up on what Dennis was speaking about, and I did submit a letter. So you’ll probably see that. I did get basically a determination letter or a letter from the Department of Health on this 30% rule, and I really want to be clear about this. I think it’ll impact everything on Lake George. So an ETU is very good at removing things that Dennis referred to as other parameters. Well those other parameters are things like TSS, Total Suspended Solids, and there are also things like biological oxygen demand which are very important. They have nothing to do, as he said, with removal of phosphorus. So what this soil absorption field does is it’s responsible for removing the phosphorus. The reason this was developed, this extra law as part of the 75A, was because of nitrogenous compounds. They were satisfied that if you reduced this field by 30% or the trench length specifically, you would get enough nitrogen removal. Phosphorus was not tested. In New York City it’s absolutely not allowed., the reduction of trench length, because we want that soil absorption field to absorb as much phosphorus to protect the drinking water source, which is what New York City is all concerned about. This should also be our concern here with Lake George. So I want to make that clear. If you have any questions right now please ask me them, but that trench length, if they were to allow at least a full sized field I would be very satisfied with that removal and we would then get potentially the 30% of phosphorus that’s going to be generated from a very high populated site. So moving on, as I say, this is a nonconforming lot on very steep slopes, and Chris mentioned that there is a 60% permeability, the percent permeability on this property is 60% over Code. Time constraints only allow me to state the obvious. We should eliminate one very large driveway of the two. We should eliminate a small cabin, which has to require an additional septic field and an additional septic tank, but regrettably, even with the removal of those two things, it would only alleviate half of the excess impermeable area. It would only remove 30% of what we should be removing, and we’re not getting the stormwater removal that we should. So you’re seeing some new plan here. I’m not sure if it’s compliant or not, but we must remember stormwater is a major pollutant for Lake George and two small swales that are minimally just treating this very new impervious area is not acceptable. The Planning Board has the option of requiring a Major stormwater plan. If any site on Lake George requires one, this would be one that I would say you should require. The stormwater plan on steep and excessive slopes will remove about 60% of the phosphorus, 55%. In order to make this truly effective is the reason we put in these shoreline buffer plants. You can get, with a compliant plan, you can get up to 100% more removal of phosphorus with a compliant plan along the shoreline. These are not big asks . They’re getting 854 new square feet of building, and they’re not giving up anything, and I just feel that this is something where we could all work together and get a really good project. We put in better stormwater, which should be approved by you, first and foremost, not just presented here at the meeting or make a promise, but we should be able to evaluate that plan. Certainly the Town Engineer has asked for more information, and I think we deserve to see it and evaluate it. MR. TRAVER-If you wrap up your comments, please. We typically grant three minutes. DR. COLLINS-I am. Okay. So basically I just want to say given the harmful algae bloom, it’s a wake-up call, and it means we have to do a lot more on this site, especially in this bay and protect the greatest resource we have in Warren County, and I do want to thank each of you for paying such close attention to these matters. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-Thank you. My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road. I’ve been there for 20 years as a full time resident and then for the 22 years before that I resided summers at 79 Knox Road with Carol. I want to follow up on different issues that Carol raised as well as expand on one or two. This is a non- conforming property and normally when you get proposals to expand a non-conforming use, there is a very rigorous review process here, and when you look at the letters of support from the neighbors, their focus has been on put in that new septic system, make a prettier house, make space that is more desirable to you. I’m in favor of that. That’s not my problem. My problem is expanding the non-conforming use without any mitigation of the other unique factors of that property that are very severe. We’ve talked, a number of people have talked about the grade on the property. We’ve talked about the imperviousness of the property. If you’ve been there or seen the pictures, there’s a lot of pavement and it’s on the steep slope part of the property. Proposal, Carol had mentioned about taking out one of the two driveways. The driveway to the north, my calculations, that’s a 22% grade there. It’s not used as the primary driveway and it’s definitely not used in the winter because the car will end up in the living room of the house. Responsible ownership on this lake, when you have a challenging property like that, is to address the issues and not turn a blind eye towards it. Dennis talks about the unique factors of this property. They are unique, and they’re challenging and they’ve been in existence since the Rosenbergs acquired the property, but now they 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) want to expand their use. They need to do something. They need to address these challenging a aspects. .So I’ve mentioned the driveway. You remove that north driveway that’s unnecessary, you improve the, or reduce the impervious soil. In addition, I am proposing, and I’ve written a letter on all this. I’m not regurgitating everything in the letter. Taking down the small cabin, gee, why would I do that. Well with this expansion this property just went from a total of six bedrooms to seven bedrooms. That means more people, and when you look at the proposal it talks about a small change in the FAR. Well, the FAR as a calculation living space and open deck area. The living space went up by over 800 square feet. Put that in perspective, that would be like adding another one of those large cabins on that property. So if we were to remove that cabin it would reduce impermeability. It would provide alternative expansion area for the septic absorption field and keep the bedrooms at the current six bedroom rate. MR. TRAVER-Could I ask you to finalize your remarks. MR. COLLINS-Yes. The other thing I would ask that as a condition there be either a restriction in the deed or an agreement that runs with the land that prohibits the cabins from being rented. The Zoning Board, in the meeting there, they had a real concern about that, but they didn’t feel they had any authority over the rental of that property. The Rosenbergs have said they don’t intend to rent, but we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. If they are to their word, they put a restriction in the deed or the agreement, then that takes the worry of everybody away that that property becomes a massive rental property which would very negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I think I see someone. Yes, ma’am. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live at 66 Bay Parkway on Assembly Point. As the two previous speakers have said, the Planning Board is being asked to allow an expansion on a one half acre lot, which has been over developed for years with the main house and two cabins. This is probably one of the most precarious properties on Assembly Point. First, there is a very steep slope, estimates are around 16 to 19%, come off of Knox Road. Second, the property already exceeds the allowable impermeable area by 60%. If the Planning Board agrees to the Site Plan, there should be a quid pro quo. At the very least one of the two paved driveways should be eliminated. I don’t believe it was mentioned before. There are two entrances to this house. MR. TRAVER-Yes, ma’am. We’ve received comment on the driveways and the extra cabin. So if you could give us new information, we’d appreciate that. Okay. Well, lastly I guess I’d like to engage in a bit of nostalgia. This is the first place that my family summered on Lake George, and at that time we rented the main house and the owners remained in the two cabins in back. The bay in front was ideal for small children. Sadly today that bay is in very poor shape with excessive algae bloom and a very muddy bottom compared to the previous sandy bottom. It’s critical that the pervious area be increased and the stormwater runoff mitigated and a robust buffer is called for. So I ask that you request two conditions. Eliminate one of the steep driveways and install a very robust shoreline buffer. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. I see a hand up, and, sir, before you begin, if I could just point out, we’ve received a lot of public comment on the driveways and the extra cabin and so on. If you could give us new information rather than information that’s already been provided, we would appreciate that. Thank you. STUART ROSENBERG MR. ROSENBERG-Well first of all my name is Stuart Rosenberg. My wife Bonnie and I are very happy to be here tonight. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Staff. Bonnie and I purchased this camp in 1985. It was a lifelong dream. We’ve been there for 35 years. We love it. I still get excited when I drive down one of those driveways, and we intend to basically make it our retirement place. We want to turn it from a camp to a home with a larger bedroom, larger kitchen and eating area. I realize there’s a lot of challenges to this. The two driveways are one for entrance and one for exit, and they’re steep and taking away one driveway, one is very circuitous and would not allow any trucks to come down for construction and the other is kind of a very steep driveway straight down allowing access to the camp. So those driveways, they were there when we bought it. We’ve used them throughout. For about five years when they constructed next to us. You may be remembering the property at 67 Knox Road. The first developers closed the driveway. They blocked it off from us, and we had a difficult time exiting our house from the driveway because the carriage of my car would hit the road as it came by. So it’s really helpful for us to have two driveways. My wife comes from a family of three wonderful sisters. Her sisters use the cabin in the summer. We don’t rent them out. We have no intentions of renting them out. That’s not what we’re here for. You’ve always asked what have we done. Well, I have taken an active role in planting trees. We’ve planted over a dozen trees on the property since we first bought it. We’ve improved one of the best rock gardens on Assembly Point. Every spring I hand out dahlias to all my neighbors. So I really believe in improving the property and continuing it as a show piece of Lake George. I asked Mr. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) Navitsky to come and give me some ideas, and he was kind enough to visit for an hour and show me how we could improve the drainage, how we could improve the impervious areas, and I intend to do it. We’ll use permeable pavers on the flat areas. We’ll put in catch basins by the driveway. We have a lot of ideas on how to make the property compliant. MR. TRAVER-Would you be willing to add those to your plan so that we have an idea of exactly what you have in mind? MR. ROSENBERG-Sure. MR. TRAVER-And then you could be given a period of time during which you could actually have that done. MR. ROSENBERG-I’d be happy to. MR. TRAVER-Can you tell me again what you were proposing? You’re talking about putting permeable. MR. ROSENBERG-In all the flat surfaces, and there are a number of flat surfaces, by the cabins, down by the house, rather than the blacktop which is impervious obviously, we would add the grass, I don’t know what you call it, the grass tiles, pavers, that allow aeration. