Loading...
01-19-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2021 INDEX TOWN BOARD Local Law Amendment – allowed uses in RR-3A & RR-5A 2. RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 48-2020 Mark Prendeville 4. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Site Plan No. 2-2021 James & Kim Ogden 21. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.18-1-13 & 289.18-1-15 Site Plan No. 5-2021 David White Trust 23. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.15-1-4 Site Plan No. 6-2021 Jason Walker 26. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 315.10-1-52 Subdivision No. 19-2020 JP Gross Properties, LLC 28. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 307.-1-22 Site Plan No. 1-2021 Rocky Auto Sales 34. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-19 Site Plan No. 4-2021 Elisa & Glenn Schneider 39. Tax Map No. 288.-1-77 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 01/19/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting, our first virtual th meeting. This is for Tuesday, January 19, 2021. This is the first meeting for January. Our first meeting th for 2021. Our 16 meeting under the COVID rules, and our first virtual meeting. I want to extend thanks and acknowledge the effort, and it was not a small effort, on the part of the Planning Department and the Town of Queensbury to try to arrange for all of this to be possible. It seems simple, a lot of us are using Zoom in our businesses and in our workplaces, but I can attest, and Laura and Craig certainly can, that it’s not all that easy, and we will ask in advance for everyone’s patience with us as we sort of work out the kinks of this. We think we have it so that it will work fairly well, but we will just see. We do have a public hearing, which is part of our meeting is everyone is aware, and because it is virtual we’re going to ask that people limit their comment period to three minutes in fairness to the others that want to speak , and I would also ask that if you’re participating in the public hearing on an application that you not repeat the information that’s been given by a prior speaker, again to respect the time of everyone involved and to give everyone a fair chance to make new comments. A couple of business items before we begin our normal agenda. One is that by our By-laws that were updated in 2017, tonight is actually our official annual organizational meeting of the new Planning Board for 2021. Most of the housekeeping functions that would normally take place or at least would take place at that time we have already done. One of the items is to seat the new officers of the Planning Board and I’m happy to announce that the officers for 2020 have all agreed to serve again for 2021. So David as Secretary, Chris Hunsinger as Vice Chair, myself as Chair are all continuing this year. We have no new members. So we don’t need to worry about providing additional copies of the By-laws and all of that. All of that is available as everyone knows on the Town website. So that concludes the annual organizational part of our meeting unless any of the Board members have any questions about that. I think I covered everything that was in the By-laws. Another item I th wanted to mention is that we have a training opportunity coming up to us next month at our February 16 meeting, and that training is going to be provided by the Soil & Water Conservation department. I believe it’s on stormwater. Is it not, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. It’s on stormwater. It’s a requirement to be on this Board to have training in an open public session so that we can discuss those stormwater issues. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what we’re going to do is have that training begin at 6:30 right before our regular th session, and that will be at our February 16 meeting next month. So please make a note of that. Another item we had is approval of minutes for the month of November, and, David, you should have a draft resolution for that. This is for November 17 and November 24 of 2020. MR. DEEB-Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 17, 2020 November 24, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH NOVEMBER 17 & NOVEMBER 24, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2021, by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and we have an Administrative Item which is Planning Board recommendation to Town Board on Local Law Amendment, Allowed Uses in Residential Districts, RR-3A and RR-5A. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD ON LOCAL LAW AMENDMENT ALLOWED USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS RR-3A & RR-5A MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to tell us about that? MRS. MOORE-Sure. They’re adding a use to the Use Table and the definition now would include for a tree service or landscaping company as a business that provides services such as tree or plant removal, pruning, arborist service and landscaping. This service could also diagnose pest problems or plant disease and provide fertilization service, on site administration and sales office, storage and maintenance of company equipment, temporary storage of by-products created by business such as logs or wood chips may be included in this use and on site processing such as cutting, trimming, milling, chipping, and grinding is not included in this use. If you looked at the uses that I listed under Staff comments for items under site plan review and then I identified other uses through Special Use Permit, and then I also explained that permitted uses by right would be a single family dwelling and so on. So my suggestion to the Board members was to read through those uses that were allowed and then is this considered consistent and then provide that recommendation back to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. I would also add that I did receive an e-mail. Laura, I hope you finally got it when I forwarded to you. It was an email that was shared, it was actually originally sent to the Supervisor. I’m not sure if anyone else received it, but basically it was one concern that the APA had was the potential issue with the APA is that if they have trimmings from the lawn or tree service on the property it could be considered a waste project and therefore it would need an application made to the APA and they suggested that a letter inquiring as to, a jurisdictional inquiry be made to the APA regarding this tree service that is being proposed. So I do have that additional piece of information. MRS. MOORE-So just so you know, if this use does get added to the Town Code, then it would be subject to a Site Plan Review so communication between the APA and our offices and discussion with the potential applicant would include identifying that the applicant may need to reach out to the APA. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Good. Thanks, Laura. MR. VALENTINE-Can I just throw a question out, Steve? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Laura, the list like those under Special Use Permit, I’ve seen a lot before like when we get into chipping or anything like that, that hours of operation, noise, and stockpiling, particularly in areas that would be under stormwater management control or wetlands, they become concerns at that time. So are we just looking at a list now, but are we looking at conditions for a Special Use Permit? MRS. MOORE-At the moment there’s nothing identified. If you suggested to the Town Board that they approve this with Site Plan and Special Use Permit, then it would be, like you could suggest to the Town Board that they identify additional items as part of the Special Use Permit. They probably would want a little more information if we thought that, the Planning Board thought it should be a Special Use Permit. They’d probably want to know those other details that might want to be added to that Special Use Permit section of the Code. MR. VALENTINE-Well I’m just thinking, though, when you’re saying you’re doing chipping or whatever and somebody puts hours of operation and the hours of operation in the summertime could easily go to seven o’clock, seven thirty in the evening you’ve got daylight, but all of a sudden you start getting in October and November and it’s dark out and if you have residences next to this are where that use is, I was just looking to say okay there’s a listing of more conditions related with that use in particular or it could be with any mining operation the same. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point. MRS. MOORE-So like when you mentioned chipping, if you look at sawmill chipping and pallet mill, those are already allowed and that’s through a Special Use Permit. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. VALENTINE-All right. They are already allowed, but they are not allowed in these districts that they’re now being considered for? MRS. MOORE-No. So this is a different use. This is a tree service. MR. VALENTINE-All right. I’ve got you. MR. HUNSINGER-So, Laura, why has this come up? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I believe there’s an applicant that has approached the Town Board, and so in this case the Town Board took it on as one of their items versus an applicant taking up the item. MR. VALENTINE-Chris, that’s a good question. It’s a question that I was going to throw out. Is this a reaction just to one applicant or a new use being permitted in a district that wasn’t there before? MR. TRAVER-It appears it was certainly triggered by a potential applicant, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I think any time you can provide a definition it’s a good thing, and there probably was not an appropriate definition for that use before, which is why they’re looking to clarify it. MRS. MOORE-It’s possible. So under special standards for a Special Use Permit, specific to the sawmill and chipping and pallet mill, it requires an acreage of at least a 100 acres in size. MR. VALENTINE-Laura, are you saying okay I can be noisy on 100 acres? MRS. MOORE-I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that it meets criteria, additional criteria. So under Site Plan you have the opportunity to provide conditions to a potential applicant. Under the Special Use Permit there’s additional criteria such as the 100 acres requirement. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. I could see your smile under the mask. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-Mike, you could make a lot of noise in 100 acres. MR. VALENTINE-Well, yes, it all depends how close the residence is to the operation at the time. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if you’re right along the property line. MRS. MOORE-If I may identify, let me just chime in again. The Supervisor has received comments from potential neighbors to adding a new site use and again they’re concerned at its location and they potentially occur in their area and they’re concerned about that, but that is something that the Town Board will hear at their public hearings. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Other comments, questions? I guess what we’re charged with this evening is to look at this potential and make a recommendation to the Board, favorable or unfavorable I assume. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-I have one more question. I was looking at it. It doesn’t say anything here about pesticides, whether you can store them. Any reference to that? MR. TRAVER-Well I think chemicals like that are probably already covered by regulations in place. Right? MR. VALENTINE-Probably by permits and the type. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So I think that that’s covered jurisdictionally and wouldn’t change, no matter where that business is located. MR. DEEB-All right. I just wanted to make sure we’re covered. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s a good question. Yes, and it could be an issue that would come up in Site Plan if we have comment, you know, if there are nearby residents they may be concerned about that. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. DEEB-Yes, definitely. MR. TRAVER-But I guess our mission tonight is to talk about the potential zoning change. I guess I don’t really have any additional comments or concerns other than the items that we’ve discussed. Really, it’s going to come back to us anyway. It’s going to really come down to Site Plan, Special Use more than zoning, I think doesn’t impact as much as how the application itself is handled. Is there any other discussion? Is there a feeling that we can go forward on a recommendation? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my additional comment is related to any motion or recommendation. We didn’t have a draft resolution. So I think we should do something like we would for a recommendation to the ZBA and just say we have not identified any adverse impacts with the proposed change. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree. Yes, and you’re right, Chris. I’m surprised, I didn’t notice anything either, but that language, David’s familiar with that. If there aren’t any other concerns, David, why don’t you give us a motion and we’ll see where it goes. MR. DEEB-Okay. We’re going to make a recommendation to the Town Board. Right? MR. BROWN-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Town Board is proposing a zoning change to add Tree Service /Landscaping company as an allowed use in the Rural Residential 3 acre and Rural Residential 5 acre zone through site plan review. The definition included for Tree Service/Landscaping company is a business that provides services such as tree/plant removal, pruning, arborist service and landscaping. This service could also diagnose pest problems or plant diseases and provide fertilization services. On site administration and sales office, storage and maintenance of company equipment, temporary storage of by-products created by business such as logs or wood chips may be included in this use. On site processing such as cutting trimming milling chipping and grinding is not include in this use. The Town Board referred this proposed change to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020; MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING CHANGE TO INCLUDE TREE SERVICE/LANDSCAPE COMPANY USES IN RR-3a AND -5A; The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with this proposal. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 19day of January 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Can I interject and just make sure, maybe the resolution should include a positive recommendation. I’ve seen you use that in the past. MR. TRAVER-As opposed to saying we have no concerns? MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. I apologize. That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-All right. So the resolution stands, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. Good. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next we can move on to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is under Tabled Items, and the first item is Site Plan 48-2020 for Mark Prendeville. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARK PRENDEVILLE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 102 ASH DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION WITH A BASEMENT TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE FLOOR AREA OF THE NEW ADDITION IS 3,844 SQ. FT. WITH A 1,518 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. PURSUANT TO 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND PREVIOUS SHORELINE VEGETATION REMOVAL IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 88723-1824 SHED, 90279-8236 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a two story addition with a basement for an existing home and associated site work. The project includes a new floor area. The new addition is 3,844 square feet with a 1,518 square foot footprint and the existing floor area is 1,964 square feet, the new floor area total is 5,808 and note that the variance was granted, the new addition, to be 10.7 feet from the south property line where a 20 foot setback is required and then relief was granted for height relief of 28.9 feet and relief was granted for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, and one of the things that the applicant had waited for was to receive a signoff from the Town Engineer, and it’s noted that with the Town Engineer additional test pits would be needed when construction begins. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. I see the agent is Hutchins Engineering and I see Tom. How are you, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-I’m fine. Good evening, Board. How are you? MR. TRAVER-Very good. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we were before this Board for recommendation I guess back in October and we did go to the Zoning Board and receive the two variances we requested and in the time since we have updated some items on the plan. I provided your engineer, Chazen, with some more documentation on the stormwater and in particular we’ve done a model on the site, in lieu of the abbreviated version I have done in the past, and they’ve responded that all their technical concerns have been addressed. They did add a note about some additional test holes and I can explain that if you wish. The geometry of the project really hasn’t changed since you last saw it. We’ve just sort of clarified some issues, and I guess with that I’d turn it over to the Board for comment and questions and we’ll do our best to answer them, and I do believe the applicants are on this as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Tom. Questions, comments from members of the Board? And I see Laura is sharing her screen which is showing the map of the project. MR. SHAFER-John Shafer. You said you had made some changes to the plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SHAFER-What would they have included? MR. HUTCHINS-We did a stormwater model, okay. So we adjusted locations of some of the stormwater devices. We adjusted sizing of some of the stormwater devices based on the results of the model and we adjusted the grading slightly in the area around the septic system and we clarified the grading around the area of the driveway, and that I think pretty much covers what we changed, John. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I have none. MR. TRAVER-All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Laura, Craig, are we ready to begin that process? MRS. MOORE-I have written comments, unless you want to start with public comments. I don’t know which one you want to start with. MR. TRAVER-Why don’t we start with public comments because some of the written comments may be duplicative of the public comment. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. BROWN-So I guess what we’ll do here is rely on those that wish to speak to raise their hand in the optional that you have. I know a couple of the names from the neighborhood. So I guess I can start with those and see if they’d like to speak or if they’d like to listen, but we’ll go from there. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Craig, and I would like also to remind, for public hearing, for those of you who may not have heard me before, we are going to attempt to stick to the three minute limit, and I would also ask that you not repeat comments made by prior speakers, to give everyone a fair chance to make new information available to the Board, and with that let’s go ahead and begin. MR. BROWN-So what I’m finding here as I try and get people from the public in to speak, I get a message that says they can’t speak because they’re using an older version. We can promote them to panelist which gives them a little video screen like the Board has and the applicant has. So if you’d like to do that during the public hearing we can make sure to get everybody in. MR. TRAVER-Yes, let’s try that, Craig, see if we can make that work to accommodate everybody as much as we can. Thank you. So first is Mary Hilliard. Mary, I think you’re free to go if you want to unmute and speak for the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Mary Hilliard? Good evening, Mary. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY HILLIARD MRS. HILLIARD-Yes. Hi. MR. TRAVER-And can you tell us your address, please. MRS. HILLIARD-79 Ash Drive, Lake George, NY. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and welcome. Proceed. MRS. HILLIARD-Okay. Just a couple of things. I looked over the project. I live just a few houses down from Mark and the Prendeville’s. I think the project looks really good. I think the engineers have addressed any concern from an ecological, environmental, or aesthetic standpoint. I think it takes into account stormwater runoff. There’s a nice four foot path going down next to the house that will absorb any of that. It takes into account the historical value of the house by not taking, you know, being a complete teardown. I think that’s valuable. New septic system improves the lake and obviously the environment. I think there’s been a lot of new developments in the vegetation area. I think personally it provides the Prendeville’s to live in a year round home, which they haven’t had for the 60 plus years that they’ve owned the home. I think it’s been a long term goal. They’ve been excellent neighbors. I’ve been living here for 30 years. I know the Prendeville’s have been there 60 years, but they’ve been very respectful to the lake, responsible landowners, and I hope the Board, for all those reasons, approves the project. I do want to make one comment here also. I have another person who would like to speak who is having problems, Mike Mashuta. I don’t know how to get him on your waiting list there, but if we can work that out, I know he’d be interested. MR. TRAVER-Okay. May I ask if he’s using the Zoom application? Because we did hear from Craig who’s helping us tonight that some versions of Zoom may be out of date, and there was an issue with that, and Craig seems to have corrected that we hope to enable people to comment. MRS. HILLIARD-He has his phone and it has not worked. So I have him right here. I don’t know if he can go next or how you want to handle that, but I just want you to know that he is here and wanting to speak. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I’ll defer to Craig or Laura. I don’t know if you have a list in order or if this gentleman can speak now. MR. BROWN-Your discretion totally. There isn’t really a list. We will certainly try and respond if people’s hands go up. Again, if they don’t and whoever is speaking knows that there’s somebody else in line that might wish to speak, I can try to get them on, but, yes, they can go next if you’re comfortable with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood. Thank you, Craig. Okay, Mary. Let’s try that, and please have that gentleman state his name and his address for the record, please, as we are recording this, keeping a recording and minutes of this meeting. MIKE MASHUTA 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. MASHUTA-Hello. My name is Mike Mashuta. I live at 41 Birch Road on Glen Lake. I’m eight houses away. Birch Road adjoins sort of by land with Ash Drive. It’s the second road. The first road in on Glen Lake is Ash. The second road in is Birch, and I strongly approve of the improvement and the property. I don’t want to be redundant with what Mary said. She seemed to cover all of the issues thoroughly that I had concerns with, along with the improvements the Dosters had made and the improvement that Linda Clark made to her property. I’m in total agreement and approval of all the plans that the engineer carefully thought through on this application. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you very much. MR. MASHUTA-Thank you, sir. MR. TRAVER-And thank you, Mary, again. MRS. HILLIARD-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there someone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application by way of the Zoom application? And you want the speakers that wish to present to raise their hands. Right, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s ideal. That way we can get them in and ask them to speak. MR. TRAVER-And I’m seeing under Q & A, Craig, two questions as well. I don’t know if you’ve seen those. One is when may the public speak, and hopefully people understand that we’re trying to make this as close as possible to our conventional meetings, and we will be holding public hearings on the appropriate applications. The next question is when will this be open to the public. I’m assuming that that essentially means the same thing and the answer is basically the same. If it relates to information about the application we’re reviewing tonight, I would refer people to the Town of Queensbury website, queensbury.net, and if you look under the Planning Board meetings and agendas, you’ll see meeting documents and you can look at all of the information that the Planning Board has received by way of the Planning Office on all of the applications we’re reviewing. I think tonight and also next week. MR. BROWN-Yes, and I have responded to that one Q & A and asked which application they wanted to speak for because I’m not sure if they have the ability to raise their hands. I don’t see a lot of hands going up. So I added in Lisa Doster. I believe she’s a neighbor in that area that may have spoken on this in the past. So if she’s watching and wishes to speak, she can certainly unmute and speak because she’s in as a panelist. Good evening. LISA HARTUNG DOSTER MRS. HARTUNG DOSTER-Hi. Good evening. I’m Lisa Hartung Doster at Ash Drive, not far from the Prendeville property. I wanted to say great job tonight. I was very concerned getting started, but you guys have pulled this together fabulously. MR. TRAVER-Credit goes to the Town and the Planning Office for doing this. MRS. HARTUNG DOSTER-All right. So the questions that I have, due to the change in use of this property from seasonal to year round use, the existing home of the 778 square feet can only be expanded rd by an addition 1/3 of the existing footprint as listed. If you see Code 179-4-010, Town of Queensbury general regulations for residential design, you look at 3B. Three is conversions of seasonal residence. A conversion of a dwelling structure that had been previously used for seasonal purposes to a year-round residence shall be considered a change of use and shall require site plan review prior to such conversion as well as compliance with the following:, which is B, in no case shall the conversion be allowed to expand the existing exterior dimensions of the existing dwelling structure by more than 1/3 of the existing building floor area, and all minimum setbacks must be met. The Town was also advised in separate letters of other items to be addressed such as 911 address issues, abstract needed to address the property rights and easements of others as this new building and septic will block those deeded rights and block 911 emergency vehicular access. Stormwater issues this property creates to surrounding properties and the lake. Where is the updated survey map that was completed in 2020 and is listed in the site plan? I would really like to see it. The survey map submitted with this plan is from the year 2000. It doesn’t show a required visible stamp for the public, doesn’t depict easements and contains error. That is unless Hilliard never really owned the adjacent property in the Year 2000 where it states Pogonowski does. Pogonowski never owned there. Hilliard claimed at the ZBA they owned there for 30 years and Mr. Mashuta on Birch even longer. Both spoke in favor of this project at the ZBA. So they must be in favor of this map from 2000 showing Hilliard has no ownership on Ash Drive adjacent to the Prendeville property. If they speak again, this should be addressed. The Town should not create ambiguity in ownership, but rather clear it up. Further the change in use from seasonal to year round also made this project at its inception as advised to the Town and in previous letters to the Planning Board, but the project was pushed through to the Planning Board stages anyway and has since passed ZBA and is now listed on the Planning Board agenda tonight. Even 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) the ZBA was questioning the change in use, but only in regarding to bringing the existing building up to Code. Nowhere is anyone addressing or concerned about the project expansion size being way over the rd 1/3 allowed, the original 778 square feet, or the fact this would be a multi-unit. Where is the plan to upgrade the old building? What precedence does this approval of this project set? This project on the rd agenda should only be allowed a 1/3 additional increase in size. That’s an increase of 259.33 square feet as listed as allowed. It must meet all minimum setbacks as stated in the Code. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Let’s see, there were a lot of questions there. We’ll have to address those I think perhaps with the assistance of Planning staff. I do know that one requirement was Site Plan Review. This is what we’re doing this evening. As far as the right of way and some of those ownership issues, that sounds like a civil matter, but the documentation that’s required to proceed with an application is reviewed in the Planning Department prior to an item getting on the agenda. An application wouldn’t be incomplete in order to get on an agenda. There’s a similar process for the ZBA, but we’ll get further clarification on that later. Thank you, Lisa. MRS. HARTUNG DOSTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Who’s next? MR. BROWN-Linda Clark. MR. TRAVER-Linda Clark. Okay. Do we have Linda Clark? I’m not seeing Linda Clark. She may be having technical issues as well. Is there someone else we can come back to Linda, Craig? MRS. MOORE-I think he’s working on it. LINDA CLARK MS. CLARK-Hello. Can you hear me? MR. TRAVER-We can. Is this Linda? MS. CLARK-Yes. Good. Okay. Sorry. I’ve been having some technical issues here. I’m trying to figure out, I guess my Zoom is one of the older versions. So I was on that and couldn’t get through. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Craig fixed that for us. MS. CLARK-Yes, I saw that. Very good. Thank you so much. My name is Linda Clark. I’m here representing myself and Ann Clark. I live at 3 Benmost Bur. My mother lives at 10 Benmost Bur. Our properties border the northern side of Mr. Prendeville. I just want to ask that the Board consider my lawyer’s letter which has been sent in and my seven page report to you with all my attachments. I am not going to go through all of that because I know I have very limited time, but I’m just going to hit on a couple of points here. To reiterate a little bit, Chapter 179 of the Town Code needs to be looked at. The house is rd supposed to be no more than, or the extension should be no more than 1/3 of the existing building area. The septic tank and the absorption field is still designed for a four bedroom house. It was agreed at the Zoning meeting, my understanding that this would be changed to a six bedroom septic system and there has been no change to that. The absorption field for the septic goes over my mother’s right of way. The right of way has been in the deeds since the 1800’s. This has been, Mr. Prendeville and Mrs. Prendeville have been notified of this, and there’s been two legal letters that have been sent out to them regarding this, and I see that there’s been no change, so I’m assuming they’re not going to recognize the right of way. My mother used that right of way all the way up through 2015 and we are not in any way, shape or form agreeing to release this right of way to the Prendeville’s. So they cannot put their absorption field where they want to put it. The landscaping needs to include the entire project, not just the house and around the house and the lake. There are four other neighboring properties here. My property is in the back end of the, towards the road and that particular rear section there’s been a shed removed illegally. There’s been no request from the Town to move that very large shed in that location. A lot of trees have been cut down. They’ve put in a parking area. There’s boat trailers and storage trailers and all kinds of stuff that’s going on in there. Plus they’ve informed me that they’re going to use all of the dirt from the excavation of the project and put it along the border to create an unsightly berm. So I’m very concerned about the landscaping on the entire project. The newly submitted survey map continues to have the same exact problems it had before. Lisa has already mentioned most of them. In addition to what she has said, the surveyor’s identification stamp is still not visible and I blew it up at 50% from the website and it looks as though the signature has been altered. So that, the survey map doesn’t even match the site plan map and the site plan map references 2020 survey. So why a 2000 survey is being submitted here with all this incorrect information I don’t understand. The new site development data is very confusing because they say they have an impervious surface for a driveway. Their entire driveway and road is dirt. So I don’t know how dirt can be an impervious surface. So that’s 3,586 square feet impervious surface that they’re claiming that’s not there. In addition to that, the site area should match the deed and it does not, and only two of the three sheds on that property are being calculated. I don’t know what they’re planning on doing 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) with the third shed. It seems to be something that nobody seems to want to talk about. The infiltration trench near my mother’s house, we have concerns because the entire roof line falls into that area. It’s directed into that area. All of the driveway will go into that area. We’re only talking 20 feet of property where a massive amount of water is going to be directed into, and that goes right down to the lake. So we’re very, very concerned about that. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, we’re at four minutes. MS. CLARK-Yes, one more item and then I’m going to let you go. We’re very concerned about the potential over usage here. There is a history of renting this property, and I’ve provided for you in my little packet there and advertisement that talks about winter activities. So we believe that there is an intent to rent this property, whether it be one or two renters because it does have the potential of doing that since there are two kitchens, two sets of bathrooms and so on. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Linda. MS. CLARK-Yes, thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Craig. Who’s next? CAROL SNYDER MS. SNYDER-My name is Carol Synder, and I would like to address the Planning Board with regards to a concern that I have with Mr. Prendeville’s proposed building plans. MR. TRAVER-Carol. I’m sorry, your last name? MS. SNYDER-Is Snyder. S-N-Y-D-E-R. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MS. SNYDER-The home that he is interested in expanding does not include upgrading his original seasonal structure, and given the fact that this is one of the oldest houses on the lake, I have concerns for potential fire hazards to the house and to the neighbors in close proximity. So my question to the Board would be will the existing structure be required to be electrically upgraded as part of the building project? My other question, so that I’m not allowed to repeat, I will just say that I’ve had a second question about Code 179- 4-010, Section G, Part 3 which addresses the seasonal residence being one third the square footage, and that was my concern as well, and I won’t repeat all the details of that as you already are aware of it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’ve heard that concern repeated several times. Thank you. MS. SNYDER-Great. Thank you. Then that’s my only other concern. Do you have any questions for me? MR. TRAVER-Not at this time. Thank you. We’re just taking public comment. MS. SNYDER-Great. Okay. Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, who do we have next? WILLIAM CLARK MR. BROWN-William Clark. MR. TRAVER-William Clark. Mr. Clark. Do you wish to make public comment for the Planning Board, sir? MR. BROWN-We can see you but we can’t hear you. MR. TRAVER-I can’t even see him, Craig. MR. CLARK-Hello? MR. TRAVER-There we go. Now I can hear you, Mr. Clark. Go ahead. MR. CLARK-Yes. My name is William Clark. I live at 64 Sara-Jen Drive. I am the son of Reverend Robert E. and Ann Clark. My mother Ann is 88 years old. She has owned a house on Glen Lake for over 50 years. She also owns property that is landlocked with deeded right of ways. Now sadly there is a dispute regarding the right of way over Prendeville property which she must now be forced to deal with. Mr. and Mrs. Prendeville need to recognize this right of way before approval and construction should 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) begin. I have had many conversations with Mark and his wife Julie. However, they do not seem to understand where the right of way exists. My mother has used the right of way since 1968, and now we have hired a lawyer to help the Prendeville family understand and recognize the existence of a right of way in the exact spot Mr. and Mrs. Prendeville are planning to place a septic system across the right of way. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Clark, excuse me. We did hear concerns about the septic and the right of way. I must tell you that the Planning Board’s jurisdiction does not extend to civil matters, and it sounds as though that’s what you’re addressing, the issue of the right of way and access and so on. We do not deal with civil matters and the way to deal with it sounds like you’re already doing by obtaining counsel. MR. CLARK-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-So my question is for you, if you want to speak to the Planning Board tonight about this project, can you confine your remarks to the application before us? MR. CLARK-Yes. Ann and her family also would like to see Mr. and Mrs. Prendeville and the Town of Queensbury follow all required Codes as they proceed. On 11/10/20 I personally questioned the procedure of a deep hole test that was being done on the Prendeville property adjacent to my mother’s home, and later I found out that a Town official was unaware of the test being done. Also the Town representative needed to be present for approval to take place. This action by Mr. Prendeville and Mrs. Prendeville and Ellsworth & Son Excavating company should never have taken place. These actions create agitation that can and should be avoided, by following the requirements the Town has established, Mr. and Mrs. Prendeville could prevent much agitation for all in the community by abiding by Codes established by our local municipality so we can all get along with civility. I’m asking all involved to follow the rules that we must follow when building according to an existing structure. This would then alleviate much agitation, hard feelings. Lastly I would like all to understand again that legal representation is being pursued against Mr. and Mrs. Prendeville so as to clear up all issues related to deeded right of way, survey information and omitted information on the plot plan survey received from Mr. Prendeville and Mrs. Prendeville to the Town of Queensbury. That should be taken into consideration. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, Mr. Clark. You’re repeating information several times, and it’s also information that is not directly relevant to the application before us this evening. It’s a civil matter that it sounds like you are pursuing and I appreciate your concern about that and I hope you’re able to resolve that. MR. CLARK-Well that’s not the only issue. There’s another issue with the issue over a deep hole test that was being done without representation by your Town and the people within it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Test pits are a requirement for the engineering approval, and how they’re conducted is coordinated, again, through the Town Planning Office. A Town representative is sometimes present when test pits are conducted, but not always, but the analysis. MR. LARK-But it is stated that a Town representative needs to be present. Is that clear? Is that true? MR. TRAVER-It’s stated, what, in the Town Code? MR. CLARK-Sure. MR. TRAVER-We will ask for clarification for that. Thank you very much. Is there anything else? MR. CLARK-That should be it. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this project? MR. BROWN-I believe we have a Dennis F. MR. TRAVER-Dennis, are you with us? DENNIS FREDETTE MR. FREDETTE-Yes. I’m hear. Can you hear me. MR. TRAVER-I can. Your name is Dennis, and what was the last name again? MR. FREDETTE-The last name is Fredette and I live just on the other side of the Clarks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. FREDETTE-At 69 Birch Road. So I’m the second house north of the Prendeville’s, and my question is this. I looked at the plan and it appears to me that the Prendeville’s are creating, in their addition, a home that could be separated very easily into separate spaces and have two or three different short term rentals in there if they wanted to, and I asked in the last meeting if they intended to do that and Mark said no, but I’m wondering, will there be any limitation on short term rentals, the number of rentals that they can have, that sort of thing, because it will have an impact on our neighborhood? Is that a request now? MR. TRAVER-We can ask them about that. Anything else? MR. FREDETTE-I’m sorry. I didn’t get finished. I’m wondering is that a question that should be addressed now or later? MR. TRAVER-It’s a conversation that we, it’s not unknown for the Planning Board to have questions for the applicant when there’s a possibility of a rental, and we will address that. Is there anything else that you wanted to mention to the Planning Board? MR. FREDETTE-Can you tell me if there are any limitations on that right now, in terms of just general limitations on short term rentals, how many there can be in a house, how many a house like this could have if it was renovated like this? Or are there no limitations whatsoever as long as the site plan is approved then they can have as many short terms rentals as they want? MR. TRAVER-The best answer I can give you is that there are regulations. In fact I think there’ve been some changes to some regulations in the Town of Queensbury for Short Term rentals recently passed. That is not strictly before us tonight as a Planning Board. We’re looking at the Site Plan, but we will have discussion about that I’m sure. Thank you very much. Is there anything else? MR. FREDETTE-Yes. When the Site Plan is approved is that when the question will be addressed? When will this question be addressed so that I can get an answer? MR. TRAVER-We will discuss it this evening, but not necessarily generate an answer. As far as the rentals, I’ll question the Planning staff about that later. MR. FREDETTE-My question is this. I want it to be very clear. I want to know exactly ow many short term rentals will be allowed there when they’re finished and the entire process is done, start to end. I know it’s an open-ended question right now, but it will be answered before we’re finished, right? MR. TRAVER-You’re asking how many rentals, what, simultaneously, per year, per month? MR. FREDETTE-Will they be able to have three short term rentals going simultaneously? Two, one, seven? MR. TRAVER-We’ll try to get an opinion on that this evening. MR. FREDETTE-There will be some legal answer to that, right, before the process is finished? MR. TRAVER-Well there are regulations that govern rentals. MR. BROWN-I have an answer to that if you’d like when we get to the end here. MR. FREDETTE-Okay. Thank you. I would like that, yes, please. Some kind of answer. MR. TRAVER-As I mentioned we will doubtless be discussing that at some point. MR. FREDETTE-All right. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? MR. BROWN-So the short answer to that question is the Short Term Rental law is not something that’s administered by the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BROWN-It’s administered by the Town Board and the Building and Codes Department. So there isn’t really a number of short term rentals that are, there isn’t, is or isn’t a number of short term rentals that are allowable for that property. It’s whatever the property can support based on number of bedrooms. The septic has to be capable to handle a certain number of people in the building. That’s all administered through Dave Hatin’s office. So, Mr. Fredette, if you have any questions, you can certainly contact Dave Hatin and he’ll have the answer for you on that. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. FREDETTE-Okay. So they will make a decision on it? MR. BROWN-The Town will make a decision on that, not the Town Planning Board. It’s not part of this review, but the Town definitely has short term rental rules that need to be followed. MR. FREDETTE-Okay. So they will actually make a decision based on the property about the number of allowed simultaneously? MR. BROWN-Now when you say simultaneously, like if they’re two units or three units in a building? MR. FREDETTE-Yes, that’s what I mean. MR. BROWN-Correct. The short term permitting is based on the layout of the building and how many people it can support. So, will there be an answer? Yes. The question, though, is for Dave. MR. FREDETTE-Okay. Well, I guess I can give him a call. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, and thank you, Craig. Is there someone else that anted to address the Planning Board on this application tonight? MR. BROWN-I don’t see any more hands up. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well let’s leave the public hearing, in view of the circumstances, we’ll leave the public hearing open for a bit longer and let’s go back to the Board for discussion. MRS. MOORE-There was some written public comment. MR. TRAVER-What’s that? MRS. MOORE-I have written public comment to read in. MR. TRAVER-You do, and does it differ from the public comment we just heard? MRS. MOORE-No. There’s some, there’s the attorney’s letter. There’s a letter that identified similar issues with 911, seasonal to year round, survey map questions. What I’d like to do is at least identify the person that wrote it. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. If you feel it’s appropriate, Laura, to read them into the record, then by all means do so. I just felt if it were likely to be a repeat of the information we’ve already received through public comment it’s not necessary, but certainly I defer to your discussion on that. MRS. MOORE-I’ll just identify and sort of give the highlights of that. This one is from Ms. Hartung. There’s no address associated with this, and this identified similar items to other speakers such as t=e 911 addresses, the survey, information about seasonal to year round. That was one. So the attorney’s letter, this was addressed to Mr. Traver, conversion of residence we’ve heard already. He identified duplexes are not permitted in this zone. Question about the absorption bed location to the right of way, comments on the septic that’s undersized. Comment on proposed landscaping is insufficient. Potentially additional variances are required for some setback. MR. TRAVER-A variance that differs from the setback that was just reviewed by the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-It looks like that but I’m not certain. I haven’t identified the location of this. I’m just skimming through the notes on this. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. Yes. MRS. MOORE-He talks about stormwater and impervious surface areas, soil characteristics and comments in regards to waivers. He’s concerned about lighting, construction and demolition disposal and snow removal. He identifies the same letter Ms. Clark identified in reference to the right of way with the neighbor, and then I have letters in support, and I apologize, let me go back. That was from Jeff Meyer from Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell, and then I have support letters from a Jacqueline Tuba, 96 Ash Drive, Pat and Sally Russo from Never Rest Lane. Ms. Doster spoke. David Hodgkins and Margaret Hodgkins and they are in favor of it, and that was all I had. MR. BROWN-So, Steve, we have two call in listeners. I’m not sure what they’re here for. So I think maybe we’ll give them a chance to speak and they can identify which application they want. If it’s this one, great. If not we’ll mark them down. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. Thank you, Craig. So, Caller One, go ahead. Is there someone on the line that wishes to address the Planning Board this evening? MR. BROWN-It might take them a minute to unmute their phone. I think it’s *6, Laura . MR. TRAVER-Is it also possible that they just want to listen? MR. BROWN-It could be. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we’ll continue to leave the public hearing open for a bit more and if we could, maybe we could bring Mr. Hutchins back and we can see if we can talk about some of these concerns that were raised during public comment and then we’ll go back to public comment for one more window of opportunity. So, Tom, I heard a number of things that are civil in nature that we wouldn’t really be able to address unless you have some clarification on them. There was a question, something about a right of way, that the right of way wasn’t being recognized. It seems like the right of way, if it exists, by definition is being recognized. So where am I confused on that? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, there’s obviously a dispute about an apparent right of way or lack thereof within the property. MR. TRAVER-So you’re aware that there’s a dispute on it? MR. HUTCHINS-I’m aware that there’s a dispute, yes. The applicants have their attorneys looking into it and the commenters have indicated that they have attorneys looking into it, and they’re going to have to figure out the right of way. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The reason I raise that is normally as you know we don’t get involved in civil matters, but in this case it is alleged that the field of the septic system is proposed to be placed in an area that is purported to be part of this disputed right of way. Is that true? MR. HUTCHINS-Based on their description of where it is, yes. I have seen no documented evidence of a right of way. There is an old deed floating around that indicates a right of way. It’s not real specific as to location and as I said the attorneys and title folks are researching this and obviously if there’s a clear and concise legal right of way there then, yes, it wouldn’t be an appropriate place for the septic system we’re showing. However, we have no documentation of it. There isn’t a history of usage according to the applicants and so we’re proceeding and that issue is going to get clarified. MR. TRAVER-And that will be clarified before the construction of the septic field is begun. Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, hopefully, yes. MR. TRAVER-I mean it would seem like it would make sense. Right? Because otherwise there’d have to be a change in the project. There was a question about a survey map. I’m not sure what that’s all about. Are you aware of a survey map from 2020? MR. HUTCHINS-The official sealed survey map was done in 2000. It was updated by the same surveyor in 2020 and unfortunately he never completed it to the point of publishing it, and very unfortunately our surveyor was taken ill and he’s no longer with us. He had provided me with his updated mapping which matched his prior survey, and there’s some question about some distances not matching deed distances and some computed areas not matching exact deeded areas and what happens is, particularly with these older projects, and I’m not a surveyor, but I know a little bit about survey law. MR. TRAVER-Well, if I could, let me ask a very basic question. If there was a survey, a quote unquote official survey done in 2000, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And a newer survey was begun in 2020 but was incomplete, so it never became quote unquote official, so in my mind that means the current survey of the property is the one that exists from 2000 that’s been recognized. The 2020 one was begun and never completed. MR. HUTCHINS-It was never published. He gave it to me and said here it is. I haven’t issued it yet but here it is for your use, but I didn’t publish it with the project because he didn’t publish it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well that’s getting into the weeds a bit for me. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s getting into the weeds a little bit. Yes, it is. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-I mean to my mind if it’s not official then it doesn’t exist. I mean it’s a drawing. It’s a map. It’s many things, but I would say how can it be a survey if it hasn’t replaced the one that currently, but anyway, I guess that’s something that will have to be resolved later. The question came up about three sheds on the property. Are you aware, how many sheds? MR. HUTCHINS-I’m aware of two sheds. All I can say is I’d have them clarify that . All my mapping shows two sheds. MR. TRAVER-There was talk about some trees being cut down and a third shed being moved. MR. HUTCHINS-There was a shed that was re-located and there were some trees cut down and I believe the Town was contacted and I believe Bruce from the Zoning Office went and looked at the shed re- location and I think Craig or Laura could confirm with me on that. There was a shed that was re-located. It was re-located to a compliant location, but, yes, it was re-located. and to my knowledge there’s no ordinance with a small shed that says you can’t re-locate a shed. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t believe so. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, you can’t what? MR. HUTCHINS-That you can’t re-locate a shed on your property. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I wasn’t really questioning that. I was I guess questioning the number of two is represented and there actually are three. MR. VALENTINE-Well that 2000 survey shows three sheds, and one of those sheds is also shown on the final plans being submitted to us, and that shed is in the location of the septic field, and also that 2000 survey which comes with the application shows the dashed lines where there would be a right of way or easement. So I’m not sure why that survey came with our application materials if it’s being disputed to its accuracy. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was my concern as well. Okay, and then, Tom, there was a question about the septic system that it was originally for four bedrooms and there was discussion that it was going to be modified to have a six bedroom capacity. Can you comment on that? MR. HUTCHINS-There was some discussion about how many legal bedrooms are in the proposed finished project. I don’t recall myself making a commitment, with the exception that we would do what’s required with the Building Department as far as when you consider an attic or above storage space to be a bedroom. MR. TRAVER-Well that issue may be resolved when we deal with the right of way and the septic field issue. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Well we’ve been considering it a four bedroom residence. There’s four, there will be four legitimate bedrooms. There are some additional rooms, but there’s additional room in many ways. MR. TRAVER-Right. So this six bedroom number came up because there was discussion that maybe there were rooms that could be converted into bedrooms. I mean we have run into that before. Is that where that came from? MR. HUTCHINS-There are unfinished, there’s an unfinished space above the garage and there’s another unfinished room above the addition. There’s no intent to make t hem into bedrooms. They’re not going to be bedrooms. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Tom. Let me go back to Craig again. Craig, is there any news on sour public hearing? Is there anyone else that wanted to address us before we close it? MR. BROWN-We do have one hand up. I’m not sure if it’s somebody who’s spoken already, but we can certainly let him in if you want. MR. TRAVER-Yes, please do. MR. BROWN-Will is the name that I have. WILLIAM WHITTY MR. WHITTY-My name is William Whitty. Can you hear me? MR. TRAVER-I can hear you. Yes. MR. WHITTY-Okay. Excellent. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-You have not spoken before. Correct? MR. WHITTY-I have not, sir. This is the first time hearing about the bigger picture of things. I knew that there was a proposal to place the building or enlarge the size of the residence. After hearing the proposal and knowing what this committee is for, isn’t it, doesn’t it just make sense to really look at the survey being not correct? The admission that there is knowledge of this deed that exists regarding the right of way, and also the fact that the deed or the survey map doesn’t show the missing shed. Here we are at a point where we have to say there’s something wrong with this map. We need to figure out if in fact the deed is there. This should be a plan for re-location of that septic in a place in which can fit with this plan. MR. TRAVER-Sir, I believe I can clarify that for you. There was a review of the existing survey map and in fact the third shed is located there. That was one thing. We also discussed the septic potential for being involved with the right of way and that’s going to be resolved before any construction in that right of way takes place. MR. WHITTY-That’s exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that very much. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. Craig, is there anyone else that you’re aware of that wanted to address the Planning Board this evening on this application? MR. BROWN-I don’t believe so. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I’d like to return now to the, unless you have any additional comment, Craig, from the Planning Office viewpoint on some of the issues that were raised. I know that we’re dealing with a number of potentially civil issues. MR. BROWN-No, I think you’re right. I think some of those private property civil issues are not for the Board at this time. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Good. Thank you for that clarification. All right. Members of the Planning Board, questions, comments for the applicant’s agent? Responses to public comment, etc.? MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, I was going to ask Craig since he’s here if he could comment on the 179-4-010 G about conversion. They did receive the variance from the Zoning Board, but if you could comment on that specific comment. MR. TRAVER-The one third? MR. HUNSINGER-The one third. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Well, let me look at it here. 179-4-010 G. MR. SHAFER-If that’s applicable, we have seen an awful lot of applications where that was not in play in the last couple of years I would argue. That’s very interesting. MR. BROWN-What was the section reference again, 179-4-010? MR. HUNSINGER-G. 010 G 3. MR. BROWN-G 3. Okay. Conversion. MR. HUNSINGER-So it starts by saying that the conversion of a dwelling structure that had been previously used for seasonal purposes to a year-round residence shall be considered a change of use and shall require a site plan review. That’s what we’re doing now. MR. BROWN-That’s what you’re doing now. MR. HUNSINGER-But it does have that one third clause in there that then goes further to say that all minimum setbacks must be met. Well they’ve received the variances from the Zoning Boar. MR. BROWN-Right. So if you’re not meeting the requirements of 3 B, then you need variances for those, and if those variances are granted, the rule applies, but if the variance is granted, that’s their relief. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-But there was no specific reference in the variance about the one third of the existing building floor area. MR. VALENTINE-That’s the point, too, is was the variance made to relate to that section? Or are they just looking at? MR. TRAVER-I don’t remember, was there a variance for FAR? MR. HUTCHINS-It wasn’t requested. FAR we’re compliant. MR. BROWN-I don’t have that Zoning Board resolution in front of me. I would defer to Laura if she has that information off the top of her head. Otherwise we’ll have to do a little research and figure that one out. MRS. MOORE-I’m trying to pull that resolution up. MR. SHAFER-I have a question while Laura’s looking that up, and that has to do with the rentals, the short term rentals. Do we have any role in that regard? MR. TRAVER-I think that’s a Building and Codes issue as Craig relayed earlier. MR. SHAFER-And Prendeville when asked the question I guess said there was no plan to do rentals? MR. TRAVER-He said there was no plan, but that’s not the same as saying that there never will be any. Right? MR. SHAFER-That’s correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I believe back in October what was stated is that the existing home is one of the oldest homes on the lake and they didn’t want to tear it down and they were doing the addition to make it their full time residence and keep the nostalgia of the old building and really after doing a site review on it it would be very difficult to winterize that without taking away the characteristics of everything. I never heard anything back in October, him stating that it would be a rental. That would be a question we’d have to ask him. I thought he was making it into a full time residence. MR. TRAVER-Right. I remember that as well, and your point is well taken that they wanted to preserve the nature of the older home and I don’t recall us inquiring about whether there was any intended rental use of the property. We have occasionally asked that when the property design or expansion or whatever seemed to compel some curiosity about that. I’m not sure why we didn’t, and I don’t recall any discussion about whether or not rental would be available, but that’s really, you know, a Building Department, a Code compliant issue, not a planning issue. MR. MAGOWAN-I agree with you. MR. TRAVER-We don’t know, I mean we can approve this design and there’s many properties that might be capable of being rented, and we could approve a site plan for a new home construction or a modification to a home, and an applicant could swear up and down that there is no intended use for a rental or some other maybe conversion to a partial business or something and there could be a change of ownership or circumstances that could change that would not require a site plan review. So I think our involvement in that question is limited and that’s why the, I’m assuming that Planning and Development subdivided that responsibility to the Building and Codes Department to sort of conduct a review of the rental issue as a separate issue, and it’s been an issue in the Town in general, particularly over in Lake Sunnyside, and I think some regulations were changed when the Town looked at the short term issue, rental issue not long ago. So I’m not sure, I guess I’m not really answering your question, but we have had conversations with applicants about rentals in the past. I don’t remember having a discussion with the Prendeville’s about it in this case. MR. HUTCHINS-I can touch on that if you’d like, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go ahead, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-It was discussed at the Zoning Board meeting following your recommendation the last time, and Mr. Prendeville indicated that he has no intent to rent this property at this time. It’s something that has he done occasionally in the past and as a single family residence, he does not want to commit to 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) not ever renting, but he will commit to anything that will be in compliance with the Town’s Short Term Rental law. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well there’s a difference, too, in going from a seasonal property where he’s not there all the time to going to a full time living situation where it’s different having people in your home renting, at least it would be for me. So, thank you for that, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-Particularly if it’s a new, and on the other issue, part of their goal here is to preserve the existing residence because it is one of the older houses on Glen Lake in lieu of tearing it down and building another house. So that’s the intent with, yes, it’s a seasonal residence and the addition to it is going to be year round, but there’s no intent to skirt anything here in terms of regulations. We’re just trying to be able to preserve the existing residence. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tom, let me ask, I’d like to do a thought experiment with you if I could. Going back to the issue of the right of way and the septic. If the right of way were existing as assumed, and let’s assume that had an impact on the proposed location of the seal, would it be necessary to change the project? The change to the plan. MR. HUTCHINS-If there were a legal right of way across there, you know it might depend on, hypothetically if there were a right of way there it might depend on how the right of way is documented and what it’s for. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-If it’s for vehicular access, yes, I’d want to re-locate the wastewater system. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and would you be able to accommodate that without major changes to the property layout? MR. HUTCHINS-I wouldn’t change the building, it wouldn’t be a major change to the building layout, no. If I had to re-locate the septic system, it would be re-located. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, Tom. You could actually move the, I mean the size of it, it’s just over the leach field area. So that could be easily moved and changed over. If it’s a natural flow now that it could be turned over to a pumping system and moved up if need be. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We’d look to re-locate it to the best compliant location. Where we show it is the nicest technical location, but, yes, we’d have to re-locate it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well it’s all hypothetical anyway. I was just curious. All right. No other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Well I think that if the civil matter comes up and they have to alter their site plan it is going to alter the site plan. No matter what, I mean the site plan is going to be altered, and it won’t be what we’re talking about now. The second thing was the number of rooms in the house. Tom alluded to some rooms that were done, going to be completed, and I really feel that there are a lot of loose ends here that need to be addressed, and I’m thinking maybe of a tabling motion more than anything else at this point. MR. TRAVER-So you’re thinking we need more information before we move forward? MR. DEEB-Yes, I’d be uncomfortable moving forward the way things are right now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, David. Other questions? Michael? MR. VALENTINE-I would just say that I echo the same thought. Although we talk about this as being civil or whatever, the impacts are going to be consequential for the layout of this, whether the layout of the house, the septic system, whatever, I think these have got to be ironed out before the Board can sit here and really take action on it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Michael. Anyone else? MR. BROWN-So two things for you, Steve. In reviewing the Zoning Board resolution we find that that rd bit of relief that was mentioned for the 1/3 was not identified. So it was not granted at that time, so it does appear that an additional variance would be necessary, and I do note since you left the public hearing open two things. Ms. Clark has her hand up again to speak if you wish to let her. MR. VALENTINE-The public hearing was closed. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. BROWN-You closed the public hearing? I’m sorry. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. BROWN-I do see Mr. Prendeville who is a panelist and applicant with his hand up. So I’m guessing he may want to say something. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MARK PRENDEVILLE MR. PRENDEVILLE-Yes. Can I speak? Can you hear? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. PRENDEVILLE-Thank you for letting me speak, Board. Just a couple of things I want to let you guys know so you can make an educated decision here. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, Mr. Prendeville. As long as you’re not trying to educate us on the civil matter. I’d appreciate that. That would be a loaded question that would be pointless. MR. PRENDEVILLE-Okay, but you seem to take it as, just because someone puts a civil matter against you doesn’t mean it has any merit, okay, which is the case. MR. TRAVER-We agree. We’re not saying that it has merit. MR. PRENDEVILLE-Okay. Second, when they talk about me having two or three different sections of my house that I’m going to rent out, there is only one and a quarter baths, and they’re right next to each other in a hallway in the winterized section. I’m a 62 year old individual who has cancer that just wants to age in place. I don’t want to rent my house out. I’m not trying to make it this huge boarding house or whatever. I need storage because we just sold our house. We have a lot of stuff from there. We also, my wife’s parents’ passed away. They have two houses. We have stuff from there. My parents passed away. We have stuff from there. We have three storage units now I’m paying monthly rent on. So I want to store that stuff and not have to pay monthly fees to these places. I’m not trying to pull anything over on you, and as for Mr. Fredette, no, I would never rent two or three different units out in this house. That’s not what it’s for. It’s just a place for me to live until I die. I’m old and just need a winterized section built on the house that’s a summer camp. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you very much for that clarification. MR. PRENDEVILLE-Can I add one more thing quickly? That one shed they’re talking about, that’s going to be destroyed and removed when the house is built. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PRENDEVILLE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I’m a little confused here, because we listened to a lot of people sit here and talk about this right of way and this little legal battle, and I don’t think it’s fair that we don’t hear at least a little bit of the side of the Prendeville’s. We’ve heard one side and we hear this battle, but I don’t think it’s fair to cut him off and say we don’t want to hear anything about it because we’ve already heard one side. So I think to make it even, you know, it would be nice to let him speak and explain as quickly as possible if this would be permitted by the Board. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Brad, I appreciate that, but I think that what has been identified, it’s clear that there’s some discussion, perhaps a dispute about this right of way, it’s nature, it’s legal status and so on, and I don’t think, we did get some general information from both sides that really all we could really get out of it as a Board. I mean we can’t adjudicate the issue whether or not there’s a right of way or where it is and so on. I think what we did get out of it is that there’s potential for causing a change in the project. We also found out that there is a variance required that has yet to be decided upon and heard by the ZBA. So there’s going to be some time involved, I suspect, before we get too much deeper into this application in any case and that will likely involve a sufficient opportunity for those parties concerned with the right of way to have that issue resolved or at the very least clarified to the extent that the project can move forward. Anyone else want to comment? Okay. So, Laura, from the Planning Office point of view, then, it does sound as though they need to make another ZBA application. Am I understanding that clearly? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’d be looking at a tabling motion. rd MRS. MOORE-Correct. I would table it to the second meeting in March which would be March 23 so th that they can potentially get on the Zoning Board for March 17. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The only concern I have with that is if there is an issue regarding the right of way that potentially impacts on the project design, it may not be resolved by then. Although I suppose, I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say we could just table it again. Right? MRS. MOORE-So unless Mr. Hutchins indicates that he needs more time than what I’ve suggested here. MR. TRAVER-Okay All right. Well let’s go with that. How do Board members feel? Are they rd comfortable with a tabling to the March 23 meeting? And obviously we’ll make a list of the expectation of the tabling motion. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So, David, I’m hearing back to the ZBA for the variance for the seasonal rd to four season or full time, exceeding the 1/3 under Code. MR. DEEB-Does that need to be put in our motion? That doesn’t have to be put in our motion. We’re just tabling it. MR. TRAVER-Well, but one of the reasons we’re tabling it is because there’s an unresolved variance. I guess we could just say that. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And then we’re asking for clarification on the location of a purported right of way. MR. HUTCHINS-This Board intends to review that? MR. TRAVER-No. We’re not reviewing the right of way. We’re wanting you to review the right of way, and to tell us that it has no impact on the plan so that we feel comfortable moving forward. MR. HUTCHINS-I should just clarify while we’re on that that there are utility rights of way across this project and we’re aware of that and we’re not interfering, and they have to do with power and telephone. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay, and I haven’t heard a challenge to that. The concern seemed to be the septic and that’s the only thing that we’re, at this point, aware of potentially impacting the design, and then you understand the additional variance, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-I believe so, but I will probably look to discuss it with Staff/ MR. TRAVER-Yes, absolutely. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But not now. MR. TRAVER-So we have the additional variance and we have the review of the right of way. Board members have other things to add to the tabling motion? MR. VALENTINE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. rd MR. SHAFER-Well only that the missing variance is both the 1/3 and the setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Well they’ve already received a variance for the setbacks. So the variance is for the rd proposed design is for the greater than 1/3. If they don’t get that variance that might impact on the setbacks. I’m not sure, but. MR. SHAFER-When somebody read the Code, I thought it said something about setback variances not being allowed. So did we overstep there? MR. TRAVER-No, the ZBA reviewed the project as it is before us this evening with the proposed setbacks and granted a variance for the setbacks. They did not grant a variance for the project as it is before us which includes an addition that is greater than one third from the original structure. So that omission of 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) granting that variance, it does not mean they have to change the project at this point, but it does mean that they have to go back to the ZBA, have the ZBA review and approve that additional variance if this project is not going to change. Is my interpretation correct, Laura? MR. SHAFER-I would just ask Laura to review the Code and make sure the variances the ZBA approved rd are allowable in the Code. I thought it was in the same text as the 1/3. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, John, it does say that. It says all minimum setbacks must be met, but if you can’t meet the setbacks, you go to the ZBA to get a variance. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and those setbacks, we’re still looking at, as I interpret it, we’re looking at the project rd in front of us and we don’t know if they’re going to get a variance for that 1/3 expansion but if they do review it and they grant it, the project before us doesn’t change, and the setbacks don’t change, which a rd variance has already been granted. If they don’t get the 1/3, then we’d be looking at a new design, so that would be a different story, but right now the applicant has to go back before the ZBA for that specific variance is my understanding. MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. Why wasn’t this brought up with the ZBA at the time? Because I have the book here, and reading it, it does meet, all the setbacks were approved. They obviously must have rd seen that it was 1/3, and now we’re throwing that in at the end. rd MR. TRAVER-What I heard was that the Code reference to the 1/3 existed before this project was developed. I don’t know why the ZBA did not process this. They may have missed it. MR. VALENTINE-There’s a possibility, just as we didn’t see it or look into it ourselves as individual Board members. We didn’t look for it. We didn’t see it. The ZBA may not have seen it either. MR. TRAVER-And the applicant’s agent indicated that he would be following up with Planning Staff to discuss it further, but what matters for us tonight is that to be comfortable we definitely feel that we need some additional information. MR. MAGOWAN-And I respect that. I just needed to say that. I remember getting the book when I started many, many years ago and it was pretty thick and since I’ve been on the Planning Board it’s gotten thicker. There are a lot of rules and regulations in it, that’s for sure. MR. TRAVER-Yes. You’re right. MR. HUTCHINS-And probably the answer is because we did not have this in our initial application and it wasn’t something that I picked up on or that Staff picked up on in reviewing the application and frankly it’s not something I’ve come across before. Usually with seasonal residences people want to tear them down and build a new house. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-In this case we’re trying to preserve it. It’s to the applicant’s detriment in this case. MR. TRAVER-Well we will get it resolved. MR. VALENTINE-I’ll be you’ll never forget it next time. I didn’t mean you, Tom, in particular. I meant us all together. An hour and a half subject matter that we won’t forget for the next time through. MR. DEEB-On this resolution also, I was just wondering, should I put in there, I’m a little confused on the clarification number. I know we’ve got the bedrooms stated, that’s going to be two rooms for storage. Is that, right, Tom? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s what Mr. Prendeville stated. MR. HUNSINGER-They submitted floor plans. It’s pretty clear on the floor plans. MR. DEEB-All right. Okay. If we’re comfortable with it, then I’m okay. MR. TRAVER-So I have two, David. MR. DEEB-I’ve got them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. DEEB-Let’s just give it a shot. If we have to change it, we have to change it. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Very good. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 48-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a two story addition with a basement to an existing home and associated site work. The floor area of the new addition is 3,844 sq. ft. with a 1,518 sq. ft. footprint. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and previous shoreline vegetation removal in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: rd Tabled to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on March 23, for resolutions to unresolved variances and also clarification of disputed right of ways. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I’m going to interrupt you. Are you going to leave the public hearing open? MR. VALENTINE-It’s closed. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’ve closed it, but we can re-open it, right, Laura, when they come back? MRS. MOORE-You can do that at the time, if that’s what you wish to do. MR. TRAVER-Yes, because we’ve already closed it for this evening. People certainly will have the opportunity to submit written comment between now and when we hear it again. Although it might be wise for them to see what project we review in March. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But, yes, we’ve already closed the public hearing, but we will advise people that there will be additional public hearing when we re-hear a project. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. We will see you again in March. All right. The next section of our agenda is under Planning Board recommendations to the ZBA, and the first application under Planning Board recommendations is Site Plan 2-2021 for James & Kim Ogden. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JAMES & KIM OGDEN. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 17 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MERGE TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME TO INCLUDE A GARAGE THEN ALSO CONSTRUCT A POLE BARN TO BE 1,500 SQ. FT., TWO STORIES. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,626 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,770 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,286 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH DECK AREA OF 336 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT, SECOND GARAGE AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 28-1995, AV 33-1995, 95407-4260 SF HOME, 2002-463 DOCK REPLACEMENT, AV 2-2021 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .71 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-13 & 289.18-1-15. SECTION: 179-5-020, 179-13-010. MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The project includes merging two parcels to construct a two story addition to an existing home to include a garage. The project no longer includes a pole barn which was to be 1500 square feet. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) They have removed that project from their application. So the variance relief requested is less than previous. There’s no longer the two garages on one site and the permeability does increase more without having to place that structure on there. I believe Michael O’Connor’s on the line and I believe Ethan’s on the line to address some of those improvements in relation to the removal of the pole barn from the project. MR. TRAVER-So that takes care of the height variance too, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay to speak? MR. TRAVER-Yes, go ahead. I’m sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. I’m Michael O’Connor, attorney for the Ogdens, and today I did submit an e-mail to Laura withdrawing the portion of the application before you, withdrawing the request for the variance for the pole barn of 1500 square feet I think it was. The Ogdens still need storage and they have a lot of toys, if you will, and they’re going to have to work out some way to do that. It wasn’t withdrawn because they wanted to abandon storage on their site entirely, but when we withdrew it, it simplifies the application right now to two side line variance applications I believe, plus the approval for the expansion of a residence within a Critical Environmental Area. The actual side lines, the first side line variance, 20 feet is required. The existing is 12 feet 7 inches. The proposed is 16 feet 1 inch. So they’ve increased it by four feet, making it more compliant. The second side yard required is 20, the existing is 7 feet 5 inches, and they increased that proposed to 8 feet 10 inches. So they’re minimizing the variances that they’re requesting to the extent that they can, given the side lines of the site, and that basically I think is what is before you tonight, to make a recommendation as to those two side line variance requests, unless Laura thinks that you also should make a recommendation with regard to enlarging a home in a Critical Environmental Area. If you have questions I’d be glad to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to comment on that first? MRS. MOORE-I thought it was included, it may be already included in the variance itself. MR. O'CONNOR-Pardon me, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So sometimes it’s included in the variance itself. So I’d have to look at how it’s worded in the variance, but you can add that to this application. MR. O'CONNOR-That was in the application. That was a requirement, a variance for that. I just didn’t know if they wanted to consider it tonight with the two side lines. I guess basically it goes hand in hand because in part the side lines are part of the expansion of the non-conforming use. MRS. MOORE-Yes, in that particular section of Code and it also triggers it under Site Plan. So you’re in Site Plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but tonight we’re considering the variances, right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. So the variances now are for setbacks, although the setbacks are actually less than the pre-existing setbacks. MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. O'CONNOR-The proposed setbacks are actually greater than the existing. MR. DEEB-They’re greater. MR. TRAVER-Right. Right. I’m sorry. I knew that. I just spoke it incorrectly. Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to clarify if you could, you no longer need the variance for permeability? MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Because of removal of the barn. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. DEEB-Could you give us the percentage? I’d like to know what the percentage is. MR. O'CONNOR-Impermeable will be 24.78 percent. MR. DEEB-All right. So we’re fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-They’re at 75.2. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. DEEB-That variance is eliminated. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Right. So we have, the remaining variances are for the setbacks which they are improving upon from pre-existing. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any questions, comments from members of the Board? Does anyone have any concerns about this referral? I’m not hearing any. So why don’t we go ahead, David, with the resolution. RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 2-2021 JAMES & KIM OGDEN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to merge two parcels to construct a two story addition to the existing home to include a garage then also construct a pole barn to be 1,500 sq. ft., two stories. The existing floor area is 2,626 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,770 sq. ft. The existing home is 1,286 sq. ft. footprint with deck area of 336 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, height, second garage and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2021 JAMES & KIM OGDEN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal (Noting removal of the pole barn from the application and variances are reduced to setbacks only for the new addition to the existing home). th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. ETHAN HALL MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item before us tonight also under Planning Board recommendations is Site Plan 5-2021 for David White Trust. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II DAVID WHITE TRUST. AGENT(S): MICHAEL O’CONNOR, JOHN MASON, HUTCHINS ENG.. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 5 WILD TURKEY LANE (OFF 9L). APPLICANT PROPOSES A 471 SQ. FT. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME ON THE UPPER LEVEL OF THE HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,575 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 431 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,198 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR HEIGHT, SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-2002 BOATHOUSE, SP 1- 1992 DECK, AV 37-2002 DOCK, AV 6-1998 RES. ADD., AV 1-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA, APA, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .83 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-4. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010. MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 471 square foot addition to an existing home on the upper level of the home. The existing home includes a 1,575 square foot footprint, and I believe that’s on the upper level. The existing floor area is 4,198 square feet and proposed is 4,669 square feet. In reference to the variances being requested, the addition will have a height of 32.5 feet. The existing home is at 34.5 feet and 28 feet is the maximum height. The setback to the shoreline is to be 35.5 feet where a 75 foot setback is required. So this is for the upper level of the home. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. MR. O'CONNOR-This is Michael O’Connor. I again am representing the applicants If I look at Staff comments they basically say there is little to no impact by what is requested. There are no feasible alternatives due to the location of the proposed addition. Basically it’s going to be in the second level, the upper level of the house. There’s no change to the footprint. So there’s no change to permeability. Part of the addition will be within the setback from the shoreline, but they won’t be, they’ll be less than what is the existing residence because the addition which is for a bedroom and like a sitting room or something of that nature is set back a little bit from the actual frontage of the house. The proposed setback from the front is 35.5 feet, from the side it’s, Side 1 it’s 14.1 and Side 2 is 45.1 the setbacks. So it’s pretty compliant as far as what we’re doing. It is self-created like almost anything where somebody’s building something new, and it basically involves 471 square feet addition to the existing house. We’ve presented elevations with color. There is an increase in the height of a portion of the roof, but it’s not higher than the existing roof on the balance of the house, and that’s basically pretty much the story. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So is this going to be a bedroom? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, a bedroom and a bath. MR. TRAVER-And how is the septic situated? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s going to have a new septic. It’ll be compliant. We believe we can build a compliant system without variances. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. DEEB-New is always good. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? I see there’s some discussion about the buffering. It looks like the buffer that’s there is if I’m interpreting these numbers correctly, I did not visit the site, but it looks like it’s compliant. MR. O'CONNOR-They have not clear cut anything in front of this structure for some time. There was a comment some place about they wanted, for every 700 square feet of shoreline they wanted a tree three inches in diameter and for every 350 square feet of ground cover they wanted 7 to 24 native shrubs, 14 hibiscus plants. I’ve actually asked John Mason who’s also a consultant on this whether or not that soil up there is deep enough to actually plant those amount of plants. We will plant an arborist tells us that we can do to be as compliant as we can be, but I just am a little bit skeptical given the amount of soil that we’re talking about. MR. TRAVER-Yes, because of the rock? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, depth wise or distance from the front of the house to the lake, whether you can fit these things in there and they’d be healthy enough to grow. It’s kind of like we did one, I forget we did one for somebody that had like 200 plants and we all agreed that 200 plants aren’t going to live. I will have them come up with an actual planting plan. I don’t think we have one. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well that would be good for Site Plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Then we can present, okay. I think that’s fair. MR. MAGOWAN-The other thing I’d like to ask, Mr. Chairman, is that A/C handler up on that roof, I believe that’s where the addition’s going on the east elevation picture? MR. O'CONNOR-Let me get that. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like the back of the house on the left hand side there’s a big, a big area, a unit, A/C probably heater. A heat pump or I would imagine it’s gas, but if it’s electric, but it is a pretty large unit there. That’s going to have to be, is that coming off the roof it’ll have to be placed. Because that will have to be on the site plan, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I can get an answer for you for that. I don’t have it. I’ve been trying to find the drawing that shows that exposure of that elevation. MR. MAGOWAN-I just happened to see it in the stapled together pictures of all the, it says west elevation, east elevation, south elevation. MR. TRAVER-It looks like it might be on the deck area. MR. MAGOWAN-On the east elevation of the back of the house, if you look on the left hand side, where the railing is, I’m pretty sure that’s an air unit handler. It looks like a good six foot by six foot. At first I thought it was a hot tub. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I see what, your question is whether that’s going to come off the roof in the final analysis. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, if it stays on the roof. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s all right. Otherwise you’re going to have to have a, in your site plan obviously that size unit is going to, I mean I’m just trying to picture by looking at the plans to build, it just might stay there, but that looks like the area, unless I’m just seeing it wrong, but it looks like the area that you’re planning the addition. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that’s the area where the addition’s going, and we’ll be able to address what we’re doing with that mechanical. We’re re-working some mechanicals in the structure and we’ll be able to tell you where that’s going. I’m not exactly sure at this point. MR. TRAVER-That’s fine. MR. HUTCHINS-But we’ll be able to address that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’re concerned with the variances anyway, but it’s good to have a heads up on that for Site Plan. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Are we ready to make a referral? Does anyone have any concerns that we need to include in a resolution, a resolution for referral? I’m not hearing any. David, are you ready? MR. DEEB-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 1-2021 DAVID WHITE TRUST The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 471 sq. ft. addition to an existing home on the upper level of the home. The existing home is 1,575 sq. ft. footprint with 431 sq. ft. deck. The existing floor area is 4,198 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,669 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for height, setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2021 DAVID WHITE TRUST. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA, Michael. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. I think that’s it for me for the evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Take care. Stay safe. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Thank you guys and ladies. MR. TRAVER-The next before us also under Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA is Site Plan 6- 2021 for Jason Walker. SITE PLAN 6-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JASON WALKER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 3 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 40 FT. X 80 FT. (3,200 SQ. FT.) ENCLOSED POLE BARN TO STORE FARM EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, ETC. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE OF 1,128 SQ. FT., BARN/GREENHOUSE OF 3,648 SQ. FT. AND GREEN HOUSE OF 3,768 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PRODUCE STAND GREATER THAN 100 SQ. FT. SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2021. LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 315.10-1-52. SECTION: 179-3-040. JASON WALKER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a 3,200 square foot enclosed pole barn to store farm equipment. That site has an existing residence, an existing barn/greenhouse area and a single greenhouse. This area is normally is a farm area, farm site and the request for relief is essentially a setback relief for 18.7 feet is proposed and a 25 foot setback is required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you, and is Mr. Walker here this evening? MRS. MOORE-He is. MR. MAGOWAN-This is Pumpkin Hill? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we’re really only concerned with setback regarding this. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BROWN-So, Laura, I think I have his agent in. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. BROWN-And I don’t see Mr. Walker on the attendee list. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’ll text him. He e-mailed me earlier. So let me see if I can get back to him. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. BROWN-Okay. He may be coming on any moment. So, Laura, I see that his agent has unmuted their microphone but I’m not hearing anything from them. MRS. MOORE-Jason? He’s on. MR. BROWN-Yes, we’re not hearing him. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Is there someone at t e meeting tonight representing Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER-Can you hear me? MR. TRAVER-Now we can hear you. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. State your name for the record, please. MR. WALKER-Jason Walker, 3 West Mountain Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Welcome. Could you tell us about your project? MR. WALKER-I’m looking to build a 40 by 80 pole barn for storing my equipment out of the weather. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There is a variance that is really the purpose of our review this evening. This is not the Site Plan Review. That would take place after the ZBA looks at this application, but is the location of the barn required to be at this location and therefore requiring the variance or could you move it back further so it wouldn’t need a variance? MR. WALKER-The reason why I would like the variance is I would like to access the barn from the north, in between the barn and the pole barn. I would like to access a door from the north, if I could. MR. TRAVER-I see. MR. WALKER-That’s why I’m going after the variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, I see that. All right. I just wanted to know your reasoning. Comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I was curious as to why you needed the relief and it does give an explanation. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it does. MR. SHAFER-The same here. Good explanation. MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns? We know that this is, the requirement of the relief is created by the applicant but I think he has stated a reason that he’s requesting the variance. Does anyone feel uncomfortable with the request? Okay. It seems fairly straightforward then. Do we have a draft resolution, David? MR. DEEB-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 3-2021 JASON WALKER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 40 ft. x 80 ft. (3,200 sq. ft.) enclosed pole barn to store farm equipment, materials, etc. The site has an existing residence of 1,128 sq. ft., barn/greenhouse of 3,648 sq. ft., and greenhouse of 3,768 sq. ft. There are no changes to the existing structures on site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, produce stand greater than 100 sq. ft. shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for dimensional requirements. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2021 JASON WALKER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 19 day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, Jason, you’re off to the ZBA and then assuming that they grant your variance you’ll be back before us for the actual Site Plan discussion. MR. WALKER-Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So now we move to another part of our agenda under Old Business, and the first item under Old Business is a Subdivision Preliminary Stage review for JP Gross Properties, LLC. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 19-2020. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 19-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 1 – COORDINATED W/TOWN BOARD. JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. AGENT(S): OWEN SPEULSTRA, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR/LC-10A/RR-5A. LOCATION: 748 LUZERNE ROAD. SEQR: APPLICANT PROPOSES A SIX LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SHARED DRIVEWAYS – LOTS 2 & 3 AND LOTS 4 & 5. LOT 1 IS A CORNER LOT WITH ACCESS TO TWIN MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND LOT 6 WILL HAVE ACCESS ON TUTHILL ROAD. LOT SIZES: LOT - 33.44 ACRES AND INCLUDES A SMALL SECTION ACROSS FROM LUZERNE ROAD; LOT 5 – 3.06 ACRES; LOT 4 – 2.80 ACRES; LOT 3 – 2.0 ACRES; LOT 2 – 5.01 ACRES; LOT 1 – 2.0 ACRES. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION TRIGGERING COORDINATED SEQR REVIEW. PROJECT WILL REQUIRE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND IS A CLASS B SUBDIVISION FOR APA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 3-2015, SUB (S) 7 - 2019, SUB (S) 2-2020, SUB (P) 8-2020 (WITHDRAWN), SUB (S) 13-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 52.31 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-22. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. JOE GROSS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura? MRS. MOORE-At this time we had you pass a resolution to Seek Lead Agency in December and now you’re at the point where you can Accept Lead Agency status and then you can review the SEQR. I did want to identify that it’s a six lot subdivision. I did have a conversation shared by e-mail with the engineer, since they’re not done with their review at this point. They have a couple of other things to take a look at. I asked him specifically in reference to SEQR that he reviewed that would cause SEQR to have concern completing SEQR. He said no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. All right. So the first thing we need to do Accept Lead Agency which I believe we have a resolution for that. So, David, there’s a resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency status in conjunction with this subdivision preliminary review. If you’d start with that, I think. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE SUB # 19-2020 JP GROSS WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a six lot residential subdivision. The project includes shared driveways – Lots 2 & 3 and Lots 4 & 5. Lot 1 is a corner lot with access to Twin Mountain Drive and Lot 6 will have access on Tuthill Road. Lot sizes: Lot 6 – 33.44 acres and includes a small section across from Luzerne Road; Lot 5 – 3.06 acres; Lot 4 – 2.80 acres; Lot 3 – 2.0 acres; Lot 2 – 5.01 acres; Lot 1 – 2.0 acres. Project is subject to water district extension triggering coordinated SEQR review. Project will require 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) stormwater management and is a Class B subdivision for APA. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board accept lead agency and review SEQR. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 19-2020 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff; th Duly adopted this 19day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So then we move to the next responsibility for us this evening which is under the SEQR act which is the SEQR review. You heard Laura’s comment that the engineering review is technically incomplete, although the engineer did offer, thanks to Laura’s inquiry, that he did not feel that the remaining items that were subject to their review would have an impact on SEQR. So does the Board feel comfortable moving forward with that information on SEQR? MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns about that? MRS. MOORE-Prior to you completing that, you do have a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, thank you, Laura, for reminding me of that. So we’ll open the public hearing for SEQR for JP Gross. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I guess my question is, even though the engineers did say that, just in case it does change, we can always pull that back or review SEQR again? MR. TRAVER-Yes. If there’s a change in the project requiring us to review it again at Preliminary Stage we can re-affirm SEQR. MR. MAGOWAN-I just wanted to go on the record and say it. MR. TRAVER-No, it’s a good point. Laura, is that not correct? MRS. MOORE-That would be correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So we did open the public hearing. Do we have anyone in the public hearing portion of our meeting that wishes to address the Planning Board on the State Environmental Quality Review Act portion of our discussion of the JP Gross Properties, LLC proposed subdivision? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TRACY TABOR MR. TABOR-Yes, I have questions. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TABOR-My name’s Tracy Tabor. I’m a landowner on Lilac Lane. I’ve lived in this area my whole life, and what I wanted to ask, did the letter get received that was faxed this afternoon and has it been entered into the minutes of the meeting? MRS. MOORE-It’s here. It’s in the file, and if you would like me to read it or if you want to read it. MR. TABOR-No, if you could just read that letter, that will address my concerns. They’re brief. I think they’re to the point, and then my portion will be done. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-All right. “As lifelong residents on West Mountain at 20 Lilac Lane we have a couple of questions and concerns about the proposed residential development. Most of our concerns involve water management on the site. Everything on this mountain eventually runs, slants and/or falls downhill. All of my occupied properties are positioned downhill from this parcel. The following are questions involving water management: In the first proposals sent to us last fall the development was in the form of a densely housed cul-de-sac with only 1 driveway entrance onto Luzerne Road and 1 driveway onto Twin Mountain Drive. In that layout there were 2 very detailed run-off locations to deal with the changes in water movement as a result of building. This seemed somewhat reasonable but a bit ‘crowded’ with new houses. We feel that this configuration was safer driveway wise and more responsible water management wise, however, the density was too high. Since then and very recently a revised plan was offered which reduced the number of new homes but increased the number of driveways onto Luzerne Road. This is a dangerous strip of road between the water tower and ‘deadly’ 4-way intersection at West Mountain Road. For whatever reason those coming over the mountain and down that stretch of road seem to forget about the intersection and many exceed the speed limit required to stop at that intersection. Many accidents per year are the result. Too many driveways with unreasonable lengths will cause more chances for accidents and compound the water runoff issues. Frankly the cul-de-sac is a much sound plan for a PUD. As for the water run-off, the 2 designated run-off locations on the original plan are no longer a part of the revised plan. This implies that all run-off must be directed to the existing wet-lands shown on the plan which gathers & runs northeast towards and through an existing family lot to the Town culvert at the end of Lilac Lane. Why the sudden change? Currently the water on Mr. Gross’ land is very broken-up and disorganized resulting in a lot of the moisture simply soaking down into the land and is not necessarily focused towards any defined brook. The remaining water does gather at the unoccupied lot to the south of the culvert and continues north through our property at 20 Lilac Lane (not shown on plan) but it only floods and runs well in spring or during summer storms . Our concern is 2-fold. What is the water management plan for the new property layout? The existing brook which feeds through the culvert has migrated downhill about 30 feet over the last 20 years with only the existing water flow rater. This means that the brook is now only less than 10 feet away from our structure. We believe that any increase of water flow through this culvert will further relocate the brook and eventually damage our house long before it naturally might occur. What assurances do we have that this will be addressed?” MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Is the speaker still with us? MR. TABOR-Yes, I’m here. MR. TRAVER-So Laura read your letter into the record. So it sounds as though, and correct me if I’m wrong, your concern is the sight distance for traffic from the driveways as proposed is one issue? MR. TABOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And the other issue is stormwater runoff? MR. TABOR-Being the major concern. MR. TRAVER-The major concern. Okay. MR. TABOR-The major concern being whereas you see the water ending up at the back of the lot named Michael Manney. That is directed into a culvert which Chuck Garb at the Town increased the size of a number of years ago because they deemed the water coming off the Mountain, especially after building out and Irene was a factor, the hurricane, if you remember her. They needed to make that culvert bigger. Even at that, that culvert is not big enough. What’s happened over the number of years with the amount of water going down there is I can show you pictures of where we used to be able to mow the lawn on the other side of the brook and keep that well maintained. You could walk over there. You could lay in the sun. Now it’s nothing but wet moisture, but the brook itself because of just the gravity of itself and the nature of the water running down and runs in a northeast flow because that tributary, even though it’s not so regulated by DEC as I don’t have a business adjacent down past, we’ve had to have culverts approved, runs into Halfway Brook, but my bigger concern is that brook can’t handle much more overflow and with the original design, the cul-de-sac was in such a way that I felt with the storm management runoff and the 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) retention ponds it would handle things much better not just leave things kind of willy-nilly. My other concern is the driveways are so long that there is going to be tremendous snow pile up at some point somewhere, and everything at that point runs downhill and directs down to that northeast corridor and ends up into that culvert. I don’t see how it can be mitigated safe enough to protect my properties or even maybe even some of the properties behind there. Now I’m not against Mr. Gross developing his land. I do not want to come out and say that. That’s not my intention. I am just concerned about the stormwater runoff. I did like the cul-de-sac design much better. I thought that was, and I don’t understand the change happening. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well let me try and reassure you that regardless of the design, stormwater management is a significant portion of the engineering review that’s done by the Town Engineer, and there is a requirement prior to any approval that the stormwater on this development be managed. As to the brook and the culvert that you’re describing, it sounds as though that’s a Town maintenance issue that really isn’t directly related to this particular application, but with regard to stormwater coming off this property, that needs to be part of the design plan and is subject to review by the Town Engineer who is quite familiar with the issue of stormwater management and I can assure you does look at that very seriously. MR. TABOR-I do understand that. If I could just add one more thing. With multiple driveways coming off Luzerne Road, that does add a greater impact. I mean the Town is right now dealing with a lawsuit on that curb on that Mountain with a snow plow incident. When you’re adding four, five, six driveways now on Luzerne Road coming down that Mountain at 40, 50, 60 miles an hour and I’ve lived here all my life, the fatalities on the corner, I just see that as another great concern. When they put in the glen across from Northland Gardens we addressed that issue at your meetings then because they wanted to put 12 driveways onto the last, I can’t remember the name of the developer, he wanted to put 12 driveways directly across from Northland Gardens. As it was then just on the curb it was bad enough. They settled on the cul-de-sac. My concern is why didn’t the cul-de-sac get built? Was it cost of infrastructure? Because some of these driveways are going to be 1,000 feet long or longer to get where these houses are proposed. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well we appreciate your comments. Thank you very much. Anything else? MR. TABOR-Those are my concerns right now and I wish to stay informed on this project as it proceeds. I did want to know, did the APA approve this already since it’s been changed as of recently? I think the thth last change was like January 5 or 6. MR. TRAVER-Any jurisdictional approvals have to be processed before this can be implemented. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. I’m going to interrupt. We have local jurisdiction and that information is shared with the APA and I do believe there’s already a jurisdictional inquiry already completed. So it’s sort of happening concurrently. MR. TABOR-Is it also considered a PUD that doesn’t meet density requirements at this point? MRS. MOORE-It’s not a PUD. MR. TABOR-No, but it’s considered that it doesn’t meet density requirements at this point. MRS. MOORE-No. That was that previous proposal. So at this time this is considered. MR. TABOR-More compliant? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TABOR-Okay. Well I do want to put those concerns into the record and I thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address this application regarding State Environmental Quality Review this evening? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, do you want to hear from the project representative? MR. TRAVER-Sure. I was wondering if there was any more public comment actually. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So, yes, Mr. Gross. MR. BROWN-I’ve got two Clarks, and I’m not sure who’s going to come in. Are you there, Clark? MRS. MOORE-One was a video. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-So is this public comment? MRS. MOORE-No, he’s a representative for Joe Gross’ project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s what I thought. Okay. Did they want to respond to the comment? MR. GROSS-Do you want me to speak? I don’t know if my engineer’s on or not. MR. TRAVER-It’s not necessary that you speak. We did take public comment that expressed concern about stormwater. I think we explained that stormwater management is an engineering issue that is currently under review. There was some concern I guess about sight distance for the driveways. We’ll be discussing that with the Board I’m sure. There was a question. I don’t know if you want to address it. It sounded like it was related to density, about why the design, the proposed layout changed from a cul- de-sac to this layout, and I think we had some discussion with you about that when we first looked at the application, but I don’t know if you want to make any comment about the change in the layout. MR. GROSS-Obviously it’s not at a technical level, Board, but I do want all my neighbors happy, of course. I bought the property. I thought the cul-de-sac honestly, was more of a dream, you know, cul-de-sac, I thought it would look good. Unfortunately with all the different variances that were involved and put a lot of money and engineering, I kind of had to scrap that . We went to what we thought was a less invasive approach with no variances needed, keeping all the lots over two acres, and at the Town’s recommendations, they’re shared driveways. So instead of one roadway going in it would be two driveways going in with shared each one. So again I want to be a good neighbor. I would expect that if I were granted permission to do move forward with this that we put the amount of time that we put into it that the engineering would support no impacts to my neighbors, and I’m trying to be, like I say, I think these are going to be beautiful lots, beautiful homes, long driveways, with the proper amount of, I’m not a, it’s my hobby and I enjoy it and I like to do nice things. There would be the property amount of stormwater study and I think you’ll find that they’ll be very attractive. I would not let anything go in here that would be a detriment to my neighbors at all. So it’s just the two driveways versus one and that was on the recommendation of the Town to do that, and whether it’s the Board or whatever, but that’s all I have to say, for my neighbors here, that’s all. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. Do we have someone now that would like to make public comment? MR. BROWN-We have Mr. Lynch. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mr. Lynch? JEFF LYNCH MR. LYNCH-Yes. Can you hear me? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I can. MR. LYNCH-Thank you. My name is Jeff Lynch.. I understand that this is the time to comment on the SEQR portion of this. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. MR. LYNCH-Okay, and I’ll have opportunity to speak later about my personal comments? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LYNCH-Okay. I was listening to the previous comments by Mr. Tabor, and he at the end mentioned about the Adirondack Park Agency. I was notified by the APA back in August I believe it was about this and commented to them about, and then when I got Queensbury’s notification about this 10 days ago, I called the APA to see what they thought about this and they said that they weren’t going to be weighing in on this at all because the project had been changed and I believe they said it’s in the Town of Queensbury’s court to tell them about it, if there’s something that, they weren’t sure why it had been changed, but it’s not something for the APA to weigh in on at all. They made some comment about wetlands, perhaps there was no concern over wetlands. Mr. Tabor was talking at length about the existence of a stream. I’m also aware that there is a spring on the property. So I’m wondering why the APA is not involved. MR. TRAVER-Well, Laura started to explain that earlier. Laura, do you want to comment on that for Mr. Lynch, the jurisdictional issues? I’m not sure what happened to Laura. MRS. MOORE-That’s okay. I was on mute. I apologize. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Sorry. MRS. MOORE-I apologize on my end. MR. TRAVER-Again, Mr. Lynch was curious as to the relationship between the jurisdiction of Queensbury and the APA. MRS. MOORE-So we’re an approved land use plan entity, the Town of Queensbury is. We have typical local jurisdiction, and so we’ll be conducting our review and they’ll be conducting their review as part of what they need to complete. So it’s happening pretty much at the same time. MR. TRAVER-So does that answer your question, sir? MR. LYNCH-Well, I believe you’re saying that they’re doing their review in parallel or separately from your review, from the Queensbury review? Because I talked to them this week and they said they’re not doing any review. MRS. MOORE-So they’ve asked for, part of the submission process is that they’re waiting for us to complete our review. I don’t know if they weigh in or not, and I know Clark has been possibly in touch with them. I know because we’re an approved land use plan that we have jurisdiction first typically. MR. LYNCH-You’re saying the APA will be reviewing this? MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I’d have to look at this again in the sense, but I know that they’ve been notified about this project. MR. LYNCH-Okay. Because the property is in the Adirondack Park. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. LYNCH-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. LYNCH-Not at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on the SEQR review for this subdivision preliminary stage? MR. BROWN-So two things. It looks like Clark is on the phone, but I’m trying to get him unmuted. I’ve requested him to unmute himself, but I’m not sure if he’s able to do that, and also Mr. Tabor is requesting the ability to speak one more time. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Tabor. All right. Let’s have Mr. Tabor if he can make it brief. MR. TABOR-I wanted to thank Joe for coming out and explaining that, and I took it as logic that possibly the cultic involved too much engineering and too much cost as I’ve looked at projects in other areas myself of this nature. I am concerned about the stormwater runoff and I’m more reassured to hear him say that he wants his neighbors happy, and as long as this goes forward, like I said in the beginning, I’m not against Joe developing his land. That land was my cousin’s years ago and all the land was my great-great- grandfather’s years ago, but I am concern that the properties I own not get affected any more by that stream as the amount of building on the Mountain has definitely diverted a tremendous amount of water down my backyard, and it’s made it very difficult to even maintain the yard. So I thank Joe for his reassurances and I hope to stay in touch with the project and as developments occur where things have to change, I would like to know. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Certainly to follow the project you can look at the materials that are available on line at queensbury.net and you can also reach out to the Community Development Planning Department. MR. TABOR-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-And this will be, tonight we’re doing Lead Agency and SEQR for the preliminary stage, but there will be additional review. All right. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board by way of public hearing this evening before we conclude the SEQR review? I’m not hearing anyone. So back to the Board members. Do folks feel comfortable moving forward with the SEQR resolution? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Well I believe we have a draft resolution, David, for our SEQR review. I’m not hearing any environmental impact concerns. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SUB PRELIM STG. JP GROSS The applicant proposes a six lot residential subdivision. The project includes shared driveways – Lots 2 & 3 and Lots 4 & 5. Lot 1 is a corner lot with access to Twin Mountain Drive and Lot 6 will have access on Tuthill Road. Lot sizes: Lot 6 – 33.44 acres and includes a small section across from Luzerne Road; Lot 5 – 3.06 acres; Lot 4 – 2.80 acres; Lot 3 – 2.0 acres; Lot 2 – 5.01 acres; Lot 1 – 2.0 acres. Project is subject to water district extension triggering coordinated SEQR review. Project will require stormwater management and is a Class B subdivision for APA. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board accept lead agency and review SEQR. 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 19-2020 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb 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. 2. Part III of the long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Mr. Gross. MR. GROSS-Take care everyone. MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks, Joe. MR. GROSS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next on the agenda we have New Business. The first item under New Business is also Unapproved Development, and that’s for Rocky Auto Sales, Site Plan Modification. Has the honor of being 1-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 1-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROCKY AUTO SALES. OWNER(S): NORTH COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT, CHARLES & LISA KANE. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 973 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SITE PLAN OF AUTO RELATED USES FOR TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS TO PLACE A SINGLE ROPE/CHAIN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS TO SHOW SEPARATION BETWEEN THE OPERATIONS OF EACH BUILDING. ONE BUILDING, 1,251 SQ. FT. TO BE USED FOR AUTO SALES BY APPLICANT AND THE OTHER BUILDING, 1,633 SQ. FT. TO BE USED FOR A TENANT FOR AUTO DETAILING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF T HE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TOO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 53-1988, SV 71-2002, SP 41-2017, SP 73-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: .46 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-19. SECTION: 179-9-120. CHRIS CHADRAOUI & CHRISTINA LOGLIO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to modify an existing site plan for auto related uses for two existing buildings to place a single rope or chain between buildings to show separation between the operations of each building. One building is 1,251 square feet to be used for auto sales by the applicant and the other building is 1,633 square feet currently used for a tenant for auto detailing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. MR. BROWN-Who is that going to be, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Who is the tenant for the auto detailing? MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That’s an existing person and I don’t know who that is. MR. BROWN-Yes, I just need a name to let somebody in to talk about it. MRS. MOORE-So you’re going to look for a Christina Loglio. That’s the applicant. MR. BROWN-I have a Chris. MRS. MOORE-It’ll be Chris. MR. BROWN-Just plain Chris. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Chris, are you with us this evening? MR. CHADRAOUI- I’m here with my fiancé Christina, and we’ve been watching all night. It’s a long night. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you for staying awake. MR. TRAVER-All right. Good evening. So, a couple of issues with this I guess that brought us here tonight to discuss this. One is the addition of this rope or chain between, on the property which was not part of the approved plan and the other is the snow storage which was not being conducted according to plan. I understand that the snow storage area is now going to be compliant, as was originally approved. Is that correct? MR. CHADRAOUI-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have remaining and we have some photographs now is this chain rope or whatever between the buildings, and I understand that you at one point were representing that this was something that Department of Motor Vehicles required. MR. CHADRAOUI-Yes. They require a separation. Since there’s two separate businesses on this same property they want a clear separation between the businesses. Yes, they recommended a concrete barriers, and I thought this was much more evasive. MR. MAGOWAN-Non-evasive. MR. CHADRAOUI-Non-evasive. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So I understand anecdotally that you have tried and failed to get proof of that position by DMV. Is that correct? MR. CHADRAOUI-Correct. So the inspector I was dealing with, his name is Tom, he told me a few times he was going to supply me a letter, and he failed to supply a letter, and when I got a hold of his supervisor he told me to mention Article VS142, Section 15. And it says basically it’s pretty vague. It says if there’s 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) other businesses in the same location you need a permanent physical barrier, non-moveable wall, fence or landscaping to separate the display areas, signs and offices of different businesses, but that, he said, the supervisor said it’s a case by case basis. We already are approved with this chain. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So since we don’t have any documentation of DMV having that position, what I would like to suggest, and this will be up to the rest of the Board of course. MR. CHADRAOUI-I’m sorry, I did submit that. I e-mailed that to Laura. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I sort of see that section. There we go. I wonder why that hasn’t applied to many other businesses in Queensbury, Laura, on the same location. MRS. MOORE-I couldn’t tell you. This is the first time it’s come up for this, it’s the first time I’ve seen it. MR. BROWN-It’s two separate automotive uses. MR. DEEB-Can I weigh in on this a little bit? MR. TRAVER-Please. MR. DEEB-I really feel sorry for this person. What’s your first name again? MR. CHADRAOUI-Chris. My last name is Chadraoui. MR. DEEB-Okay. I’ve been through this. I had a used car business for 42 years and my property had two businesses on it, and believe me, DMV has come in and they will harass you to know end. I know what you’re going through. MR. TRAVER-On this point, David? MR. DEEB-On this same exact point They told me that I had to have a separation between a repair business, which wasn’t mine, and the auto business which was mine, and they wanted it to come right down the middle. Of course you’d have to have a path for people to go in, and they suggested a fence. They suggested this and several other things. So this does sting what the DMV law is, but I can attest that this is a law that they want, and it seems kind of silly. The simple answer is you put a little rope down there, and that delineates that you have two separate businesses right on that property. MR. TRAVER-Actually, David, according to this, that would not be compliant. MR. DEEB-Right. I think what Chris is saying, they will go along with this. MR. CHADRAOUI-They already went along with it. I have it. MR. DEEB-They’ll go along with it. They’re just looking to have him put something up so people who come in don’t confuse that it’s all one business. MR. CHADRAOUI-Correct. MR. DEEB-They have to know that it’s two separate businesses. So believe me, I empathize with you and I know what you went through. MR. CHADRAOUI-Thank you. Yes, since Day One really he wanted, since we put the application in, they called, they wanted, his recommendation at first, it was Jersey barriers, and then a friend of mine has a dealership and it’s even closer, the two buildings are closer, and I said DMV doesn’t give you a hard time? And he said no, that’s why he had a chain, and it’s like why didn’t I think of that chain, and then I suggested it to him and he said let me call my supervisor and he said as long as it stays up and it’s metal. He wanted metal. MR. DEEB-It’s plain and simple. That’s all it is. MR. CHADRAOUI-And I texted him pictures of it and he gave me the thumbs up. So I do have confirmation. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well thank you for that. Thank you for submitting the clarifying information to Staff and for the photographs. So you understand that it’s a modification to the Site Plan and that’s why they wanted you to come back and discuss it with us. Right? MR. CHADRAOUI-Correct. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Thank you for that. MR. CHADRAOUI-Also I wanted to say one other thing real quick. The gentleman who is in the building next to me, he mentioned that he might be leaving to another shop. If that’s the case, I will be acquiring his building and then it’ll all be one business for both buildings and then that could technically come down. MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. MR. CHADRAOUI-We’re not at that point yet. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring up while we’re discussing this it’s kind of interesting. I mean how do you look that law up? And, David, thank you for chiming in. As soon as you spoke I remember you having the two businesses. So you do know. MR. DEEB-Believe me, when you deal with DMV you know. MR. MAGOWAN-I did come across this, how do you get your New York State dealer’s license. Step by step, and right in there it says in addition to the supplies listed above, the AFI will examine your location for these characteristics, and the first thing is a clear and permanent physical barrier from your businesses that may share your location separating display areas, signs and offices. So he’s not making this up. MR. DEEB-I know. I know for sure. MR. MAGOWAN-But thank you, Dave. MR. SHAFER-And the irony here is that the end result is two access points out onto Route 9 which every traffic engineer with DOT on the planet will object to. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-It’s just a terrible idea. MR. MAGOWAN-Welcome to government, John. MR. VALENTINE-The other thing is there’s a concern for snow removal. Now you don’t have a clear cut path for someone to plow from one site to the other with that fencing or roping in there. MR. CHADRAOUI-Well the plan was we’re going to take them out there, as you can see with the four by fours that are in, they’re easily removable. You can pull them right out, and that’s the plan. Before the storm, I made a deal with the plow guy that I’d take them out and he said if they’re not out he said they’ll take them, take them down or just undo the chain and push it through. MR. MAGOWAN-Chris, you’ve got enough room there to go right in between. MR. CHADRAOUI-Yes, there’s plenty of room to pile the snow in the back of the lot on the grass. MR. TRAVER-All right. So it sounds as though we have resolved the issues that brought you here with us tonight. This does have a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like, in the public arena, that would like to comment on this application before the Planning Board tonight? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-I don’t see any hands up in the lobby. MR. TRAVER-I’m seeing something like 26 visitors? Well, it doesn’t matter. MR. BROWN-No, we have five that are waiting. They’re mostly applicants for the next item. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you for that, Craig. All right. So do members of the Planning Board have any further questions for the applicant? MR. DEEB-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-I think we clarified both issues pretty well. All right. Then, David, you should have a draft motion. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MRS. MOORE-Before you make your motion, I’d just suggest something. All the language in reference to the snow removal has all been verbal. So that should be part of the final plan. It should be written out. MR. TRAVER-Well isn’t it part of the approval original Site Plan to begin with you. MRS. MOORE-Because this is a modification I think you should include that as part of this project. You should at least bring it out so that it’s included with these final plans. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. MS. WHITE-I appreciate that because if you drove by today there is snow in the middle. There’s a snow barrier along there. That snow has not been removed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that, Jamie. All right, so, David, can we add a condition that the snow storage location be moved to the original approved location in the rear of the property? MRS. MOORE-What I’m suggesting is you include his actual verbiage of plan, is that he plans to remove the posts, or the snow plow person will remove the posts, that sort of language. MR. MAGOWAN-Let me interject here because I’m looking at the picture and it looks like, if you want the exact wording, it looks like the posts are anchored into the macadam, which I believe. MR. TRAVER-It looks like they’re metal sleeves. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, they’re in metal sleeves. So my concern would be pulling out the posts before the storm and then him clipping it. So removing the chain, it looks like there’s enough room for a plow to go in between the chains and he can use the posts as a guide of where it is. Pulling the chains back and removing, and pushing the snow to the north to bring it to the grass area, as per the original Site Plan Review was. Isn’t that where the snow is supposed to go, to the north? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. So, David, do you want to make that another condition? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’ll give you a second to do that. MR. DEEB-All right. I think I‘ve got it. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, you also need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. So we’ll close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And does anyone have any other concerns about any additional conditions on the resolution? We have the snow storage area to be returned to the approved location and the dividing chain to be moved in such a way that the area can be plowed, or something to that effect, and then, David, whenever you’re ready for that draft resolution. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 1-2021 ROCKY AUTO SALES The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to modify an existing site plan of auto related uses for two existing buildings to place a single rope/chain between the buildings to show separation between the operations of each building. One building, 1,251 sq. ft. to be used for auto sales by applicant and the other building, 1,633 sq. ft. to be used by a tenant for auto detailing. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/19/2021 and continued the public hearing to 01/19/2021, 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 01/19/2021; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 1-2021 ROCKY AUTO SALES; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Snow removal and storage to be completed with chains removed and the snow to be pushed to the north onto the grass per the original approved site plan for snow removal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of January 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I would just say per the original approved plan for snow location. MR. DEEB-Okay, and then to amend the resolution. Snow removal as I stated per the original resolution in the first Site Plan. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, Chris and Christina, you’re all set. MR. CHADRAOUI-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have Site Plan 4-2021 for Elisa & Glenn Schneider. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ELISA & GLENN SCHNEIDER. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-5A. LOCATION: 11 OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK INCLUDING SEPTIC, DRIVEWAY, ETC. THE NEW HOME IS TO BE 1,220 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH MAIN FLOOR WITH THREE BEDROOMS AND A BASEMENT GARAGE AREA BELOW. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION ON 15% OR GREATER SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 6.71 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-77. SECTION: 179-6-060. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicants propose to construct a new home and associated site work including septic and driveway and the new home is to be 1,220 square feet with a main floor with three bedrooms and a basement garage area below, and in your information you’re seeing elevation drawings and the location of the driveway and the project was referred to our engineer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Let’s see. Is this Tom again? Tom Jarrett? MR. JARRETT-It is. Good evening all. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-As Laura recited I’m representing the Schneiders tonight. They are on the call I believe. They can participate to answer any questions the Board might have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-They wish to build a modest home on Old West Mountain Road, 19 Old West Mountain Road. It is a fairly narrow site, and it is steep. The grades right now are 20 to 25 percent. What we’ve tried to do is build a driveway that is as soft a grade as possible, a compliant grade and a safe grade for them to access the property during inclement weather. We’ve got the grades down from 23% down to about, the maximum is about 14% and most of it’s around 12 to 13%, which is not ideal but certainly negotiable and much more safer than the original grade. We’ve tried to use the existing driveway entrance and there’s an old logging road up through the property that we’ve utilized to the extent practicable. We’ve also set the house into grade which minimizes disturbance, other than the blasting that’s required. There’s shallow bedrock on the site which you may have seen in the test pits. We tried to reduce disturbance on the site. We’ve tried to maximize retention of vegetation especially along Old West Mountain Road. We think it’s a fairly straightforward proposal. I can open it up to any questions you have unless the Schneiders would like to weigh in. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Tom. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to speak. I drove by. That really is, Old West Mountain Road there, it’s really beautiful and really you’ve got to love to drive up a driveway if you want to live over there, but it is peaceful and you do have a piece of the mountain there, and I‘m really amazed, really, Tom, I think you did a great job, both you and the Schneiders, of setting the foundation in there and it looks like the modular home you’re actually going to crane it up there, aren’t you? That comes in pieces and you’re going to have to crane it right on top of that foundation. So I really, Tom, you did, all of you there did a nice job putting this proposal together because I really spent a lot of time just looking at that in amazement. There’s a lot of engineering here and a lot of feet and like I said, to end it all is to place that house on top of that foundation. So way to go. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think it’s one of the trends we’re seeing in the Town is sort of idea building lots become more and more scarce, there’s more and more challenging engineering involved with some new house construction. This is a good example of that, and it does seem to be handled very well. Any other comments from members of the Board? MR. JARRETT-When Board members are done, I’d like to weigh in with one suggestion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we do have public comment on this application. So we’ll open the public hearing, and I’ll inquire as to whether there’s anyone that wishes to make public comment on this application before the Board tonight. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-We have two people waiting, Deb Phillips and Jessie Gardner Lewis. I’ve added them to the meeting, but it looks like they’re still muted. So if you guys can hear, you might want to unmute and have your turn. MR. TRAVER-So do we have someone who wanted to speak? ELISA SCHNEIDER MRS. SCHNEIDER-Hello. This is Elisa Schneider. I don’t know if you can hear me. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I can. Thank you. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MRS. SCHNEIDER-Hello. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your inspiring and supportive words and we are very excited about this process and we’ve worked quite a bit with Tom to get the design to where it is today. So we would really have no other comments except to say that we look forward to the process and we thank you for your consideration tonight. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Yes, you’re very welcome. So is there someone else that wanted to make public comment on this application? MR. BROWN-We’ve got Deb Phillips or Jessie Gardner Lewis. DEBORAH PHILLIPS MRS. PHILLIPS-My name is Deborah Phillips. My husband Kent and I are the adjoining property owners to the north. I do have some concerns. We’ve lived here for almost 30 years and that property has been pretty much for sale for the past 30 years and many of the previous owners have shared with us that it’s pretty much unbuildable. So I do have a concern about that, how exactly would this process go forward. I also have another concern or a question actually. The real estate sale that they have, they have it listed with this actual home on it, and so that kind of brings me to the question, are you planning on building this for rental? Are they planning on putting it there so that it would be a short term rental? We already have an issue with that on our street and we don’t really want another one. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, Deborah. Are you saying that there is an advertisement for this being a rental property? MRS. PHILLIPS-No. I’m just concerned, because they have it on, they’re selling the property, they’re currently selling the property, and on the property they have this particular house listed. They have this type of home as your dream home. So I’m just questioning, I can’t help question whether they’re just building this as like a spec home or something that they’re going to maybe rent and I am concerned about that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. PHILLIPS-I’m also concerned about on the sale sign, on their sale thing, it does have this property listed as a multiple home, multiple family. I don’t believe we’re zoned for multiple family. MR. MAGOWAN-Is it multiple family or multiple listing? MRS. PHILLIPS-No, multiple family. If you take a look at their listing for the home, you will see that it’s listed for a multiple family home. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll ask about that. Anything else? MRS. PHILLIPS-That’s it for now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Was there someone else that wanted to speak? MR. BROWN-There is, and I don’t want to speak for them or over them, if they could chime in, but I do have a chat from them. It says their audio isn’t working well. They had a question I guess for the applicant, for Tom, regarding the blasting on the site, what those details might be. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Okay, and there’s no one else. Correct? MRS. SCHNEIDER-May I respond to the neighbor’s comments? MR. TRAVER-Well, if you’d wait a minute, please. Craig, and you’re not seeing anybody else? MR. BROWN-Nobody else is left. That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. Unless, Laura, can I just double check there are no written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And then, let’s see, Elisa you wanted to comment. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MRS. SCHNEIDER-Yes. The property is in fact listed, because of COVID this process of creating the many documents that were required took us the better part of a year to accomplish, and unfortunately during that time I had some rather severe health issues, and my husband and I decided at some point that we might not want to proceed. That was several months ago. So we did in fact list the property for sale, but during that time we have come to see the drawings that you see and I’m actually in fact very excited about this prospect and we do intend to build. I’ve gotten to a point actually in my recovery that I am able to kind of focus on this again and move forward. So we do intend to build and it would only of course be a single family home. I believe the reference to the multi-family issue is that I think it is a permitted use that should someone purchase they could build a duplex on the site. MR. TRAVER-But you’re not proposing that. Correct? MRS. PHILLIPS-No, not at all, and as I’ve come to understand this design that Mr. Jarrett has done for us, it’s very specific to the footprint of the house that we intend. So there would be no way, obviously, to turn that into some other type of structure or two family or whatever. It’s designed as this two bedroom, two bath unit. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So there was also a question raised regarding whether or not you intended to have this as a rental property. MRS. PHILLIPS-No. As I stated, at one point we thought perhaps we would not move forward with the build when we were so kind of bogged down with the issues of COVID and the work that was taking quite a while and the other personal issues that we had, but we fully intend to, when it is built, we fully intend to move into it and live in it as our full time home and we have two married daughters with grandchildren we’d like to visit us on the property, but it really will just be a home for the two of us in our retirement. MR. TRAVER-And so the answer is, no, you would not intend to have this as a rental property? MRS. PHILLIPS-We would not use it as a rental property, no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Follow up questions, comments from members of the Board, and I don’t know, Tom, if you want to have any additional comments as well? MR. JARRETT-I do, but I’ll wait for the Board members to weigh in. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. VALENTINE-I just had two points here, Mr. Chairman. I’ve noticed the questions, there was a concern that the house or the property was for sale, and I don’t see how that would weigh into us to look at the property as to, if somebody’s going to build it, there’s going to be a spec house sitting there, it doesn’t play into the Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-And then the neighbor to the north talked about I believe she said she had been there for 30 years and said it’s very difficult to maneuver on a property this steep a slope, but she’s there, been there for 30 years. So I don’t see the difficulty, how that should sway us in the review of this parcel in itself if they have done it for 30 years on that property. MR. TRAVER-But it does go back to the remark I made about the nature of available property for building lots and how the engineering is required greater and greater effort and professionalism to overcome some of the obstacles like the steep slopes that we observe on this particular site. MR. VALENTINE-And with the S curves and stuff put into a slope like this to decrease that. There’s no way you could do a straight driveway on this, and you’re in areas that people have to blast to build because you’re in a mountain. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean if anybody’s gone hiking on Sleeping Beauty Mountain you know what the switchbacks are like. You go up on one straight away and you look down and you’re only about 10 feet above the place you just walked up. So, yes, it’s a similar concept. Thank you, Michael. Anyone else have any comments? MR. DEEB-Obviously the property is buildable. Somebody said it wasn’t buildable. MR. TRAVER-Well it is when Tom got through with it. MR. JARRETT-When Tom got through with it. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. DEEB-So I don’t know where that comments plays in. MRS. SCHNEIDER-Also our neighbor to the south is currently finishing the construction of their home. So they had recently built the home just directly to our south side of the property. So I mean they built it. I think it’s evident that it is quite buildable there. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Depending on the engineering. MS. WHITE-Also, depending on the size of the home, I think a lot of people are just wanting to build huge homes, and I appreciate that, and I appreciate that your project is very modest in size and appropriate. MR. JARRETT-Jamie, your point is very well taken that building a large home on this property would be very, very difficult and extremely expensive. Now weighing in on the development potential of these lots, the neighbor to the north is, Mrs. Phillips, is exactly correct in that it is difficult, not impossible, but difficult to build these, and of course the Gardners to the south, we did the engineering on that property as well. Both these properties are extremely difficult. It took an awful lot of time and effort to make them buildable. The thought I was going to suggest to Staff and the Board is that if a new subdivision comes through on a steep parcel, narrow lots do not work. As Mike alluded to, you need to build serpentine driveways, and narrow lots with very, very narrow building envelope do not work. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-The Gardners to the south, we moved the house, with a variance, closer to Old West Mountain Road to minimize the amount of driveway. This lot for Schneiders is a little bit wider and it already had a road roughed in, and the Schneiders did not want to go through the variance process. So we built the driveway that is compliant and the house is in a compliant location, but there is a little difficulty in doing it. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-Those are my thoughts. MR. VALENTINE-Mr. Chairman, I want to make a point that my comments about the neighbor to the north and that were not to take anything away from their 30 years-experience on their lot, but just to the point as Tom has said and you have said also that you can work with these. It’s just extenuating circumstances to be engineered. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you for that Michael.. That’s the way I certainly took your remarks to mean, and in the last 30 years certainly engineering has changed and so we shall see. MR. JARRETT-And I would weigh in on the blasting question. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was going to be the next question. I think the neighbor to the north did ask about that process and they’re worried about noise and debris I assume. MR. JARRETT-Yes. The proper way to do this is a pre-blasting plan and a pre-blasting survey, and we will be glad to add a note to the drawing that that be done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. My understanding is that they use these big heavy mats to minimize the noise and also certainly the debris to be done with what used to be called shake charges. I think thy have different terms for that now. MR. JARRETT-Technology has advanced a lot in recent years and of course they use closer hole spacing and lighter charging depending on the sensitivity of the site. That all goes into the blasting plan. MR. TRAVER-And my understanding is these days when that happens if you’re any distance away at all you don’t even know that it happened . MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. It can be done that way so you don’t even know the blast went off. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Al right. Thank you, Tom, for that. Anything else from members of the Board? Any further questions for Tom or the applicants? Do we feel comfortable going forward? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Yes. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. This is a Type II SEQR so there’s no need for a SEQR review. I think we have a draft resolution? MR. SHAFER-Did you close the public hearing, Steve? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I believe so, but thank you for that reminder, John, because as you know I don’t always remember to do that. So thank you. I see we have a draft motion. I’m not thinking that we need to add anything. I mean there was a discussion about the blasting plan, but the project engineer has offered to include that on the plans. So I think that. MR. DEEB-I’ll add that to the resolution because Tom offered. I’ll put it on. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, David. All right. Then I think we’re ready for that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 4-2021 ELISA & GLENN SCHNEIDER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a new home and associated site work including septic, driveway, etc. The new home is to be 1,220 sq. ft. footprint with main floor with three bedrooms and a basement garage area below. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction on 15% or greater slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/19/2021 and continued the public hearing to 01/19/2021, 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 01/19/2021; 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 4-2021 ELISA & GLENN SCHNEIDER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, 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 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. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) 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) A pre-blasting plan to be added to the site plan. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So you’re all set. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much and thanks for your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. So that concludes our regular agenda for this evening. I did want to take a moment to again say thanks on behalf of the Board to Laura and Craig and the Planning Staff for all the effort you put in to make this happen. I think it went pretty smoothly, perhaps more smoothly than some of us thought. Who knows how long we’re going to have to do this, but it does appear to be doable. So that’s encouraging. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions regarding the virtual nature of our meeting for next Tuesday? MR. DEEB-Laura, can you stay on with me for a minute or two after we’re done? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. th MR. VALENTINE-Laura, I have a question for you. On that training on the 16, that starts at 6:30. Is it only going until 7:00? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I have Jim and Nick from Soil & Water. They’re just going to do a simple presentation in regards to any updates in stormwater and any future, or what’s happening in today’s world with that, but it’s a requirement to do public meeting training and I like to include the Board members. Are you suggesting it be longer? MR. VALENTINE-I’m just thinking 6:30 to, yes, I am. MR. DEEB-Thanks, Mike. MR. VALENTINE-Well 6:30 we’re going to get started and, you know people get talking and stuff like that and it may be 6:35 before you get going, then you’ve got to get ready for 7:00 o’clock. MRS. MOORE-Then I would suggest 6:00 o’clock and if everybody’s on by 6:15 then we at least get 45 minutes, 30 to 45 minutes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you just check to make sure they can do that, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I will, and we can talk about it next Tuesday. That may work if that seems doable to folks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Works for me. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I talked to Laura earlier because Dave had a little problem getting on and I was trying to do it, and the way it’s been set up through the County, this is a Zoom. There’s usually a meeting number and a code, and the clerk of the board sends out a message the day before, this is going to be the meeting number and the pass code to get in. In that case if you can’t get in to the Town web by hitting the connect it goes the same way and then it waits for the host, which is Laura, to let us in. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2021) MR. TRAVER-Yes. Laura did send us such an e-mail. MR. VALENTINE-Right. MR. BROWN-When the meeting invite goes out, it’s a specific invite for each of you Board members, different than the public sees, and in that there’s a direct link to this meeting. There’s phone numbers to call in. We don’t require the meeting code or a password because it’s easier if we don’t do that, especially from the public side. So there’s no registration on purpose. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. If I wanted to use my other computer where my e-mail is not set up to the Town of Queensbury is what I wanted to use, and I could get into Zoom with that code and I’m not saying send it out to everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Brad, just forward Laura’s e-mail to your private e-mail, open it up in your other. That’s what I did. MS. WHITE-That’s what I did, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that works. MR. MAGOWAN-I didn’t think of that. Thank you guys. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that works. Anything else? All right. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. See you next week. Thank you, again, Laura. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 47