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So removing the blacktop. MR. ROSENBERG-I intend to remove as much blacktop as I can possibly remove. Obviously for the steep areas we can’t, but in the flat areas we would remove the blacktop. I don’t like it as well as anybody else. By the base of the steeper driveway we would put a catch basin there. I’ve stood out in the rain. I know where the runoff is. I know where the problem is and I know how to correct it, and I will take it upon myself to do that and then we could include it in the plans. Dennis has already included it in the plan but we’ll do all the things you require. So, again, our intentions are to respect the lake as we’ve done for the last 35 years. MR. TRAVER-So you would be willing to modify your application to reflect another catch basin for stormwater management, reduction of the impermeable blacktop to convert that to a permeable paver type? MR. ROSENBERG-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. ROSENBERG-We want to make it work. MR. TRAVER-We can discuss it with your representative I guess. We appreciate that. It does seem, and it sounds as though you recognize that it is a challenging piece of property. It’s been developed over many years, in some cases prior to the higher standards for stormwater and so on that we’ve developed, but we have often found with applicants, and it sounds like you may be one of them, that when you’re undergoing these types of renovations and developing new changes to the property it’s the best time to do it properly and, you know, what you have done, and you’ve worked with Environmental Design to improve somewhat the shoreline buffering. That’s good, but it does sound as though there is a lot of concern, pre-dating concern, perhaps pre-dating when you even owned the property, about the stormwater issue, and I’m sure you’re well aware, living in the area, of the concern, the recent concern of the toxic algae bloom, though I guess it turned out perhaps not to be toxic, but in any case that’s a developing problem that we’re very, very concerned about and that’s why we have traditionally made an effort to focus on the buffering, to focus on the stormwater management. So we appreciate that very much. MR. ROSENBERG-I share your concerns and I will do those changes. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. ROSENBERG-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-I have one question, if it’s all right, Mr. Chairman. Would you be willing to entertain removing one of the wooden cabins? MR. ROSENBERG-That’s a heartfelt question. Heartfelt because we have a wonderful family, and the family visits us every summer, three sisters who as close as you can ever been from California, Toronto, Montreal and Albany, and how would I judge what sister to throw out of the cabin? It’s just very, very difficult to us to consider removing the cabin because we don’t use it a lot. We use it in the summer for relatives. We use it occasionally on weekends for my daughter and that gives us our grandchildren and they stay up at the cabin. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-One of the effects I think with the additional cabin is, again, the impermeable. So, again, if you’re willing to do more with the stormwater management, that’s going to mitigate not removing one of those cabins, I think. MR. ROSENBERG-And believe me that would be my priority. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. ROSENBERG-Thank you very much for hearing us. Have a great, peaceful happy holiday. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, you too. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? MRS. MOORE-I do have some written comment. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-I’ll start with, this is addressed to Mr. Brown. “Please include this letter for the record of the public hearings for both the Area Variance and Site Plan Review applications for the Rosenberg property at 73 Knox Road. I am representing my family’s property at 103 Knox Road and as nearby neighbors I would like to offer our support for the improvements proposed by their applications. I am aware of the variances required and the house modifications suggested. During their 35 years of ownership of their lakefront property in our common bay area we have known the Rosenbergs to be considerate and conscientious neighbors and lake users. Their property, and its use, is certainly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would continue to be. The improvements proposed will not be a detriment to our neighborhood and the infrastructure upgrades to wastewater and stormwater systems will only have a beneficial effect on the lake. Thank you for your consideration of my comments and know that we are in favor of the approval of the proposed improvements. Sincerely, Chris Winslow 103 Knox Road” This is addressed to Craig. “We are writing this letter in support of the Rosenbergs’ application for variances at 73 Knox Road. We are summer residents of 79 Knox Road., immediately next door and to the north of the Rosenbergs. The Rosenbergs have always been good neighbors and good stewards of the lake. The setback variance from the shoreline that they are requesting is necessitated because of the long- standing location of the main house. As you are aware, this is not uncommon and there is no real way to resolve the setback. It is very positive that they are not proposing to encroach upon the existing setback from the lake at all. In fact, they’re increasing the setback from Lake George by 3 feet with the modification to their deck that they are proposing. We believe that the modest expansion of their house that they are proposing is in keeping with the character of our neighborhood and will not be detrimental to nearby properties. We could not be more pleased with their determination to replace their wastewater system with a modern, state-of-the-art system and to improve stormwater control. As a Trustee of the Fund for Lake George, I have been personally involved in the efforts of the Fund for Lake George to stimulate the replacement of aging septic systems and the improvement of stormwater controls to protect the water quality of Lake George. As you are aware, the Fund has made significant investments in the Town of Queensbury to support septic upgrades. We commend the Rosenbergs for their stewardship regarding wastewater and stormwater control and encourage approval of these variances to support these upgrades. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tom and Renee West” This is addressed to Craig. “My name is Stephen Ballas and I own the property at 67 Knox Road in Queensbury. I am an immediate abutter to the South of 73 Knox Road. I am writing this email in support of the variances being proposed in the Rosenberg’s application. I feel the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or nearby properties. Further, they are upgrading to a state of the art wastewater and stormwater runoff mitigation system that will improve and enhance our beautiful lake. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.” This is Stephen Ballas at 67 Knox. This is addressed to Mr. Brown. “I am writing this letter in support of the Rosenbergs’ application for variances at 73 Knox Road. These improvements are: 1. In keeping with the character of our neighborhood. 2. Not detrimental to our neighborhood or nearby properties. 3. Include the addition of a modern, state of the art wastewater system and stormwater runoff mitigation system that would improve and enhance our beautiful lake. Thank you for your attention to this matter.” This is Rolf and Luise Ahlers at 105 Knox Road. This is addressed to Mr. Brown. “This letter is in support of the setback variances requested by the Rosenberg family at 73 Knox Rd. I have no objection to any of the requested variances. As a somewhat distant neighbor, the property line setbacks do not impact us directly, but seem reasonable given the totality of the project and existing structures. Were they immediate neighbors with a similar request, I would support the plan. Regarding the waste- and storm-water systems, I am whole-heartedly in support of this plan. Upgrading of onsite systems for existing structures should be encouraged and supported by the neighbors and the Town, even if reasonable variances are required. The benefit from upgrades more than offsets any encroachment in setback zones in the proposal. In summary, I recommend approval of this application. Thanks.” This is David Wilcox at 26 Forest Road. This is, “My name is Bob Glandon. I live at 63 Knox Rd. I am writing this letter in support of the project application by Bonnie Rosenberg at 73 Knox Rd. The requested variances will allow a currently small house to be more usable by adding interior space to the current rather small bedrooms 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) and kitchen. Additionally, with these proposed changes, a new modern septic system will be installed which will be beneficial for the lake. Additions called out for stormwater mitigation are also beneficial. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Bob Glandon” And then just to confirm, Dr. Collins and John Collins both wrote letters. I could read those into the record if you choose to, and then Chris Navitsky read his letter into the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read those? MR. TRAVER-I think they’re largely the same as the public comment that was made. Yes, ma’am. LORRAINE CARBININE MRS. CARBININE-My name is Lorraine Carbinine and I’m a resident of Assembly Point Road. As an Assembly Point resident I seem to be surrounded by a parade of variance requests. When a variance request or multiple requests are made for an already non-conforming lot which many of us do have, I feel we’re often pushing the envelope for lake health. When looking at the use of the structures on the property, I do not believe the decisions based on occasional occupancy can ever be accepted. I think we heard that there will be seven total bedrooms on the property but some are only used occasionally. A property must be able to fully manage the wastewater based on the existing number of bedrooms and not how often those rooms are planned to be used. I can personally attest to the value of this. One pandemic later my occasional use home is now the home to a family of four for the past nine months. I think we’re so fortunate to have heard input from our Lake George Waterkeeper , certainly an expert on the issues facing our lake and how we might mitigate any negative effects of this project. Installation of the new septic system is key, but there are other critical steps to help balance the excess cover on this lot to manage runoff which our Waterkeeper discussed. While we can stir in a lot of emotion into supporting a project, I think we all know that it is the environmental science which will help preserve our lake, and I ask you to listen to the facts and suggestions of the experts. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I’ll ask again, is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this project? So if you could back to the mic, Mr. MacElroy. All right. So a good deal of public comment, as you’re aware. I think, and in a way you began your discussion by speaking about the Rosenbergs’ interest and intent in improving the stormwater management on the property, and Mr. Rosenberg graciously agreed to make that a part of this project, recognizing that it was important. In doing all of this site work, now is the time to do it. He spoke about permeable pavers, replacing blacktop and an additional catch basin for stormwater. I know you’re the engineer, but can you make those improvements? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and we’ve talked about devices like that right from the onset of the project, the design of the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-The difference between what’s required and what might be suggested and desired by the owner. I would say strongly there’s no one that understands the peculiarities, the difficulties, the benefit of that property, than the Rosenbergs. They’re there. That’s their home. They understand the issues with it. They’ve addressed certain things regarding stormwater, just as any property owner will try to take care of any of those nuisance issues. So I don’t want it thought that they’ve turned a blind eye to the difficulties. MR. TRAVER-No, no. It was very clear what he intended to do. For us it would be, what we would like to see is have these specific measures based on your recommendation, and he suggested a couple of things, that obviously the engineering has to be involved,. But because if the high permeability of the property, if we do some additional stormwater and have that a part of the plan, I think that would be appropriate. MR. MAC ELROY-If that’s the preference of the Board, certainly we can add that to a plan and my question might be, though, how will that be structured as far as, will we be tabled for that further? MRS. MOORE-The application has to go before the Town Engineer. I mean at this point in time there are comments provided by the Town Engineer, and as such those items have to be addressed, and that, again, is up to the Board, whether they want to table the application or do a condition. MR. MAC ELROY-And let me just add to that, because that’s an important point that we didn’t discuss. Chazen has reviewed this. They’ve issued their comment letter which we responded to. The timing of it isn’t such that we’ve gotten their comments back, but their comments are truly minor, and I’ve done this enough to know that Chazen will generally give plenty of comments about a project. In this case there were nine numbered items, and I’ll respond to something, John, you said the other night at the meeting where there were 21 comments. Well, be familiar with what each of those numbered items are. They’re 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) not all comments requiring some response. Some are just statements in recognition of certain conditions. So in our case we would get nine comments and six of them really are comments and one of them related to test pits which Chris brought up, but that’s been done and that’s been provided. A comment about a silt fence detail. So we’re, I think, in real good shape as far as Chazen’s comments on the plan before you, but if it’s the preference of the Board to provide some other stormwater devices, and they would take the form of perhaps either grass block pavers, depending on the location, or permeable block pavers, which get a credit for permeability from the Town, but also provide a stormwater management device, or, Stuart mentioned a catch basin but that would then be a dry well perhaps or maybe a raingarden type device. MR. TRAVER-Well I think that’s, those recommendations probably, they wouldn’t come from us. They would come from you. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But the applicant has indicated that he recognizes the need for additional stormwater and supports doing that at this point. So I think what we would be looking for, and I guess I’d reach out to other members of the Board, how people feel, about the application as it stands. Do we want to see the additional engineering stormwater come back on the plan as was suggested by Mr. Rosenberg, or how do we feel about proceeding with this application? MR. VALENTINE-I’d rather see something that comes back to us that addresses a lot of the comments on both sides, either the owner, what he’s willing to do, and then also get in some of the concerns that were addressed by public comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-We heard a lot of comments, and so far we’ve only talked about stormwater, but a lot of the comments we’ve heard had to do with a non-conforming application that was being suggested that additional square footage be added. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, are you talking about the septic? MR. SHAFER-No, I’m talking about the FAR. It’s already over the recommended square footage for the property. MRS. MOORE-That was granted by the variance, though. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that was. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they requested the Zoning Board of Appeals look at that variance and they did so and they granted them a variance. MR. SHAFER-I’m just articulating some of the comments we heard tonight. I don’t know why we should ignore them. We also have an application that has a seven bedroom, two septic systems on a less than half acre lot with slopes 30 feet from the road down to the lake. Now I have heartburn about that kind of a situation. Between FAR, two septic systems, three buildings, seven bedrooms. MR. TRAVER-Well, the buildings and at least one of the septic systems pre-dates this application that we have before us. It’s not something they’re proposing to build. It’s a pre-existing, in effect, a pre-existing, non-conforming structure, and what they’re doing is they’re making modifications to a pre-existing, non- conforming lot and my own feeling is that is why I think the, my thought is the best way to address it at this stage is to try to deal with the stormwater, perhaps reduce the impermeability to try to get it more compliant, and this is a situation that, as you know we’ve faced with a lot of properties around the lake that date back to the last century, and many of them are non-conforming and we try to improve them when granted an opportunity. In this case we have the owner who recognizes and intends to address more of the stormwater issue, and felt that, and agreed with my suggestion with let’s deal with that now while all this other work is going, but that’s just me. I don’t know how other members of the Board feel about that. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with Mike. I think that, you know, based on the comments that we’ve heard this evening that we would be remiss if we didn’t ask for a table and look at more information. MR. TRAVER-More stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Rather than just say approve it subject to the engineer’s approval because it sounds like we need to look beyond what is being called for in the Code in this specific case because of the unique features and characteristics of the site. MR. TRAVER-Right. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-I think I would agree with Mike that we should table it and ask for more information. MR. TRAVER-How do you feel? MS. WHITE-I agree with Chris. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-I think Chris said it very well. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, it sounds as though. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I have to say this is a very unique project and I have to agree with Mike and Chris and Steve. The Rosenbergs they bought this property like that. They’ve enhanced it and been enhancing it going along. I look at it, you know when I first looked at it last Tuesday I’m like, that’s really not a big addition. It is, it’s very small to moderate, but then I looked at this picture and I saw what was up above and everything else, but I don’t know why it didn’t dawn on me that it was on a half-acre lot, and then tonight you hear 60% impermeability. MR. VALENTINE-No, no, no, 60% above the permeable. MR. MAGOWAN-Over and above. So I mean this is the time that I think that we need to address it, and I would really, you know I kind of brought up maybe removing one of the bedrooms, one of the cabins, and really buffering up that shoreline. It is steep. I mean I understand, some of the driveways I’ve been down, yet sometimes it’s easier to come in and go out. This is going to be a give and take and try to be compliant and move everything towards the direction, and I’ve said it before in other meetings. These big homes that come on to these small lots, especially on the lake, even though we’re enhancing systems, and we’re increasing and septics are getting better and we’re doing better with our stormwater collection, but especially when you’ve got a low bay area and I know the Collins’ are always out there and yakking and taking samples and thank you very much because we need to monitor this. It’s very close, and this is the time to do it, but that’s just my opinion. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I’ll throw my two cents in there, too, since Brad’s over there. So, one, I did like the improvements that are happening. After listening to everybody, I think we can do better. I’d also like to think outside the box. So there’s the two cabins on there. I know the recommendation’s to tear one down. Would there be any possibility of disconnecting all plumbing and everything from one of the cabins so thereby it would never be able to be rented out in the future, but act as a guest house. So I’m not telling you that that’s what needs to be done. I’m throwing out some suggestions and, yes, I’d like to see some ideas come back because Mr. Rosenberg I thought that was very thoughtful of him to offer removing the blacktop in all the flat areas, but now we need to define what those flat areas are, and I think that’s the important part that everybody’s bringing up. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we need the engineering really for that, but I do think it should be noted and appreciated by the Board that Mr. Rosenberg very graciously recognized that more needed to be done and documented. So that’s very much appreciated by everybody that loves Lake George and by this Board. So, Laura, in terms of procedure, we’re looking for additional site plans that, revised site plans to include a greater amount of stormwater essentially to come closer into compliance with the permeability. MRS. MOORE-I would word it, use language that it’s updating stormwater management on the site, and that would be referred to the Town Engineer at this point, just for comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So just leave it general, just updating the stormwater. MRS. MOORE-Because there’s also details that they provided that sometimes the lawn fixtures that could be considered a different calculation could be given more credit than a permeable paver. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-That’s discussed in our office. So I think that that sort of discussion may give greater permeability on this site, but that really is something that needs to be presented and discussed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And I hate to make more work for you because I know you’re already very busy, but I would urge that the applicant communicate with you, take advantage of your expertise, to get guidance as this process goes forward in terms of developing those plans and presenting them. MRS. MOORE-So at this point I would say if you were going to table it I would table it to a February meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. VALENTINE-Could I ask Dennis a question before we go on? MR. TRAVER-Sure, absolutely. MR. VALENTINE-The force main, knowing that there’s roughly a 16% slope on that northern side, that the force main and the four inch is underneath a paved area. Is it safe with that being a traffic area? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and the pipe can be installed to a depth that’s certainly acceptable for traffic grading and in terms of it being under the paved area it’s, we always design these systems so that there’s a drain back. So it’s not like subject to freezing that force main line. Every time the pump finishes its cycle, the contents of the force main would drain back. There’s not a check valve. MR. VALENTINE-I’m assuming the force main would not have to go as low as the four inch pipe. Is that right, as a force main? I’m just wondering because you’re into that slope. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, they could be installed in the same trenches. MR. VALENTINE-And without inverts here working with a force main I didn’t know, is there enough cover on those? MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have a preference or a suggestion as to which meeting in February, based on the? th MRS. MOORE-I would do the first meeting which is February 16. th MR. TRAVER-February 16. MR. MAC ELROY-And that’s a Tuesday in February. I don’t know what the Rosenbergs’ schedule might be, but that is the school vacation week. MRS. MOORE-I believe that’s correct. MR. VALENTINE-We should note that it’s only two days after Valentine’s Day, too. th MRS. MOORE-So if the applicant cannot make that February 16 meeting, they would know by the th January 15 submittal, and they could request an additional tabling. rd MR. MAC ELROY-Additional table or placement onto the 23. rd MRS. MOORE-You could be tabled to the 23if that works out. So I just want to identify with the stormwater and going back to the engineer, is that, again, potentially, in addition, above and beyond what’s required. So the comments that come back from that may not be a requirement. So just remember that, that these are comments that, yes, this is deemed appropriate or maybe this is, there may be some additional information needed, but it’s not part of our Code to ask for additional. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. All right. MR. DIXON-Are we going to do a tabling motion, and are we going to require of the applicant that they provide a stormwater management plan, or is that just? MR. TRAVER-Additional stormwater management, yes, in response to public comment, recommendations of the Waterkeeper. MR. MAGOWAN-Or shoreline buffering. MR. TRAVER-Well, we have this plan this evening. We didn’t really talk about that specifically, but the new plan will have this included. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, do you think that should be reviewed? Remember, we’re 60% above. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand, and the applicant understands that. I can’t really comment on this because I haven’t really had a, I’ve had something else to do since I was handed this. So I haven’t really looked at it, but I’m sure that the applicant is aware that, and we had pointed out to the applicant in the previous meeting that the shoreline buffering was one of our main concerns because of that. So I’ll leave 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) it to the applicant’s engineer to place this along with the other enhancements on the stormwater plan and we’ll see that when we get it. MR. MAGOWAN-So I was going to see if, my comments like I said this is the time to do it. So if you’ve 60% above. MR. TRAVER-Well, this is I believe what they’re proposing. MR. MAGOWAN-And we can bump it up a little bit more. MR. TRAVER-Well we can certainly provide that advice. MR. MAGOWAN-You have a lot up the hill and everything’s downhill. So all we can do, and this is a give and take. This is really an overdeveloped lot. So the more we can put back in, and if Mr. Rosenberg, as he stated, you know, is the true steward that he wants to be, then that’s what I’d like to see. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I’m sure he’ll take that into account. So we have a tabling motion. MR. DIXON-We’ll give it a shot here. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 58-2020 BONNIE ROSENBERG The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2020 BONNIE ROSENBERG, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the February 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting, with the applicant to provide updated stormwater management plan in response to public comment. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2020, by the following vote: rd MR. VALENTINE-I thought we did February 23? MRS. MOORE-No, that’s an alternate date. MR. VALENTINE-I’m sorry, then. MRS. MOORE-So, as part of your discussion, I apologize for not interjecting earlier, but with public comment, are you going to leave the public hearing open? MR. TRAVER-Yes, we will leave the public hearing open because we’re tabling the application, yes. Yes, I’ll state that now for the record. The public hearing will remain open on this application because we are tabling it. MR. COLLINS-Sir, is there any opportunity to ask to clarifying questions that I think will be helpful to you as well? MR. TRAVER-There will be when we see the updated application. MR. COLLINS-Okay. One of the two questions might be creativity, on top of trying to solve some of the issues. MR. TRAVER-I’m going to have to ask you to come up on the mic, sir, to make sure your comments are on the record. MR. COLLINS-Thank you very much. John Collins. So one of the proposals I had was if a cabin wasn’t taken down, whether you could put a deed restriction or an agreement running with the property not to rent cabins out in lieu of disconnecting plumbing. That way the family could continue to use all of the three cabins on the property. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I’m not certain that, I don’t think you could place a deed restriction on potential future use of a piece of property. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. COLLINS-I’m not so sure about that, because you have a non-conforming property here that they’re asking to make more non-conforming and talk about give and take, that could be a potential, too. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for those comments, and when they return in February you’ll be able to make more comments. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-I would just add that the applicant has taken a lot of public comment tonight and has agreed to make it more conforming, and we’ll see to what extent it’s more conforming when they return in February. I think we need to give them an opportunity to go back and update their plans, re-submit them. We’ll look at them. There will be an opportunity, continued opportunity for more public comment at that time, and let’s see what they come up with. I’m sorry. Any other comment on the motion? Yes, John. MR. SHAFER-The way it’s written now, it’s limited to only stormwater changes? MR. TRAVER-Those are what we’re requiring, but they can make whatever changes they want. Any other comment? All right. Maria, can you call the vote for us, please. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is under New Business, and the item is Luxury Box, LLC, Site Plan 54-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LUXURY BOX, LLC. AGENT(S): SCHODER RIVERS ASSOCIATES. OWNER(S): GAM OF THE ADIRONDACKS. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: SOUTH OF 1048 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL SEVEN SEPARATE BUILDINGS CONNECTED BY A COVERED WALKWAY AND FAÇADE FEATURE 4,685 SQ. FT. TOTAL. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER. THE PROJECT WILL BE FOR INTERIOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 33-2012. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-13. SECTION: 179-3-040. ERIK SANDBLOM & DAVID BRINDLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to install seven separate buildings connected by a covered walkway and a façade feature at 4,685 square feet. The project includes sitework, grading, stormwater management, lighting, landscaping connecting to municipal water and sewer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SANDBLOM-Good evening. My name is Erik Sandblom from Schoder River Associates. I’m the engineer on the project, and in the audience also is, I guess I don’t have to point him out because he’s the only one left, Dave Brindle from Luxury Box, LLC. So what is proposed, it’s a currently undeveloped lot on Route 9. It’s right across from I think it’s called the Fun Spot and brewery. MR. HUNSINGER-Northway Brewery. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes. Across the street from. Okay. People know what that is. So it’s in a commercial area where other recreational facilities are. This happens to be a recreational facility that is proposed. The seven individual buildings will serve as individual gaming stations so to speak. So it’ll be like a virtual gaming type of experience, like virtual golf or virtual football. David will be up later if you have specific questions about that. MR. DIXON-If I could just interrupt for just a moment. So I do know Mr. Brindle. So for disclosure I don’t see any complications or conflicts. MR. TRAVER-Because you know him? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. DIXON-Well, I’m friends. We’re not close friends. I’m not over at his house every day, but maybe once a year I’ll go over there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-So it’s up to the Board’s discretion. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s up to you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean you have disclosed what you feel is a potential conflict of interest. It’s up to you whether you abstain or not, but disclosing, I don’t think it’ a disqualifying conflict of interest that you’re merely acquainted with someone, but that’s entirely up to you. MR. DIXON-I don’t see any need to recuse myself. Fortunately or unfortunately in Queensbury we know a lot of people, and that’s kind of how it goes sometimes. MR. TRAVER-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t have any financial interest in this project? MR. DIXON-No. MR. HUNSINGER-There you go. MR. DIXON-And he probably doesn’t even realize until tonight that I’m even on the Board. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you for sharing that. All right. So we’ve clarified that. I must say when I saw this application that I thought it was one of the more interesting projects that I’ve seen in a while. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I was trying to think of an experience, perhaps, that I had to try to visualize what it was you were designing and developing, and I did participate, actually, with the Lake George Rotary Club. We got together, I guess it must have been on a weekend, and we went to a similar small space in Lake George Village that was like a mystery type thing. So you all got locked in this room basically and there were clues around and it was a very small space and you had to look for these clues and figure out, solve a puzzle basically. It was really quite, a little different than what you have, same concept is that you’re going into space and now you’re transformed into an unusual environment. It’ a very clever idea. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, it certainly has a lot of potential, and so because of the seven separate buildings, the construction of them is unique as well. They’re going to be essentially built off site and then transported on wheels and so it’s kind of hard to describe without the structural drawings, but essentially there’ll be a wooden walkway that is used to connect all the buildings, to walk from one building to the next. There’ll be a retaining wall under that, and then the building itself would then be set at the lower level, at the low end of the retaining wall. The walkway will be on the top of the retaining wall so to speak. So the way that the property is kind of divided there that walkway, so the left side of the property, the north end, will be, you know, at pretty close to existing grade. It’ll be a little bit lower than on the other opposite side of the buildings, and so that poses some definite challenges from an engineering standpoint on how to grade the site, but we figured it out. Essentially we’ll basically split the flows from the impervious surfaces to flow on either side of the property and flow off vegetative channels, each to two separate four bays and then those two, four bays would flow into one infiltration basin and we’re proposing to treat all the stormwater on the site. We’re not requesting any variances in that regard. The site itself is, it currently all drains and infiltrates, it’s very favorable conditions for an infiltration project, or for stormwater infiltration. It’s very deep to ground water. It’s course sand at the site. So that’ll work very well to ensure that the stormwater is treated from the site. From a layout and traffic circulation standpoint, there’s an existing curb cut there now and a little bit of pavement, and the plan is to re-use all of that. The existing opening, or the curb cut is 21.75 feet wide, which is slightly less than what the Code requires, what the Queensbury zoning requirements are for a two way access. So for now we have represented it as a one way access with just a one way in, and then the property to the north it would adjoin that property. David has spoken to that owner and they’re agreeable to having the sites connect. So that’ll improve the traffic circulation on the site. We think that it would be acceptable for that exiting curb cut to actually be two way. It could work as just one way in, and then the, you know, to exit the property you’d have to go through the property to the north, but we wanted to just make sure that we could absolutely meet standards and if the Board felt that we should hold it to that we will. If it can be used as a two way we think that would be acceptable. MR. VALENTINE-Have you talked to DOT about a curb cut permit? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. SANDBLOM-No, we haven’t. We’re just talking about re-using the one that’s there now. We’re not making any changes to it. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but that’s going to be their decision, though. So you should make contact with them. If you have an existing one does it meet their standards now for commercial driveway entrances is what I’m saying. MR. TRAVER-It would be good to get some kind of acknowledgment. MR. SANDBLOM-We can, I’ll be happy to reach out to the DOT regional office on that to get their opinion. My understanding is that a permit would not be required if we’re not making a change, a physical change. MR. VALENTINE-That’s a sort of, in discussion amongst ourselves, that’s something that is an agreement that people usually have. They have their standards that require a permit. MR. SANDBLOM-Sure. I do know that commercial driveway entrance DOT is quite a bit, the allowance is to be quite a bit wider than what’s there now, which certainly isn’t necessary for this type of a use, and it just helps control the access management on the site. This has been looked at by the Fire Marshal. The only significant comment there was to make sure that the surfaces are substantial enough for emergency vehicles, because what is proposed there now is a gravel surface for now. It could be upgraded to asphalt in the future. So the request from the Fire Marshal was to either make it, I think the word was hard surface. I would take that to be an asphalt type of material, or to do testing. MR. MAGOWAN-You’ll have to come up with a compaction rate test for them. So they can see the compaction rate of your ground underneath. MR. SANDBLOM-That was what was requested, and I mean I can tell you with the really excellent sand that’s there now and the sub base material that’s being specified in our design drawings, there’s no concerns about the ability to provide adequate support for emergency vehicles there, and whether compaction testing is done in time, but that’s something that the applicant is willing to do. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I don’t know how hard it is. You’re a pretty big guy. You could probably go over there and jump up and down in front of Mr. Palmer and he’d say that’s enough, I don’t know. MR. SANDBLOM-I haven’t tested that one yet, but that’s a good suggestion. I guess, what’s other aspects, I’ve covered traffic circulation. Parking meets standards. It’s a little bit more. We thought about snow removal, made sure we kept enough room on the side of the parking proposed here. There’s a dumpster enclosure identified, although it’s not believed that this is a site that’s going to generate very much trash at all, and then there’s a landscaping plan as well which we believe meets the landscaping standards for the Town, and provided with that are some actual pictures of the spec sheets that are proposed as well as a schedule. David would like to maintain as much of the existing trees that are there as possible. It is going to require clearing most of the lot, but there’s an opportunity to maintain a lot of the trees that are right on the edge of the property. MR. TRAVER-There is a 50 foot buffer requirement to the residential zone. MR. SANDBLOM-Correct.. We understand that, and that is a bit of a challenge for us. So what has been proposed is the construction of a fence on that southeast corner I believe it is. If you look at C-103, the landscaping plan, it shows the extent of the fence, and then also to maintain those trees there, but then also if you look at C-102, which is the grading plan, that shows the, up on the screen now that’s the layout plan. At any rate, C-102 is the grading plan, that shows the infiltration basin that’s going to be located there, and so that’s basically really needed for that. It’ll all be, you know, it’ll be green. It’ll be green surface, and then it’s also maintained the trees that are on that property line or on that corner, and then also the fence, in order to compensate for the removal of any vegetation within that buffer. There is one comment that we got from Laura on the lighting plan that what was proposed was just slightly under the recommended two and a half foot candles, and so we actually had prepared a revised lighting plan to meet that requirement, but then it was also suggested if it’s just under that the Board may consider that providing adequate lighting for security, but making sure it’s not excessive. MR. TRAVER-We can discuss that. MR. SANDBLOM-I think that it would be in the interest to maintain the original proposal that was submitted if it’s acceptable to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anything else? MR. SANDBLOM-I believe that’s it. We did get comments from the Town Engineer on the stormwater management plan. There were two pretty minor comments. One was we forgot to show the stabilized construction entrance on our erosion control plan. That has been corrected, and we submitted that, and 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) the other was that they wanted to see us include the watershed outside of just the boundaries of the property, but they don’t extend outside the boundaries of the property. There is no stormwater that currently flows onto the property from off site. So we are treating everything that would actually be flowing into these stormwater treatment practices, and I don’t know if Chazen’s responded to that or if they will. MRS. MOORE-They will, but the idea is that the Board gets that first blush of information and then if the Board feels it’s necessary, sometimes it’s a condition to obtain that signoff, or if the Board wishes to table that until the signoff is given. MR. SANDBLOM-Okay. Our hope is that those are minor and we don’t need to table for that item. MR. TRAVER-The signoff from the Town Engineer is typically a condition of approval in any case. So if you don’t feel that you have any difficulty in complying with the request that the Town Engineer has provided you, then you’re probably comfortable, but we’ll see what the Board says. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, we submitted our response to, back to the Town at least almost two weeks ago and we feel comfortable that we can comply with them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you mail it? MR. SANDBLOM-We e-mailed it. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s quicker. MRS. MOORE-I just want to identify, there is a question about signage, and there was information within the application that it was to be ground lights and the Board’s aware that you’ll need to have downcast fixtures. There’s no up lighting allowed in the Town Code unless you go for a variance at this time. MR. SANDBLOM-And I forgot to mention that. So thank you very much. In my discussions with David that’s fine. He’ll change that so it’s downcast on the sign. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We try to reduce light pollution to the extent that we can. MR. SANDBLOM-Of course. MR. TRAVER-And we will be having a public comment on this application as well, and with the unusual circumstances of the COVID pandemic I want to alert the viewing public that if you wish to comment on this application by phone you may do so at the following number, 518-761-8225, and I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MS. WHITE-I just have a lot of questions more related to economic development, like, currently this type of entertainment you can’t even go in it now. All these types of businesses are closed because of COVID. So, you know, what is your timeframe for opening? Do you have any kind of plan? Am I allowed to ask that? MRS. MOORE-You can generate questions that relate to hours of operation, phased planning, when that starts. Whether the project is successful monetarily is not typically something the Board gets into. MS. WHITE-Sorry. MR. TRAVER-They do also have a year from a theoretical approval, they have one year. MR. HUNSINGER-To start the construction. MS. WHITE-All right. Yes. I just have some concerns that are more business related. MR. SANDBLOM-I’m just the engineer, but we’re all living through this COVID stuff, and I can tell you that these are individual buildings for individual parties. So at least from a safety standpoint there’s a lot of potential there for this to be a safe activity, but like I said, that’s not my area. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s how the buildings would function is like a group of people would just go into one building? I kind of envisioned that it was like different game rooms or something. MR. SANDBLOM-So that first building further down to the west is like the office. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, I understood that. MR. SANDBLOM-People would move to another building to play their game, but Dave’s offered to give you his vision. He’s the businessman here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SANDBLOM-I’m happy to step aside and give him the podium. MR. TRAVER-Sure, that would be fine. MR. BRINDLE-Thank you, everyone. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. BRINDLE-David Brindle. So to answer that question first, then I’ll get back to the other question. So from all my research I’ve come up with, there’s nothing precluding me from opening because it is a small unit. So you’re not getting 30, 40 people in there. The maximum is six people. So I haven’t found anything. If you find something I’ll be more than willing to take a look at it. MS. WHITE-My issue is I’m currently doing lending under the CARES Act and there are several businesses who fully anticipated they would be able to open and they have not been able to open and they are under similar type, you know, small rooms, thought they were safe, thought they did everything they needed to and they have not been allowed to open. MR. BRINDLE-Like I said, my research doesn’t show that there’s anything that’s stopping us. MS. WHITE-Neither did theirs. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we’re looking at something in the future, not something in the past, too, which makes a difference. MR. BRINDLE-So, hours of operation you said. I’ll answer that question. So it’s nine to nine seven days a week. That’s for the general public. I’m also going to have it where you can become a member and members would have 24 hour access to it, but it’s only limited amount of people. So it’s not like we’re going to let everybody become a member and have 24 hour access. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. DIXON-I do have a question So as far as the color schemes go, what we see in the rendering, is that the colors that are being proposed? MR. BRINDLE-I think I’ve changed it a little bit from the blue to more of like a neutral kind of khaki kind of color. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. BRINDLE-And it’s probably going to be clapboard, not cedar shakes. MR. DIXON-Is that something that we would want to review or see the color schemes before approving? MR. TRAVER-Well, we don’t always have the benefit of color renderings but we do often discuss certainly the visual impact and so on, how it fits with the character of the commercial area it’s located in. It’s entirely appropriate. MR. DIXON-All right, and then the only other question I’m going to throw at you is have you considered any charging stations for electric vehicles as everybody is starting to transition? Well I shouldn’t say everybody, but there is a transition to electric vehicles. Are you looking at any charging stations to add? MR. BRINDLE-To be honest I haven’t even given it a thought. I mean I do notice that they’re putting them in malls, places of recreation. MR. DIXON-Typically people with money have electric cars and they’re shopping. Route 9 just put in several electric charging stations. MR. TRAVER-I would add, too, the Town of Queensbury occasionally does get grant funding for electric charging stations. So I would say at this point if you even would consider that, if you would advise the 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) Town that should the Town be looking for a site to install a charging that you would be open to doing that, and then they could reach out to you if they get to that point. That would be one way to handle it. MR. BRINDLE-Yes, that’s fine with me. I’m sorry, what was your question? I forget. I think you asked it earlier. MR. HUNSINGER-My question? I don’t remember. MR. SHAFER-I have one. Your application talks about the portability of these different, unique buildings. Could you explain how that would work and under what circumstances? MR. BRINDLE-So the structures are made on a trailer. So they fold up and they sit on a trailer that’s eight and a half feet wide. Some of them are 35 feet long but most of them are 20 feet long. So they are legal limit they can go down the road. So the design of the project is that it can go off site. More than likely those are not going to go off site. They’re probably going to stay there, but it does have that functionality to move off site. So if somebody wants to rent it for a month at a restaurant, let’s say, then we could bring it to a restaurant for a month and rent it to them. MR. SHAFER-Or a State fair or a County fair, whatever. MR. BRINDLE-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. BRINDLE-But if we do that it’s more likely that that’s going to be something that I’ll keep off premises and will deliver it to them. MR. HUNSINGER-My question was what are you doing on site? MR. BRINDLE-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-What are the buildings? What do you do in the buildings? MR. BRINDLE-So it has, it’s not quite virtual. Basically have you ever played golf on simulator? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, yes. MR. BRINDLE-So that’s what it is. Mine is a little different than everybody else’s. It’s, you can play golf, but I have a lot more variety, a lot more different software that people can use that they can work on their game. They can have fun with their kids, things like that. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it all golf? MR. BRINDLE-It’s not all golf. You can play golf there. You can play other sports. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BRINDLE-You can play baseball, hockey, soccer, foot golf, Frisbee, bowling. So there’s different activities like that, a shooting simulator that’s in there. So people can go in there and hunt things, shooting, things like that. MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s kind of like a play station Wii type thing. My gosh that’s exciting. MR. BRINDLE-So it’s all real golf balls, baseballs, hockey pucks. So you’re actually using the equipment. So it’s not like a Wii system. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I can see that, because I know like when you used to be able to go out like Bogey’s. I’m always interested in watching them play on the screen there and it’s just amazing and the crack of the ball and then you sit there and watch it and then you see them, really, it’s amazing, but when you see it go straight. This virtual gaming now is just really great, and then you can pull the units out and transport them if you need them. So I mean obviously you’re going to have them on a slab and tie downs and that kind of thing. MR. SANDBLOM-Exactly. So the other thing is the screen is 16 feet wide, 9 feet tall. So you’ve got basically a movie theater. So we’ll also have seats in there, movie theater seats. So if somebody wants to log onto Netflix then they can watch movies or if they want to watch a sporting event, things like that. So it’s not just, it’s more entertainment is what it is. It’s not just playing sports. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-So like if I wanted to go there, I would rent one of these buildings for so many hours or a day or whatever. MR. VALENTINE-If your wife told you to leave the house for a Sunday, you’d go watch a movie there instead. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, exactly. MS. WHITE-That’s why I don’t understand it. MR. VALENTINE-The other thing I thought about is okay what about a Blockbuster syndrome when the whole concept of Blockbuster going to rent movies fades away. You’ve got a business that just dies out, and I’m just thinking this. Again, this has nothing to do with approval stuff, but I’m interested, the same say Jamie’s looking at it. I’m going what happens when it dies out and people don’t go to this visual aspect of sport entertainment. MR. TRAVER-Change the software. MR. BRINDLE-Yes, I mean I don’t want to get into the business side of it. I get what you’re saying, but look at bowling alleys. They’ve been around for umpteen years, and people use it as entertainment. They’re not professional bowlers. So that’s what this is. MR. VALENTINE-This is just something rummaging around in my head as you’re going through it. I’m sort of thinking about, like I said, it has nothing to do with the Site Plan or anything. It’s just an interesting thing, that’s all. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you game with your grandchildren? MR. VALENTINE-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Obviously you’re going to have to start that this year. You’ll see. You’ll get into it . MRS. MOORE-So I do have a public. Since he’s up there I may as well read it in case you have a response or questions. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we did open the public hearing. I haven’t gotten any phone calls, but are there written comments? MRS. MOORE-There is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-There’s one in here. So this is addressed to Mr. Traver and the Planning Board members. “As owner of 14 and 16 Twicwood Lane, I have deep concerns regarding the proposed commercial development of Tax Map # 296 .9-1-13 . I understand commercial brings more to Queensbury's coffers than residential, but must it be at the expense of residential areas? I have owned my home since April of 1973 and seen many changes through the years, beginning in the mid 1980's due primarily to substantial clearing of mature trees and underbrush after town-wide rezoning. The concept of clearing trees and grading on this subject property is distressing. My property, as do most homes backing along Route 9 on Twicwood Lane, sits on a ridge. The proposed clearing on this project is likely to allow noise and light pollution. There is no fence nor new plantings that can replace 60' oaks, maples, and dense underbrush. They help absorb noise and deflect or block light. I bring before the Town Planning Board six issues: 1. I request the board require the applicant leave all vegetation to the rear of these proposed new buildings and relocate the storm water management system to the front of the building under a permeable surfaced parking lot. 2. The proposed lighting by this applicant looks to have exposed bulbs on the back side facing our neighborhood. Please require a different type of lighting which would not allow lights to spill into our backyards. This time of year, when leaves are off the trees, is particularly problematic. 3. If you allow clearing on this property for rear property drainage, I request the applicant be required to construct an 8'-12' high, dense cement retaining wall, not wood or metal fence, and built in such a manner 6' tall Thuja Green Giant Arborvitae trees are to be planted at this height, not ground level. Please require Thuja evergreens. Initially, these are more costly, but they are resistant against damage from deer which reside in these woods. Stipulation also needs to be included requiring that any property owner, present or future, will maintain this barrier. 4. Construction of these buildings needs to be built in such a manner that they are soundproof . Previous experience involving noise issues from an entertainment business along Route 9, took years of battling with the Town and owner to resolve. Let's prevent that. 5. Any type of external public address system or music speakers is to be banned. 6. Lastly, restricted hours of operation should be included and stipulate that the business will not operate earlier than 8 AM or later than 10 PM. Thank you for your time. Respectfully submitted, Linda S. McNulty” 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. I don’t see anyone in the audience that wants to comment in person and we’ve received no phone calls. We’ve heard written comment. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Let’s see. The comments were hours of operation. You’ve addressed that, nine to nine, which complies with the one concern that was mentioned about eight and ten. Would you be turning off the lighting at nine o’clock at night when you close? MR. BRINDLE-I honestly didn’t, I was probably going to just lights for dusk to dawn, but I mean we could turn them off when we leave. I just see it as a security issue. MR. TRAVER-Well if they’re on all night you can imagine that if there’s someone that has a home nearby that light is going to be on all night long, it’s going to be. MR. SANDBLOM--Yes, I’ll address that. Can you pull up the lighting? MR. MAGOWAN-Well you’re going to have the covered porch, you know, walkway, right? MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, so they’re not going to see. MR. MAGOWAN-It’ll be up in the soffit, and it does go to a hill in the back. So I guess my concern is I mean I know we have, there is some land back in there, and you basically butt up pretty much to Furniture House, and I know it’s kind of an odd shape because when we subdivided there for the Furniture House, you’ve got that boot leg over there for them to get the green space. So I see if there’s anything we can do with the well-drained soils and that, to keep that buffer along that back is challenging as it may be, if that’s something you can do. MR. SANDBLOM-Now, what I do, first the light, they wouldn’t really see any light because where they are is up here. Where the light is is down here. So for the chances of them having light in there is small. Now I do have the fence going along the residential side, but I also have another section of it going like 10 or 15 feet back. It’s not the whole length of the property, but there is something. MR. MAGOWAN-Now how high is that fence? MR. SANDBLOM-The Town says it’s six feet. If you’re requesting something different, then I can look at that. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, fences are reviewable by the Planning Board in commercial zones. So if you propose something higher than six feet, that’s reviewable by the Planning Board. It’s something that the Board could discuss. It may be something that needs to be presented to them. MR. BRINDLE-I mean I’m open for suggestions. If it’s got to be eight foot, then I’ll make it eight foot. I’d prefer not to go much higher than eight feet just because I’ve got a commercial building in Kingsbury and I’ve dealt with, they made me put up a 10 foot fence. It keeps falling down because of the wind. MR. HUNSINGER-Your buildings are only 12 feet tall. MR. BRINDLE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So I mean a six foot fence is going to block half the building. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and usually they’re set down in. MR. HUNSINGER-And you do have that buffer from the Furniture House. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but that’s the Furniture House buffer, too. So we can’t count that buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-No, no, no. I’m not counting it. I’m just saying that the woods are still there. MR. BRINDLE-Yes, and I am keeping the trees as many trees as I can, because I can’t impede on the stormwater in that corner. I believe there was six trees that were going to be saved. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, along the side there. MR. DIXON-I mean looking at the lighting plan, I don’t have any issues specific to the lighting. It’s minimal. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but what’s concerning is you’re leaving them on the sides there. The people that are complaining are in the back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So I don’t know if your engineer can hop up here so we can drill him just as hard as you. MR. BRINDLE-No problem. MR. MAGOWAN-What can we do? Because it’s always been a concern along there and I just, we grew up on the backside of that, or I did, on Greenwood, way back on the backside, and I know Twicwood and I know all about the noise, the go karts and those things, Suttons and Dream House, and I’m not against growth. I like the growth. So whatever we can do to help maintain because I know you do get a lot of reflection off of Route 9, the car noise, the go karts. Now with the brewery across the street, all the whooping and hollering going on. So if there’s anything we can do to mediate that, because you really are going right to that back one, and we have buffer zones there for a reason. It is kind of tight what you’re doing here/ MR. SANDBLOM-Certainly, and I do have to reiterate the thinking that that fence is going to do an awful lot to help buffer that, but so are the buildings themselves. Where the lighting is going to be in mostly the parking area, you know, the buildings are between that and the residential area, and also I guess there was mention about noise and these are, the activities are to be conducted indoors. So the buildings themselves should do an awful lot to mitigate that. There was a suggestion about flipping drainage with having the stormwater at the front of the site, and that would be a significant challenge from a grading standpoint. We would basically, you know it would be exceptionally costly and much more environmentally impactful, I think, to raise up that site in order to push the stormwater the other way. What we generally try to do is maintain existing drainage patterns and that’s what we’re doing here. So from a stormwater environmental standpoint, I have to say that really what we’re proposing is the best solution. Other potential mitigating factors could be to modify the landscaping a little bit and maybe consider different types of plantings in that buffer area. Now we can’t go in the infiltration basin or the four bays for instance, but there can be plantings allocated to the edges of those. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean I know you can get large shrubs, and we always talk about six footers, but you take a six footer in a ball and you put it in the ground you end up with a four foot tree. Do you know what I’m saying? So what I say is well I’d like to see an eight footer or a ten footer, but I know they do sell some robust green trees, depending on your clearing in the back, if you can fill that in, you know, beyond the fence, so you’ll have your fence, I don’t have a problem with an eight foot high fence, because you still have that right of way path there that’s next to you there for Dan Mullins there. That actually is a residential hump there. So I think it’s a great project. Whatever you can do to increase that buffer in the back would be great, and I understand about the movement of the water, but like I said I know that area and I know the sands and you’re spot on. MR. SANDBLOM-So I guess once again we think we are mitigating that with the fencing and the way the buildings are situated and that. So one additional thing that’s been discussed here is maybe increasing that fence to eight feet and the only other thing I can think of is to talk about the landscaping. MR. BRINDLE-Yes, I mean we can put some other plants in there, put an eight foot fence up and maybe taking some of the species that are being presented and rearranging them or potentially going with something that’s going to be more of a screen. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think those suggestions would definitely help. MR. DIXON-Are there any mature trees that can be kept on the, I guess it would be more towards the northwest? MR. SANDBLOM-Not really. It’s really on the sides because towards the back is where it thins out. So there’s really nothing back there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well and you already said you really can’t put trees in your sediment basin. MR. SANDBLOM-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-You’re only dealing with a one acre site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-All right. Well those improvements I think make quite a difference. MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the things you talked about was the egress and access out front, and I mean we actually have it in the Code to encourage cross lot access. So that’s a good thing, but we haven’t really talked about the, other than Mike’s comment about what DOT might say about the width of your driveway, but I think we should talk about it and I don’t have strong feelings one way or another. MR. SANDBLOM-And perhaps that’s an oversight on my part, but if DOT’s going to require a permit, a permit’s going to have to be obtained. Now we have coordinated with water and sewer. We’ve gotten some comments back there. I didn’t mention that before. There is a manhole already. There’s an easement that’s right in front of the property there and there’s a manhole right there. So the plan is to tie into that but for the water, water is just off the curb. So that is in the DOT right of way. So in order to make the water connection, that will require a DOT permit but the Town obtains those permits and it’s actually a requirement that the Town do the work and obtain that permit for that. So there will be some DOT coordination on that aspect. So they will be looking at the parcel, but we’ll, right after this, tomorrow we’ll be in contact with the office up in Warrensburg and just make sure they’re aware of the project ahead of time to see if they have any comments on that existing curb cut and just being used as a commercial access. MR. VALENTINE-I’ve just found with some of them if a driveway is not used for a while or a change in use that they say, no, you’ve got, there may be a permit for that one already on record and that’s what they’re going to say. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, I’ve experienced that, too, and I’ve also, you know, been in situations just like this where they’re like, you know, as long as, if we’re not touching it, we don’t require a permit. The minute we have to touch it, all of a sudden they want us to completely re-design it and analyze all of our stormwater flows and all that. MR. VALENTINE-Your first parking stall on the left as you go in, is that going to be problematic with people coming into the site from that driveway? MR. SANDBLOM-It shouldn’t be. There’s quite a bit of room. If you see how much space there is from that parking space to across the rest of that lot right there. This area right here there’s really, you know, so for a vehicle to come in here there’s plenty of room for making maneuvers in the property that way. Nevertheless by most standards I think that there’s plenty of room there. MR. BRINDLE-That’s got to be 60 feet. MR. SANDBLOM-It is. It’s about 60 feet. That’s purely a nature of, you know, the site and the way it turns out. It didn’t need to be made that wide, but just give it the way out of the buildings and to maintain parking and most importantly to maintain that cross connection with the neighboring parcel. MR. MAGOWAN-And I really appreciate you reaching out and asking the neighbor, and I know we’re always happy to see a share like that. We just did that right down there with UNOS and the Subway. It really makes it work out nice and keeps our curb cuts down. MR. SANDBLOM-Right. That keeps the traffic from just one access, more distributed. MR. DIXON-So, Mr. Chairman, what I’m hearing the fence that’s denoted as six foot is going to become an eight foot fence? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-Is the requirement. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So how does the Board feel? The applicant’s offered some additional buffering, the fence a little taller. I think we’ve addressed most of the public comment. Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward? MR. DIXON-Do we want to detail the buffering or are we just taking the buffering as it is and just noting the fence? MR. TRAVER-Well they mentioned the fence and some additional plantings I think. MRS. MOORE-So can I, if you look on the plans, the fence is only a portion of that back corner. So are you looking at a higher property line or are you just looking at as it is proposed? And I just want to step back to the drive aisle entrance. So this is maybe another additional discussion with the Town in reference to we require a 20 foot or two way access. It’s typically to access the parking stall. I don’t know, and I’d have to look a little bit deeper, if we require a width for a two way access point. I just know that to access 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) the parking stall it has to be 24 feet and two bays, and that’s something you can address, but I don’t think we ultimately discussed whether the entrance area needs to be 24 feet and I don’t have an answer to that at the moment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-The actual width of the curb cut. MR. SANDBLOM-You’re talking here. So that’s 21.75 and I mean I can tell you as far as the travel lane goes, I mean I’ve seen highways on the national highway grid with nine foot lanes. That’s not ideal, but you can function. That’s my point. You can function. Now the standard of 24 foot width, that is very standard across many, many jurisdictions. You’re going to have perpendicular parking for two way traffic that would be a 24 foot width, and that’s not necessarily what’s happening right here. This is just the access onto the property. What we would be talking about is 24 like up here or here, and we do have one, we have at least 24 feet in both of those scenarios. So, I guess from an engineering standpoint we think it would be acceptable for that to be a two way entrance, but just have to. MR. TRAVER-You’re going to be having discussions with DOT anyway. MR. SANDBLOM-True. MR. TRAVER-And if you present that you’re going to be in compliance with what they require, I think that’s acceptable to us. MR. SANDBLOM-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-So I think we need to be clear, though, on where the buffer is required. Because clearly it’s not required in the back. It’s only required on the side. Right? MRS. MOORE-It’s required where it adjoins residential, like the residential property, and as I pointed out, or Brad pointed out it’s kind of a strange lot here. MR. MAGOWAN-A lot of L’s. MRS. MOORE-Yes, there’s a lot of L’s. So this lot is residential. This lot is not and this lot is not. This lot is. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s just that flag shaped lot that’s residential. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. It’s not just the flag shaped lot. It would be t is lot as well. These three lots. MR. HUNSINGER-But he’s not adjacent to that lot. There’s property between them. MRS. MOORE-Yes, but he’s still within 50 feet of that lot. So the flag lot and the lot that. MR. SANDBLOM-So that’s precisely why the fence is proposed to wrap around that corner, to buffer from those residential properties. MRS. MOORE-Which is fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to clarify for the record that we had the conversation and exactly what it was that was required. So that it would be on the record and so that we would all understand that that’s. MS. WHITE-So this spot right there, can that be built. Can that be cleared at any point in time? MR. MAGOWAN-That lot behind is Dream House, Dream House Furniture which was part of Suttons. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s commercial. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s commercial. MRS. MOORE-At the moment, and I’d have to look back at the condition, I think that was to be left the way it’s presented here, but it doesn’t mean that the applicant couldn’t come back in and change that. MR. DIXON-So are we still looking for additional buffer plantings in the north, what is it, the northeast corner, and if so, what type and how many? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-Well he’s leaving a lot of trees along that side, but you’re talking up there in that corner. I mean if they could leave as many trees as they can all the way up there I don’t have a problem with that. Yes, because that’s far away. Your retention bin kind of goes across like this. Right? MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, there’s a swale that goes to that. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean you could leave more trees there. Correct? MR. SANDBLOM-I think the point is that there aren’t really many existing trees there right now. MR. MAGOWAN-Well in the picture it looks like there’s something there. MR. VALENTINE-Are there any setback requirements between the buildings? Or just from the property lines? MR. TRAVER-Just between the property and the residential property. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that’s a discussion with Building and Codes. I believe they’ve already discussed some of these aspects with Building and Codes. That didn’t come across to me as being, Dave didn’t approach me and say there’s an issue with building. MR. SANDBLOM-The only thing was it’s 25 feet from the side lot which is plenty there, and it has to be five feet, the buildings have to be five feet apart, which they are. MR. VALENTINE-Five? Okay. And that satisfies ISO standards for insurance and stuff then? MR. SANDBLOM-It satisfies Dave. So I don’t know. That’s what he said it has to be for building. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. DIXON-All right. So we’ve got the fence. We’ve got the south entrance is to be reviewed by DOT, but I’m still confused on the buffer as far as are we asking for additional plantings and what type, or are we leaving it? What are we looking for? MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s ask the Board. Are we asking them for additional plantings or fencing? MR. MAGOWAN-You’re coming how far across over there? MR. SANDBLOM-So the fence it goes off the, page down here, up to here, and then it ends right about there. Maybe a little less than that. I think about 15 feet or so I was coming off the back side. MR. MAGOWAN-Well it looks like you’ve got four and you’re missing the fifth post at the end. You’ve just got your fence dangling out there. MR. SANDBLOM-Okay, that’s my fault. That’s our drafting. I apologize. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m happy because that protects the residential zone and if we could get plantings right along from the edge of that plant, you know, across, of some substance that will put up that berm and high enough. MR. TRAVER-That’s the stormwater area. You’re talking about in here? MR. MAGOWAN-I’m talking in between the stormwater, no, the stormwater is down where the dotted line is. That’s tapered in. Right? MR. SANDBLOM-So this is sediment is in the four bay and then this is the infiltration basin. MR. MAGOWAN-So above the dotted lines, between that, the small dots and the big dots. MR. SANDBLOM-So this little space here between the top of the four bay and the property line, there is a small amount in there. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. How much do you think? So you could put a nice clump of maybe big hemlocks? MR. TRAVER-That might be easier to just extend the fence. MR. BRINDLE-I mean do you want me to just put the fence all the way across? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-How does the Board feel about that? MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-That would be easier, and the maintenance of it. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m happy with that, if everybody else is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-That works. You’ve got vegetation existing on the other side of the property line. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. So extending that would be the northeast border. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-Can you go over some of the items that you were discussing that you may put into the conditions? MR. DIXON-So we’re talking about the fence noted on the site plan to be eight feet versus six feet as shown on Drawing Detail Number C-501 and extend across entire northeast border. That was one of them. The second one is the south entrance currently denoted as 21.75 feet wide is to be reviewed by DOT. MR. HUNSINGER-So I looked up the Town Code. Town Code says, and this is under Parking and Loading regulations. MRS. MOORE-Right. That’s where I got it. MR. HUNSINGER-Each parking space shall be reached by an access driveway at least 24 feet clear in width for two way traffic or 12 feet clear in width for one way traffic. MR. TRAVER-And they’re making a provision for connection to the other lot. So they’re saying one way traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Well they’re saying it could be one way traffic. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-I think the question is whether that entrance could be a two way point. So I think you want an answer from DOT of whether that could potentially be a two way. MR. HUNSINGER-Well it sounds like it wouldn’t be acceptable to Town Code is what I’m suggesting. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that may come back and be a variance request for the Town Code, but again if DOT is controlling that, I don’t know who supersedes. MR. SANDBLOM-How about we just make it one way and the two way is on the other side? MR. VALENTINE-That was going to be a recommendation. If you got the cross connection. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s fine with me. MR. DIXON-Then it’s just going to be a one way, one way in or one way out? MR. BRINDLE-One way in. MRS. MOORE-So I’m not quite certain if the Planning Board can say it needs DOT review because it would be subject to a regular, because we don’t have control over their conversations with DOT. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I would just like to make sure that we know that DOT is okay with it and that way it doesn’t hold you up. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-If DOT says it’s okay for two way, is that okay with the Board? MR. VALENTINE-The applicant sounded like he wanted it one way. MR. BRINDLE-We can just make it one way in and that way we don’t have to worry about it. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-One way. Don’t even talk two way now. MR. DIXON-Okay. So the south entrance that is currently there is to be a one way entrance and meets DOT approval. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds good. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that covers everything. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t approve it if it’s just one way. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s plenty of width. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else, or are we ready to hear that resolution? MR. DIXON-The SEQR is first. MRS. MOORE-So another item was to confirm that you wanted the original lighting plan and not the alternate one. MR. SANDBLOM-So our original approval had the just under two and a half foot candles and we came prepared with another one, but if the Board’s okay with it, we’d like to stick with the original proposal. It’s slightly under the recommendation of two and a half foot candles, but we feel it’s adequate to provide the security and at least it keeps the brightness down a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the things that lighting plans never show is the existing background lighting, and Route 9 is lit. MR. VALENTINE-And you’ve got Cumberland Farms right there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Cumberland Farms. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would rather have it lower. MR. HUNSINGER-And when you look at the actual plan, even though it doesn’t meet the minimums, the average min, where the lighting is needed they have it. MRS. MOORE-Just a side note that one of the comments from the public was it looked like there were lights on the rear of the buildings, but I didn’t seem to see that, and I just wanted to confirm that there isn’t rear light. MR. BRINDLE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-And they’re not open late anyway. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m a little confused here. You guys think this is going next to Cumberland Farms? Cumberland Mine is a cigar shop. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s right. MR. MAGOWAN-So I just don’t want you thinking that this is parking next to the big white building. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s the street lights on Route 9 that make all the light. It’s the street lights on Route 9. MR. MAGOWAN-But it’s not Cumberland Farms. It’s next door. It’s Cumberland Mine which is Smokin’ Joe’s there MR. DIXON-So are we doing the original lighting plan or the? MR. TRAVER-Original lighting plan. Yes. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-So we have to consider SEQR. We have to do a SEQR resolution. Do folks have environmental concerns on this application? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-It seems like we have a robust stormwater plan. People feel comfortable going ahead with SEQR? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP # 54-2020 LUXURY BOX, LLC The applicant proposes to install seven separate buildings connected by a covered walkway and façade feature 4,685 sq. ft. total. Project includes site work, grading, stormwater management, lighting, landscaping and connection to municipal water and sewer. The project will be for interior commercial recreation facility. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 54-2020 LUXURY BOX, LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-Next we can consider the Site Plan approval resolution with the conditions that we’ve added. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 54-2020 LUXURY BOX, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to install seven separate buildings connected by a covered walkway and façade feature 4,685 sq. ft. total. Project includes site work, grading, stormwater management, lighting, landscaping and connection to municipal water and sewer. The project will be for interior commercial recreation facility. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) 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 12/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to12/22/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/22/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 54-2020 LUXURY BOX, LLC; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: an 8 foot fence in lieu of a 50 ft. vegetative barrier between commercial and residential use; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) Fence noted on Site Plan to be eight feet tall versus six feet as shown on Drawing Detail Number C-501 and to extend across the entire northeast border. m) South entrance currently noted as 21.75 feet wide is to be a one way entrance and needs DOT approval and that correspondence included in the Town Planning file. n) Lighting plan is to be of the original proposal. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of December 2020 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-I have two comments. The fence, and I didn’t look at the plan right this minute. Is it to be a privacy fence versus a chain link fence? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-It’s wooden fence. MR. SANDBLOM-There’s a detail on the drawing. MRS. MOORE-And then in reference to the DOT, a correspondence to be included with the file. So it’s not just them approving it. We would like a copy of the correspondence that has that discussion, and it’s not necessarily an approval it’s just confirming that the entrance is an acceptable entrance or access point. I just want to clarify, because I don’t know whether DOT officially says we approve this entrance. We just want to confirm that this is acceptable. So it’s a DOT correspondence that you’re looking for. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have an amended condition. MR. DIXON-Amended condition Letter M. South entrance currently 21.75 feet wide is to be a one way entrance and needs DOT approval and that correspondence included in the Town Planning file. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-That’s the last item on our agenda this evening. Is there any other business before the Board? MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to identify something that was provided to you. There was a resolution setting a public hearing from the Town Board to amend the Queensbury Town Code to add allowed uses in residential zones and in reference to allowing tree service or landscaping companies, and I apologize. I didn’t get a chance to look at this yet and this is probably the first time that you’re looking at this information. The Town Board did ask for a referral or a recommendation on this and at the moment I don’t have enough information to provide to you. I would ask that you look at it. There is an opportunity for comment. If you do have additional comment, maybe I can forward it that way to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Maybe we can discuss it next month after we’ve had a chance to look at it. MR. MAGOWAN-There’s nothing pressing on it, is there? th MRS. MOORE-So unfortunately the Town Board’s public hearing is on January 11, and at this point again the Town Board can refer information or they can make decisions on their own. So it’s not quite clear whether they would just move forward on this public hearing or make a decision on this referral, or a decision on this re-zoning, adding this use to that zone. So I just want to make sure you’re aware of it. It’s in your hands now, but I’m not quite sure how to proceed other than to ask you to refer your comments if you get a chance to read it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if members of the Board have comments they should forward them to you as soon as possible. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. We will do so. Thank you, Laura? Anything else before the Board this evening? All right we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2020, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/22/2020) ABSENT: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned for 2020, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 45