Loading...
02-23-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 49-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Site Plan No. 53-2019 APEX Capital, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29; 315.5-1-3.2; 315.5-1-2 Site Plan No. 10-2021 Michael Loughrey 8. Tax Map No. 239.16-1-7 Site Plan No. 8-2021 Meghan & Daniel Frazier 12. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-11 Site Plan No. 9-2021 Trevor Flynn 13. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48 Site Plan No. 7-2021 ADK Developers and Builders 15. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-52 Subdivision No. 1-2021 Jennifer Ball 16. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9.1; 266.1-1-8 Subdivision No. 2-2021 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No 18-2020 Jennifer Ball 22. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9.2 Subdivision No. 3-2021 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 19-2020 JP Gross Properties, LLC 25. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 307.-1-22 Subdivision No. 4-2021 FINAL STAGE 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 02/23/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-We’ll call the meeting to order. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board rd meeting for Tuesday, February 23, 2021. This is our second meeting for February, our fourth virtual th meeting during COVID, our 19 meeting during the Pandemic and our fourth meeting for 2021. We have one administrative item this evening, and we do a number of tablings. I will mention, we will table them as they come up on the agenda, but I will mention that we will be tabling the Frazier application, Site Plan Modification 8-2021, the Flynn application, Site Plan 9-2021, and Adirondack Developers and Builders, Site Plan 7-2021. So if any folks are tuning in to Zoom for the benefit of those agenda items, they will be tabled and heard in March and we’ll be detailing that as they come up on the agenda. So the first administrative item we have is Site Plan 49-2020, Jeffrey Godnick has requested further tabling. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SITE PLAN 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK FURTHER TABLING TO MARCH 23, 2021. MR. TRAVER-Laura. th MRS. MOORE-At this moment in time I’m going to ask you to table it to March 25. I do have some information in. I believe it’s going to be updated and at last week’s Zoning Board meeting they tabled them thth to the March 24 meeting . So it would be the March 25 Planning Board meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I believe we have a draft resolution to that effect, David. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant requests to maintain a 188 sq. ft., 10 ft. high shed to replace a shed that has been removed. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. (footprint) with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft., which includes 188 sq. ft. shed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tabled to the December 17, 2020 meeting. Tabled to the February 25, 2021 meeting. Applicant requests further tabling to March 25, 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon. Tabled until the March 25, 2021 Planning Board meeting. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and now we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is Tabled Items and the first item is APEX Capital, LLC, Site Plan 53-2019. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I – NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12/22/2020. APEX CAPITAL, LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A LANDSCAPE ARCH. DPC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC/MDR. LOCATION: 59 WEST MT. ROAD (MAIN); 47 & 53 WEST MT. RD. (PARKING). APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE WEST MOUNTAIN SKI AREA PARKING LOT, APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING MOUNTAIN BIKING VENUE, WARMING HUT AT BUNNY SLOPE, AND THEN A MOBILE TRAILER UNIT SEASONAL LOCATION FOR SKI PATROL/AERIAL ADVENTURE. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOWN BOARD REFERRAL FOR A PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PARCELS 315.5-1-3.2 AND 315.5-1-2 FROM MODERATE DENSITY TO RECREATION COMMERCIAL. THE PARCELS ARE TO BE USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-15-040 TOWN BOARD MAY REFER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION, AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A RECREATION CENTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-2002 CREATE 2 NONCONFORMING LOTS, SP 22- 2008 ADDITIONS & DECK, SP 34-2011 ALPINE SLIDE & ZIP FLYER, SP 61-2011 SHED ADDITION; SP 60-2018; PZ 584-2019 RE-ZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 382.34. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2 315.5-1-2. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application has been before the Town Board who did the zone change for the two parcels from MDR to Recreation Commercial and now we’re back before this Board in reference to expanding their parking lot and they have still some items to address with engineering, and I believe that can be handled. There’s only a couple of those items, and, Jon, since you’re on, is there anybody else? I have Spencer and Matt Huntington on. Is there anybody else that needs to be? MR. LAPPER-Jeff Anthony might be on. He’s at a Zoning Board meeting in Bolton, but he may be joining us if he gets done, but otherwise we’re all set with Matt and Spencer. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I’ll turn it over to Jon. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Good evening, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. As Laura said, since we were last before you two months ago, we’ve been to the Town Board and the re-zoning was approved. When we were last at the Planning Board you passed a recommendation for the re-zoning and also issued a SEQR Negative Declaration. So we’re now here after about a year of going through this and working with Chazen and modifying the project. We’re here for Site Plan Review. We just got a Chazen review letter on Friday and they were down to a couple of very technical minor issues on the HydroCad model. So we’re hoping that when we’re through tonight you’ll be able to pass a resolution to approve this subject to Chazen, but we addressed all, previously the neighbor concerns. We’re now putting in a four to five foot berm planted with mature trees on top to buffer the people on the south side. We have a new exit for this parcel which will relieve pressure on the one entrance where we have now onto West Mountain Road, and as we’ve explained and as you’ve acknowledged it’s just an important project to relieve pressure on the parking lot and to be able to accommodate the level of popularity they have now, especially on race days, where people have been parking on West Mountain Road. So I think that we’ve covered all the technical issues, but Spencer is here to answer any questions and Matt the engineer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Jon. Questions from members of the Planning Board? I know we’ve reviewed the fairly extensively. Looking at the date it goes back to 2009. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I had a question. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DIXON-So if we can just recap, why did we not request, or why are the other driveways not closed off or proposed to be closed off? So now we’ve got a total of four entrances and exits onto West Mountain Road. Was there a possibility of that going to the homes that are going to be re-purposed that the driveways could go into the parking lot instead of West Mountain Road? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s a good question. I do remember some discussion about the curb cuts, and I think it was to facilitate queuing and traffic flow in and out of the parking area during busy times, but I’ll leave that to the project staff to respond to unless any of the other Planning Board have comment. MR. LAPPER-Spencer, do you want to respond to that, about the driveways for the two homes? SPENCER MONTGOMERY MR. MONTGOMERY-Sure. So the homes kind of function independently to the parking lot expansion. A member of the community had some to one of the meetings early on and said, you know, he supported West Mountain. He was across the road and his concern was the fact that there were some accidents and bottlenecks at the exit. So obviously logically if you think about it, people come in to the Mountain throughout the day. So the flow in is sort of a trickling in effect and everybody kind of leaves at the same time, especially after an event like Fire on the Mountain or something like that. So that’s why we had that issue with the exit was that, you know, everyone trickles in over the day. So that works fine having one entrance, and then everyone leaves all at once when we close, and that was causing some issues. So we put the extra exit in. Now the two homes themselves are currently functioning as homes, and have their own private driveways, but there’s not much traffic in and out of those. There’s a family renting the old Brandt home, which by the way used to be part of the Ski Center. Mike had sold that off I think in ’97. So we’re sort of just bringing that back home, and that’s being rented by a family who’s participating in our West Mountain racing academy, and that’s kind of what we would like to use that house for or we envision using it for, and then the other house is being used for employee housing. Steve Lathrop, he’s our race program director who joined us three years ago who’s done a really nice job with the program, and he just signed another two year contract with us. So he uses the smaller home at 43 West Mountain Road as a private residence. So again I don’t think there’s much traffic other than he and maybe his daughters when they come visit going in and out of that driveway. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-So then if I understand you right, obviously you’re looking to keep a smooth flow of traffic. That’s why you had the extra curb cuts. I’ve seen it at night when it gets pretty crowded, and you can get a bottleneck in there. So I think it would be advantageous to have that extra curb cut. MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. Everybody leaves at once. So it’s tough having them all go out one exit. It really jams up West Mountain Road and we’ve had a fair number of accidents there. MR. DIXON-So the house to the north, that’s going to remain rental property? MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes. I mean there’s two houses. There’s the one which is north, that is the old Brandt house, right on the actual parking lot that Mike had sold off in ’97, and we have a family in there renting that this year that is part of our West Mountain racing academy. I mean our goal long term is to have a winter term boarding academy at West Mountain that would use the Queensbury School system in that it is an International baccalaureate accredited school. We wouldn’t be a full-fledged boarding academy, but we would be able to offer a winter term. So that’s kind of the concept for that. There’s the house. There’s the original farmhouse which is up front, and then there’s the addition that was put on years ago, which are kind of like two big great rooms, and then there’s the old barn that we’d like to use probably for a weight room or a ski tuning room, and then the much smaller house, about 1200 square feet, is the 43 West Mountain Road that primarily the parking’s being done behind, and that’s rented by Steve Lathrop right now and as long as he’s with us he’ll be there or we would probably have, if he were ever to leave, normally when people come to run a race program for you they expect housing. So he’s staying there. So for them to have new driveways backed into the main parking lot, I don’t think that would help West Mountain Road much because I just don’t think there’s much coming in and out of those houses. MR. HUNSINGER-And just to clarify, the new access into the new parking area, is that exit only? MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, we would designate that as an exit only. Correct. The problem is right now our entrance and exit are very close, and it’s gotten better, We’ve put up a lot of signage, but people still pull in to the exit occasionally, but this would differentiate itself a lot easier than the other ones that are right next to each other and have the main parking lot. So people see the Ski Center and they just turn right in as soon as they see it. As where this one was here before you actually got a visual of the ski area. MR. HUNSINGER-And then one of the comments from the last public hearing is people were concerned about buses parking in that parking area, and I believe you said that there was designated bus parking in the main lot. MR. LAPPER-Not in this lot. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. MONTGOMERY-Correct. In the new lot as you can see the way it’s lined, that’s lined for vehicles. Buses would remain in the old lot. So they currently park, well they park wherever they can get a spot right now, but someday we may fill in that pond at the other end. It’s not a naturally occurring pond. It was put in for snow making and working with the Town of Queensbury we stopped pulling water out of that. We use 100% Queensbury water now. So that was a thought, but until then that would lay out pretty nicely for four, five, ten buses to pull in, but that’s a ways down the road, and not to muddy the waters, the bus parking currently would be in the old parking lot. We don’t have any intention of putting buses idling in the new parking lot, and I had actually discussed that with Mr. Bishop, and there’s no intention to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other initial questions or comments from the Board before we go to the public hearing? Okay. All right. Then we’ll go ahead and open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Planning Board on this application, Site Plan 53-2019 for APEX Capital? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-I have one from Cindy Bishop. She can raise her hand or I can let her come in. I think there’s a Cindy on the attendee’s list. If she wants to read that, come forward and see if she would like to speak. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and we cannot see that attendee’s list because we’re not running the meeting, Laura. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that we can’t tell if there’s somebody that’s. MRS. MOORE-So, Cindy, if you are looking to speak on the West Mountain project, you can unmute, or if you’d like me to read your letter, you can just unmute and let me know that I can read that letter in. This will take a minute. Hi, Cindy. CINDY BISHOP MRS. BISHOP-Hi. Please, you’re welcome to read my letter. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I will do that, then. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Cindy. MRS. MOORE-So this is from Steve and Cindy Bishop. This is from 37 West Mountain Road. “We are property owners directly south of the parking lot expansion site. We’d like to take this opportunity to emphasize some of our neighbors’ previous comments and add some of our own. We would like to see specific notes as part of the project documents detailing such things as: 1) How regulating the use (personal vehicles only) will be accomplished. 2) How lighting will be restricted. 3) The means by which the overflow parking will be delineated and thereby restricted. We are concerned that no regulation will lead to full time use. We have had West Mt. customers wander into our fenced in back yard even with no lot expansion. Also, a note could be included in the project documents about maintenance of the earthen vegetated berm to help assure long term privacy and security for neighbors. Project documents also could state the SWPPP post construction inspection schedule. Our concern is that the planned sediment ponds on the east portion of the existing gravel parking and on the overflow parking area will require yearly maintenance to render them fully functional. We thank you for listening to our comments.” And this is from Steve and Cindy Bishop. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Are there other written comments? MRS. MOORE-There were no other written comments, but I’ll ask again those who are attendees, if they wish to raise their hand, there’s a function in the lower left hand corner, they can do that and I can put them in to speak. And again I don’t see anybody raising their hand. I just wanted to offer that opportunity. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Sure. MR. LAPPER-If there’s nobody else, I’d like to ask Matt Huntington to respond. We’ve been dealing with Chazen, of course, on the stormwater plan and maintenance for the berm, and certainly no bus parking in that parking lot. We’d offer that as a condition. MR. TRAVER-Hang on one second, Jon. So are you still seeing no one, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Nobody’s raising their hand. Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And, Jon, you can go ahead and elicit a respond to that public comment. MR. LAPPER-So I’m going to ask Matt to weigh in about the SWPPP because we’ve been dealing with Chazen on that in terms of maintenance and also maintenance of the berm and the trees which Queensbury of course requires that if they die we have to replace them and Bruce Frank would let us know and let’s start with that, but we’ve also offered a condition that we won’t have bus parking in that lot as well. MR. TRAVER-All right. What about lighting, Jon? MR. LAPPER-And Matt can address that also. That’s in our papers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNTINGTON-Great. Good evening, Board members. Matt Huntington here, and we can address, we’ll start with the stormwater. We’ve gone through a pretty intensive review with the Town’s Engineer on this and we’ve whittled it down to a very few minor comments. I mean one of them is as minimal as, you know, we just had a typo on the plans where we call a swale one foot deep and it should be two feet is how we modeled it. Regarding the maintenance of the basin, actually this project is subject to a DEC SPDES permit during construction. So as part of that and as part of the Town of Queensbury stormwater regulations, there’s a maintenance agreement that’ll actually be filed as part of the deed for this property that requires maintenance of stormwater ponds and in that section if for some reason they’re not maintained, that’s when the Town could come in and maintain it. However, I would say that the maintenance on these things should be pretty minimal. When we did our test pits on the site, the existing soils really lend themselves well to stormwater infiltration and management. So unless you get an excess of sediment build up which is highly unlikely due to the slopes of the parking lot, the maintenance is going to be pretty minimal along the stormwater end. All of our modeling is drastically reduced . The off-site flows for the existing conditions on the order of maybe ten times the, in some cases there’s really, on the northern pond there’s actually no stormwater leaving that basin from our calculations. And then regarding the landscape berm maintenance, you know, we have standard notes regarding the planting maintenance that will be on our plans as Jon said. The Town of Queensbury’s regulations require replacement of anything that dies in that area. Moving on to the lighting, The lighting components that are proposed are all LED fixtures. We actually have a photometric plan as part of this package. There’s no light spill over not any adjacent properties at all. So all the lights are contained, those LED fixtures, they come with like blocking panels that you can install on the back and the sides of the fixtures just to ensure that there’s no light spillover. So the parking lot lighting shouldn’t be an issue. The berm should really block any headlights. It’s high. We have some pretty substantial plantings proposed within that berm. We have some hemlocks planted in there, some red maples that, you know, those things reach 10 feet high or so, and also some shrubs and a berm. So it’s going to be very dense vegetation within 50 feet of the property line with the berm there. So lighting really shouldn’t be a concern. Stormwater maintenance, it’s our usual. We’re going to have a maintenance agreement. Also the inspection of these things is required by the Town of Queensbury and the DEC. So we’ll be on site during construction to ensure that the post construction stormwater practice is going according to plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Now with regard to the lighting, this is to be an overflow lot, right? So I assume that the lighting is not going to be on automatically or all the time, only when needed. MR. HUNTINGTON-That is how we left it the last meeting that we had there. I’ll let Spencer weigh in if anything’s changed on that, but I believe that was the intention. MR. MONTGOMERY-We had originally, to the best of my knowledge, the last time that this came up at the Planning Board, we had modified the use of it. We were going to put the exit in. The exit was not in there originally. So we re-did the plans and we were going to direct our employees to park over there. Now I can’t guarantee that the patrons won’t park there as well. Obviously will when it’s full, but we had gone back from the original conception and we had added the exit. That was new since the first time we showed up, and we had added the designation of no buses, but the overflow concept was not, to my knowledge, and the last thing was not going to be something that was only going to be overflow lot. That was going to be an open lot so that we had the ability to have employees park over there so that the patrons could park closer to the ski area. So I would guess that that lot would be lit during any operating hours, which we close at nine o’clock on weekdays, six on weekends, and we could set timers up that the lights shut off after that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DIXON-Laura, are you able to pull up the lighting plan? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. MONTGOMERY-And just to continue, just to clarify, I hope I didn’t confuse anyone. The exit will be an operating exit. It wasn’t going to be shut off. It was put in to address the concern of the bottlenecking on West Mountain Road. So the lot was not going to be closed off except to buses. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. HUNTINGTON-Matt Huntington again. So you can see these contour lines, I’m sure the Board’s used to looking at these plans by now because they’re on almost every project, but they represent light intensities, and as you can see you really have nothing leaving the property line. MR. DIXON-Right. Now the lighting on West Mountain Road, though, or on West Mountain Road, is that projecting across the road? MR. LAPPER-We need that for safety. MR. DIXON-I’m just thinking there is a house directly across the street from that entrance that would line up probably with their, I’m guessing the living room. MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, no, we actually, we staggered that entrance so it’s not directly across from anyone’s house. It’s in between. So you shouldn’t get any headlights in your actual window at night. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Other questions or comments from members of the Board? We have spent a lot of time on this project, as has the applicant obviously. Let’s see, we handled the SEQR review under SEQR back in December and that was a Negative Declaration. So if there are no other questions, I guess we’re ready for a motion. MRS. MOORE-David, you need to unmute yourself, and before he does, as he’s doing that, I just want to point out it sounds like there may be some conditions, such as whether you put a note on the plans that no bus parking near the berm lot, and then possibly signage on the parcel with the berm lot for exit only, and then noting that there’s timers for those lights to be turned off, only on during business hours. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, I’m sorry, I had a question on the lights. I just realized I was on mute. I was wondering why it wasn’t answered. On the lighting plan it shows the poles are 23 feet tall. Town Code limits the height of poles to 20, and I couldn’t remember how we left that the last time we discussed it. MR. TRAVER-I don’t remember discussing that, but Code is Code. Right? I’m not sure that that’s. MR. LAPPER-Matt, do you have a response to that? MR. HUNTINGTON-If Laura could zoom over to the light pole cut sheet. That might have just been a standard cut sheet. Those pole heights come in really any size. So what would happen, we’re going to require a submittal prior to manufacturing and actually ordering these things. So we’d have to highlight the actual height of the pole and it would have to be approved prior, and we can add some notes to our drawings stating a 20 foot maximum. I think what that is, like I said, they come, the SSS, the Square Straight Steel, comes in various heights, up to 30 plus feet or so. MR. HUNSINGER-The height is actually on the photometric plan. If she moved over to the actual plan itself where the poles are located. MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. If anything now with the reduction in height you’re actually going to bring those light intensities closer. So there’s even going to be less of a minimal spillover that’s there, but we’ll update that plan prior to construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNTINGTON-No problem. MR. TRAVER-Is David with us? MR. DEEB-Yes. Okay. Laura, I missed the first two conditions. Something about the berm and the buses. MRS. MOORE-Right. So you might want to add a condition, or it sounds like that you want no bus parking where the berm lot is, and I don’t know how to describe that any better. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that that describes it. It’s the overflow parking. Light poles not to exceed 20 feet. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. DEEB-And timers. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. Timers to be adjusted to match the operating hours. MR. MONTGOMERY-If I could just say something. If we close at nine, normally people trickle out, walk to their cars. So we’d probably need an hour buffer for the timers on the lights. Maybe we could do 30 minutes, but you know people, if we close at nine and then they’re walking out to their cars normally. So might have misspoke earlier when I said we could shut them off right at closing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think a half an hour is adequate. So we can say a half an hour after the closing time. Then we have the one curb cut is to be marked exit only. MR. MONTGOMERY-Okay. MR. DEEB-Which curb cut is that? MR. LAPPER-The southern curb cut. MR. SHAFER-To the new lot, David. MR. TRAVER-And I think that’s all that I had written down. So we have the lighting. MR. DEEB-We’ve got lighting, timers, bus parking and curb cut. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that covers it. Did we miss anything, Laura, that you can think of? MRS. MOORE-Well, he can go through it, and if there’s something I’ll catch it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That sounds like a plan. Go right ahead, David. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes expansion of the West Mountain Ski Area parking lot, approval of an existing mountain biking venue, warming hut at bunny slope, and then a mobile trailer unit seasonal location for ski patrol/aerial adventure. Project also includes a Town Board referral for a Petition for Zone Change parcels 315.5-1-3.2 and 315.5-1-2 from Moderate Density to Recreation Commercial. The parcels are to be used for overflow parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-040 Town Board may refer proposed amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation, and Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a recreation center shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/24/2019 and continued the public hearing to 02/23/2021, 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 02/23/2021; 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 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) No bus parking where berm lot is located, which is the overflow parking. m) Timers to be installed on lighting to shut off one half hour after closing time. n) Light poles to be Code compliant with a 20 foot maximum. o) Southern curb cut to the new lot to be exit only. rd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right, gentlemen, you’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. MONTGOMERY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNTINGTON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business, the first item being Michael Loughrey, Site Plan 10-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL LOUGHREY. AGENT(S): CULLEN FULLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 11 SIGN POST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 169 SQ. FT. OF NEW LIVING SPACE ON UPPER LEVEL OF EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 706 SQ. FT. WITH 81 SQ. FT. DECK/PORCH AREA (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,372 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED 1,541 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2010-226 DOCK, 2010-512 DOCK, SEP-0778-2020, AV 9-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .85 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-7. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant was before the Zoning Board last week. He received the variance for expanding an upper level living area of 169 square feet. There was a setback variance and I believe that is all we have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is someone here? I see Mr. Hall. MR. FULLER-No, this is Cullen Fuller with Rucinski Hall Architecture. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you received the variance from the ZBA. Was there any change to your project as a result of that discussion? MR. FULLER-No. They were pretty good with everything that we had presented. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Before we open that up I will go ahead and offer an opportunity to members of the Board to ask questions or add comment to this application. MRS. MOORE-Cullen, was there supposed to be anybody else on this call? MR. FULLER-No, I’m the only one on our end. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’ll go ahead and open a public hearing on this application. This is for the Loughrey application, Site Plan 10-2021. Do we have any, are there any folks that want to make comment to the Planning Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-If you’re in the audience and you wish to speak, could you raise your hand so that I know that you’re wishing to speak on this application? Right now I don’t see anybody raising their hand. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’ll give them a minute to do that, and ask is there any written comment, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, and I’ll just note that I had suggested that the Board discuss a little more information on the stormwater management. Cullen, I know you had maybe some other suggestions about that or I believe it was in reference to additional plantings. Is that corrects? MR. FULLER-I can touch a little bit on the previous meeting as far as what the Waterkeeper had mentioned, if you’d like me to do so. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, first, we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And then go ahead and talk to us about the plantings and stormwater and so on if you would. MR. FULLER-Okay. Well, would you like to let me know when to speak or is it closed down at this point? MR. TRAVER-The public hearing is closed. MR. FULLER-Okay. All right. Great. Well, during the last meeting the Waterkeeper had mentioned something about the opportunity for this site to be brought up to the standards that are currently being held amongst new developments and that sort of thing around the lake which is totally understandable. As far as this project goes, since we are not disturbing anything on the property, we are really not actually going to be adding additional stormwater. The stormwater that currently would be subjected to the lake from this piece of property. I would have to say it would most likely be from Route 9L and if you look at the actual site plan, until you get to the house it is a heavily, heavily dense forest area. Nothing’s coming down through there without being filtered through what’s already a natural filter situation in that aspect. The additional stormwater runoff from the roof that we were proposing is actually going to be above a 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) natural, pre-existing retaining wall that, it’s quite a, the site really lends itself out to be really accommodating for stormwater per se. In the front of the property, it is tiered. There are a lot of plantings. We can add eaves trenches where applicable. There is a lot of stonework around the actual property, but the owners of the property really would, they would not object to any type of eaves trench or something of that nature. My only concern would be it would be disturbing pre-existing I mean there’s no grassed areas. There’s no phosphates. There’s nothing, there’s no added basically any type of product that would actually make it to the water. So I really do believe what they have currently is acceptable. When they did the dock renovation, he did mention to me, which I found kind of unusual, they had to abide by new standards as far as all the site plan plantings and that sort of thing, which I thought was kind of unusual, but he would have had, I don’t think he would have had any understanding or any prior knowledge that he actually had to do that other than if he was required to, but there is nothing on file for it, but if you look at the property, I mean it’s kind of tough right now. There are additional photos of the property that aren’t on this site plan that kind of indicate the tier system and the plantings that are currently there. Unfortunately this is a, I’m not sure it’s an outdated site plan, but there are some other pictures that I can actually pull up if need be, but the site is actually quite accommodating to stormwater as is, and again like I said they would be willing to add eaves trenches if need be. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Laura, I know you have some concerns. Can you expound on your concerns about the plantings? MRS. MOORE-It was merely because the applicant didn’t provide any additional information and we typically require some sort of, for new construction, require some information about how they’re going to handle stormwater identified, and I didn’t realize this. The way that roof overhangs it’s hitting the retaining wall first and then going into the ground there, and then in reference to plantings, that’s something I obviously put into most applications so that the Board can identify whether it’s an area of concern, and again we don’t necessarily want people to create new disturbance. I tried to pull up some of the photos that he had on the plan to show you that, yes, there is some vegetation here. I do have the GIS map that I can also pull up if you want to see that information, but he’s described that the site has existing features that are totally wooded and really it’s a discussion with the Board whether you wish to see additional landscaping or is there a stormwater issue? Is it going to end up going into the water untreated. MR. DEEB-He did offer some type of remediation. Was it a swale or, what was it you offered? MR. TRAVER-Eaves trenches I think. MR. VALENTINE-That’s what Laura had mentioned in her note was eaves trenches and I’m looking at the one, Laura, you just had up there with the photos, but I’m looking at the elevation sheet. To the applicant I‘m just saying that right side elevation, that’s what caught my attention was the drip line on that, looking as if, the drip line is right on a sloped area from that cut, and I don’t know what picture corresponds with that elevation. Can you tell me that? MR. FULLER-Laura, could you zoom out a little bit. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FULLER-That slope there is actually retaining wall. That angle is very much dramatized. It’s really not as much of a slope as it indicates there. Further up on the page, I guess you have to go to the site plan. I’m sorry. MR. TRAVER-Is there a concern that that flow from the roof is going to damage that retaining wall? MR. VALENTINE-Well that was my question last week and I had talked to Laura about it beforehand, but we were meeting mainly for the variance last week so I didn’t draw it into the meeting, but that was the concern I was looking at was not knowing what the intensity of that rain coming off ad what’s underneath it Because I couldn’t tell from the photographs. MR. FULLER-That roof is going to be very, very flat. So there isn’t going to be a tremendous amount of fast runoff, at least it’s not going to be fast enough to make any detrimental impact on that retaining wall. That retaining wall is quite old. With that being said, it’s solid and what’s beyond it is a walkway as well, but again the roof is practically a 1 on 12. MR. TRAVER-So would it be appropriate to maybe gutter that edge? MR. FULLER-Absolutely. That wouldn’t be an issue at all. MR. VALENTINE-All right. That was the recommendation that I was going to bring up. Steve, I would agree with that. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-I feel that’s a good idea also. MR. DIXON-How many plantings are on top of that, if any? MR. FULLER-That’s all just wooded area. There’s really no plantings up there. Again, they wouldn’t object to any type of plantings if required, but if it’s undisturbed, and again in the end if it was guttered it would be beneficial to maybe leave it alone. MR. DIXON-From the picture, and I get everybody’s concern, it looks like the water’s going to run off, hit the berm and come right back into the house as well, too. MR. TRAVER-I think if it’s diverted through a gutter system that probably would work. Any other concerns? MR. DEEB-Where are we going to end the gutter into, what side? MR. FULLER-We can downspout it to the north. MR. VALENTINE-Well it would be to that new roof on the roadside elevation, right? MR. FULLER-Probably into a stone bed of some type. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-New roof on the roadside? MR. VALENTINE-That’s what I’m looking at. Is that correct is what I’m asking the applicant. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So then that roofline to be guttered and diverted into, what would we call that, Laura, a stone. MR. FULLER-Infiltration trench. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Are we ready with that motion? MR. DEEB-I think we are. I’m sorry. One more question. Do you think the plantings are substantial, that we don’t require any new plantings? I want to make sure we’re okay with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it’s largely undisturbed. MR. DEEB-I know it’s undisturbed, but all right. I just wanted to make sure. MR. TRAVER-I hadn’t heard that issue raised by members of the Board, but we can certainly ask again. Does anyone feel that there needs to be additional plantings? MR. VALENTINE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a really good tree canopy over the site. MR. DEEB-Yes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we had everything done. MR. TRAVER-Good question, David. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 10-2021 MICHAEL LOUGHREY 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 169 sq. ft. of new living space on upper level of existing home. The existing home is 706 sq. ft. with 81 sq. ft. deck/porch area (footprint) with a floor area of 1,372 sq. ft. and proposed 1,541 sq. ft. floor area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 02/16/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 02/17/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 02/23/2021 and continued the public hearing to 02/23/2021, 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 02/23/2021; 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 10-2021 MICHAEL LOUGHREY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Gutters to be added to the new roof line on the roadside and water to be diverted into a stone infiltration trench. rd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set. MR. FULLER-All right. Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next on our agenda, also under Old Business, is Meghan & Daniel Frazier, Site Plan Modification 8-2021. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 8-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENG., MR. FULLER- O’CONNOR, WINTERGREEN LANDSCAPE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SHORE ACRES ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN TO NOT INSTALL A PROPOSED WATER FEATURE OF 3,230 SQ. FT. AND INSTEAD INSTALL A POOL AND PATIO AREA OF 1,405 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE HOUSE AND GARAGE (4,915 SQ. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) FT.), PORTE-COCHERE (360 SQ. FT.), BUNKHOUSE (500 FT.), PATIO, SPORT COURT AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITEWORK (8,860 SQ. FT.). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVE SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR POOL LOCATION. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 81-2019, AV 60-2019, AV 6-2021. WARREN CO. PLANNING: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-11. SECTION: 179-9-120. MR. TRAVER-:Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application was tabled at the Zoning Board meeting in reference to having additional information provided about the pool area and they tabled it to their first meeting in April, and th so I’m asking the Planning Board to table it to the April 27 meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we will note that there is a public hearing on this application. The application is going to be amended or changed in some fashion that we will see in April. So we will open a public hearing, and that public hearing will be open in April when we see the updated application, and we will take public comment at that time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And I believe we have a draft tabling motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP MOD. # 8-2021 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER Applicant proposes a modification to an approved plan to not install a proposed water feature of 3,230 sq. ft. and instead to install a pool and patio area of 1,405 sq. ft. There are no changes to the house and garage (4,915 sq. ft.), porte-cochere (360 sq. ft.), bunkhouse (500 sq. ft.), patio, sport court and other associated sitework (8,860 sq. ft.). Pursuant to Chapter 179- 9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 8-2021 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Tabled until the April 27, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by March 15, 2021. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have Trevor Flynn, which is Site Plan 9-2021. This application is to be tabled as well. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TREVOR FLYNN. AGENT(S): BRANDON FERGUSON, EDP; JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): DANIEL GRASMEDER. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3222 RT. 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 884 SQ. FT. LIVING ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, A 436 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BREEZEWAY/MUDROOM ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME CONNECTING THE EXISTING 1,315 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MASTER BEDROOM THEN ALTERATIONS TO THE THIRD FLOOR TO INCLUDE A 48 SQ. FT. STUDY NOOK AND A NEW ROOF OVER THE EXISTING BATHROOM AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITH THE UPPER LEVEL OF 1,344 SQ. FT. AND THE LOWER LEVEL OF 786 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: 2, 172 SQ. FT. HOUSE AND 1,315 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,582 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 AND 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR REA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SHORELINE SETBACK OF MAIN HOME, HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATION S TO T HE MAIN HOME AND TO THE NEW SECOND GARAGE, NUMBER OF GARAGES, SIZE OF GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF STALLS FOR A GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) REFERENCE: AV 43-2002, AV 27-2002, AV 76-2002, ALL RE: GARAGE/GUEST COTTAGE; AV 8-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6- 060, CHAPTER 147. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is an application for a two lot subdivision with a boundary lot line adjustment and the other evening with the Zoning Board It was in reference to the two garages, and so the Board requested them to make some modifications which they did at that meeting. They reduced the garage size and removed the carport overhangs, and so that is no longer part of their project, but having a second garage is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s interesting. All right. Now what is their date for providing you with new information, Laura? This is going to be heard next month. Right? MR. DEEB-I was going to ask the same question. MS. WHITE-You guys are talking about two different projects here. You’re talking about the Ball and what’s next on the agenda is the Flynn. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. MS. WHITE-That’s okay. I just wanted to point it out. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. That’s very helpful. I apologize. Let me go skip back up a little bit. So in reference to the Grasmeder application. MR. TRAVER-Trevor Flynn. MR. VALENTINE-Trevor Flynn. MS. WHITE-No, that’s the Grasmeder. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the applicant is, Flynn is the project manager and Grasmeder is the actual th applicant. So in reference to that project, it is being tabled. You should be tabling it to March 25. The Zoning Board had some questions in regards to the second garage and its size and the number of bays. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and so when do they need to provide you with those updated plans if it’s going to be heard on the 25th? MRS. MOORE-So I’ve seen the application materials that they have for the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board will hear that tomorrow night. So they already have that package ready to go. Unless the Zoning Board doesn’t pass it. MR. DEEB-So there will be no new submission. MRS. MOORE-There will be a new submission to this Board, yes, and it’s already in the works. So you will get it as part of your package if it gets past the Zoning Board. MR. DEEB-We won’t put the date in there with information due by. MR. TRAVER-Right. Also, be aware this application also has a public hearing scheduled for this evening, but as the previous application, this is now going to be a modified application and will be heard next month. So we will open the public hearing and we will take public comment on this application in its th modified form when it’s presented anew to this Board on the 25 of March. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-So with that I think we’re ready for a tabling motion, David. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 9-2021 TREVOR FLYNN Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes interior alterations on the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to includes a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the upper level of 1,344 sq. ft. and the lower level of 786 sq. ft. Existing building footprints: 2,172 sq. ft. house and 1,315 sq. ft. detached garage. New floor area to be 6,582 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) 179-3-040, 179-13-010 and 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and expansion of a non-conforming structure and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 9-2021 TREVOR FLYNN (D. GRASMEDER). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Tabled until the March 25, 2021 Planning Board meeting. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shafer ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda is ADK Developers and Builders, Site Plan 7-2021. This application is to be tabled as well. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ADK DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. AGENT(S): DEVIN DICKINSON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 123 SEELYE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 4,709 SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,440 SQ. FT. WITH 514 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 5,108 SQ. FT. HOME INCLUDING AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND TO MAINTAIN A 720 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. SITE WORK IS PROPOSED FOR MUCH OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE DRIVEWAY AREA, SEPTIC SYSTEM, NEW HOME WITH A DECK AND SITE PLANTINGS AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SETBACKS AND SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. ND CROSS REFERENCE: AV 25-1991 ADDITION; AV 17-1996, SP 3-1993, SP 10-1996 ALL RE: 2 STORY; AV 5-2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .59 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-52. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-020. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This one the Zoning Board is seeing this tomorrow evening. There’s some updates to this th project, and so I’m asking you to table it until March 16. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and is there a deadline for submitting new material or do they already have that prepared? MRS. MOORE-They already have it prepared. So you will receive that if they are finished up with the Zoning Board tomorrow evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and again this was scheduled for a public hearing this evening. The project is going to be changing and will be heard finally by this Board March 16. So we will open the public hearing for this project and take public comment at the March meeting at that time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And we’re ready to entertain a motion, David. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 7-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS Applicant proposes to remove a 4,709 sq. ft. home and a 258 sq. ft. portion of the existing garage to construct a new home of 2,440 sq. ft. with 514 sq. ft. porch/deck area footprint with a floor area of 5,108 sq. ft. home including an attached garage and to maintain a 720 sq. ft. detached garage. Site work is proposed for much of the site to include driveway area, septic system, new home with a deck and site plantings and shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 7-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon. Tabled until the March 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next we have Jennifer Ball, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 1-2021 and Final Stage 2-2021. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2021 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JENNIFER BALL. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): PAMELA HARRIS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: PICKLE HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. PARCEL 266.2-2-9.1 IS 16 ACRES – LOT 1 TO BE 12 ACRES AND LOT 2 TO BE 3 ACRES. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH PARCEL 266.1-1-8 AND THAT IS 0.64 ACRE AND ADD 1.00 ACRE FOR TOTAL OF 1.64 ACRES. LOT 1 HAS AN EXISTING GARAGE OF 2,400 SQ. FT. ON SITE THAT IS TO REMAIN AND TO BE EXPANDED WITH 1680 SQ. FT. ROOF SECTIONS, TOTAL TO BE 4,080 SQ. FT. ALSO A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON LOT 1. LOT 2 IS TO ALSO BE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 183, 147, 179-3- 040, 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, MAJOR STORMWATER AND NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: (PARCEL 1.8) – AV 61-1990, NOA 2-2013, SUB (S) 17-2020, AV 11-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 16 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9.1, 266.1-1-8. SECTION: CHAPTERS 183, 147, 179-3-040, 179-5- 020. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So I’ll repeat what I said earlier. I apologize for skipping ahead. Again it’s a two lot subdivision. It has a boundary line adjustment. One of the things that went to the Zoning Board was the two garages and the reference to the second garage that is at the roadside. The Zoning Board had suggested some modification. The removal of the two carport areas on either side of that was part of that modification. So now it is only a garage as is with some exterior façade renovations to that. MR. TRAVER-That’s interesting. Okay. Thank you, and is there a representative here? MRS. MOORE-I have Lucas. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m only seeing three other cameras on my screen right now. MRS. MOORE-So if you see the nine dots, if you want to click on the nine dots in that video screen, you can update so you can see all of them, and then you can expand that entire window. You can make it as big as you want. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see that now. Thank you, Laura. We’re getting better at this all the time. All right. So tell us about your project if you would. MR. DOBIE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. We were on last week with you folks for our recommendation to the Zoning Board so we could discuss the project, nice cursory overview. Just to re-cap I’ll begin briefly. It’s a two lot subdivision for my client Jennifer Ball who’s also on the Zoom meeting with us. She’s the contract buyer of the 16 acre parcel of Pam Harris which was her late husband’s excavating company, truck garage and lay down yard if you will, and my client proposes to renovate the existing garage. As Staff indicated, we gave up the carport additions to it as part of the negotiations with the Zoning Board and based on some of the neighbors’ comments. So those variances go away, and we received our variances to renovate the garage and maintain it as a second garage. It’ll be a beautiful structure when they’re done with it and otherwise we have a compliant two lot subdivision with respect to the density, lot widths, setbacks, etc. The applicant proposes to build their new home over the northerly portion of Lot 1, which will be 12 acres, and to maintain the garage. The commercial use goes away and it will be storage for themselves, in a residential 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) manner, and then Lot 2 is a three acre parcel over the southeasterly portion which is a saleable lot, fully compliant with our zoning, and also there’s, they negotiated a one acre boundary line adjustment with the westerly neighbor, Mr. Hutchinson, to help him out with more land and to situate as well upon his parcel after the reconfiguration. So again we’ve prepared and overall Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for this project and next project on the agenda which is also my client’s to the east, an overall comprehensive stormwater plan, and we do have a little bit of work to fine tune things with to get through Chazen. I’m fully confident we’ll be able to do that. I received the comments last Friday. I’ve been through them briefly and I didn’t see anything alarming in them that we can’t work out. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. One of the things I was going to ask you about in that letter had to do with the five acre limit for modification. Did you see that and can you comment on that? I wasn’t actually sure where that fit in. MR. DOBIE-Yes. As part of the DEC, the general stormwater permit, construction permit, has a limit of five acres of concurrent disturbance unless if it’s approved by the local municipality. So Queensbury does have the authority to approve that, and I can tell you now we’re going to put together a phasing plan to show that in two or three phases so we’d stay under the five acre threshold, just to limit liability on everybody, and I wasn’t able to prepare that for this package, but that’ll be my response to that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DOBIE-I’d also like to note this land is farmed every year, every spring. So it’s disturbed a good 10 acres every spring. As part of this we’ll be reclaiming all of that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well we’ll open it up to members of the Board for questions or comments. MR. VALENTINE-Lucas, was there any consideration given to two driveways on Pickle Hill having one curb cut? MR. DOBIE-Are you saying, Mr. Valentine, on the Lot One or are you saying a common driveway between Lot One and Lot Two? MR. VALENTINE-The latter. I’m looking at that, you have a turnaround in the driveway which, and this is just throwing out, if that driveway, right where that marking is, where you’re sharing the screen there, right there is that driveway, if that went straight up with a shared easement and went right and left to access both the, what was the commercial garage and the house driveway, and then it could pick up the other lot’s driveway also. I don’t know the traffic volume on Pickle Hill, if it matters that much or not to have one driveway versus two in that short distance. MR. DOBIE-Yes, we did think about that a little bit, Mr. Valentine. On Lot One there’s two existing road cuts now. We’re showing just re-shaping them. That’s in front of the garage or south of the garage, which allows a direct pull out, seldomly used, and then the easterly drive that’s there now has better sight distance east and west. To your point, if we were to use that, call it the middle driveway and put a “Y” in it or something, there is a fair amount of grade change. So we’re grading it to push the drainage to the north. So there is a substantial grade change through there that I’m not as happy with that layout as we have it proposed. It’s a pretty flat driveway for Lot Two. So nice straight shot in, and the volume on Pickle Hill Road is certainly nowhere near Bay Road or Ridge Road. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Thanks for the response. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I have a question regarding the driveway. With the length of the driveway and I don’t have anything in my notes, but does the Fire Marshal need to sign off on that due to the length? MR. TRAVER-That’s a good question. I’m not sure I know the answer to that. Do you have a comment, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don’t immediately. I’d have to check with the Fire Marshal. I don’t know the length that’s required for probably a turnaround or something. MR. TRAVER-There is a scenario where an emergency vehicle could turn around. So I know that is sometimes a concern. MR. VALENTINE-But you do have a turnaround created by the rear of that, what was the commercial garage. MR. TRAVER-Right, and there’s also one up by the house. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. DEEB-So there’s two. MR. TRAVER-Maybe, Laura, just for the record, maybe you could reach out to Mike Palmer and just, you know, double, double check. MRS. MOORE-I can do that. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing on this application. Let’s go ahead and open the public hearing and we’ll ask if there’s anyone that wanted to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-If there are people in the attendees, if they could raise their hand, or use the function to raise their hand, then I can let you in to speak. Right now I don’t see anybody raising their hand. I do have two letters that I can read into the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. By all means. MRS. MOORE-So “Greetings, Planning Board. We respectfully request denial of these applications as this subdivision will have substantial detrimental environmental effects in this community. It will allow commercial use and expansion, storage of mechanical equipment and vehicles containing fluids and exhausting combusted gases. It will add runoff from structures and parking areas. This subdivision does not comply with the intent of the RR-3A designation. Also, please consider the points made in our attached letter to the ZBA.” So this is Paul Davidson and Deborah Davidson, and they are at 236 Pickle Hill Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then this one’s addressed to “Dear Planning Board members: My name is Tom Kubricky. I have 2 lots that adjoin the property in which Pam Harris and Jen Ball would like to be approved on. I would like to see this approved. They have done a fabulous job throughout the last twenty-five years developing the Pickle Hill area.” And this is Thomas Kubricky. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. The one public comment it sounded like there was an assumption that this was going to be remaining a commercial. So I think that’s been adequately addressed by this application. Are you seeing any hands raised, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I do not see any hands raised. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let’s go ahead and close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Lucas, I don’t know if you have any, I guess there was only really the one letter that it sounded like they didn’t have complete information on the project and the other was in favor. I don’t know if you have anything else to add. MR. DOBIE-Not really, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, again, for the record the commercial use goes away and the carport’s gone away. So there’s no significant outdoor storage and there’s no commercial equipment or anything like that. It’s a residential project. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions from members of the Planning Board on this application? Okay. I think the draft resolution should be adequate for this. MR. DEEB-Steve, are we going to do SEQR? I have a resolution. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, David. This is Unlisted. So we have a draft SEQR resolution, and this is going from commercial to residential. I think that the environmental impact of this project will be positive, but I will ask if there are members of the Board that feel we need to do a more detailed review for environmental impacts. MR. VALENTINE-I do not believe so. MR. SHAFER-Not here. MR. TRAVER-So we have a draft resolution on SEQR as well, which we need to do first. Thank you, David. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. DOBIE-Mr. Chairman, I believe you just missed focus, for the record. I believe you said it’s an Unlisted Action. Isn’t a subdivision a Type I action for SEQR? I would ask Laura that just for the perfect clarity of the record is all. MRS. MOORE-I have it listed as Unlisted. I don’t have any reason to see it as a Type I. Okay. MR. VALENTINE-The only thing that would come up is if it was more than the acre of disturbance, and ‘m not sure what it is. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know if that necessarily triggers a Type I. MR. DOBIE-Okay. I’m not a SEQR expert. I apologize. I’m just recalling we did a Long Form for it. MRS. MOORE-Right. So there is a Long Form, and it’s supposed to be an Unlisted action. MR. DOBIE-Okay. Thank you for that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, both. I’m not hearing that any members of the Board are feeling that this has any negative environmental impacts. I mean it seems like, again, we’re going from a commercial operation to a residential. Stormwater is being managed. It seems as though it’s an environment improvement to me. Does anyone have any concerns that we need to consider for SEQR purposes. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, I’m looking at Google maps, and in the northeast corner I can’t tell if that’s a pond or if that’s standing water. Because I don’t see anything on the site plans denoting anything. MR. VALENTINE-Are you looking on the northeast of this two lot subdivision, Michael? MR. TRAVER-Yes, it might be outside this project. MR. DIXON-It looks like it’s within those boundaries. I’m not on the Town site. I’m on Google maps. MR. DOBIE-I can make that real simple. There is, in the spring of the year there’s a low area that collects some water and we did delineate that. It’s the northeasterly corner of Lot One. We delineated that in August with Adirondack Park Agency for a wetland area. It does not meet their one acre threshold, but we understand Queensbury regulates all wetlands. So we held our stormwater setbacks to that. That’s located, you’d have to zoom in a little bit. It’s right below where it says the Lands of Kubricky, their easterly lot. There’s what’s called a phantom line. That’s what shows up on the satellite imagery. See it says delineated wetlands 31,000 square feet. That’s that area that shows up on the satellite. Just to the east of there, Laura. Right in there. MR. VALENTINE-The lot line splits it then, right? MR. DOBIE-Correct. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but you’re not encroaching on that area. MR. DOBIE-No, you can see we’re holding a 100 foot setback, which is the dashed two arcs to our stormwater management in accordance with the Code. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good catch, Michael. So it does not sound to me that the existence of that undisturbed seasonal wet area is an environmental concern, but again I’ll open it up to members of the Board. Does anyone feel that that’s a SEQR concern? Okay. We have a draft motion, David, do we not? MR. DEEB-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB PRELIM STG. # 1-2021 JENNIFER BALL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision and a boundary line adjustment. Parcel 266.1-1-9.1 is 16 acres – Lot 1 to be 12 acres and Lot 2 to be 3 acres. Boundary line adjustment with parcel 266.1-1-8 that is 0.64 acre and add 1.00 acre for total of 1.64 acres. Lot 1 has an existing garage of 2,400 sq. ft. on site that is to remain and to be expanded with 1680 sq. ft. roof sections, total to be 4,080 sq. ft. Also a new single family home is to be constructed on Lot 1. Lot 2 is to also be developed with a single family home. Pursuant to Chapters 183, 147, 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land, major stormwater and new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2021 JENNIFER BALL (PAMELA HARRIS). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the _____EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the _____ is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All; right, and next we can consider the subdivision. Do we need to do Preliminary Stage and then Final stage on this? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes, we haven’t done Preliminary yet. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, we just did SEQR. MR. DEEB-So if you’re ready. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’re ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB. PRELIM. STG. # 1-2021 JENNIFER BALL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision and a boundary line adjustment. Parcel 266.1-1-9.1 is 16 acres – Lot 1 to be 12 acres and Lot 2 to be 3 acres. Boundary line adjustment with parcel 266.1-1-8 that is 0.64 acre and add 1.00 acre for total of 1.64 acres. Lot 1 has an existing garage of 2,400 sq. ft. on site that is to remain and to be expanded with 1680 sq. ft. roof sections, total to be 4,080 sq. ft. Also a new single family home is to be constructed on Lot 1. Lot 2 is to also be developed with a single family home. Pursuant to Chapters 183, 147, 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land, major stormwater and new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 2/16/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 02/17/2021; 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) A public hearing was scheduled and held on 02/23/2021; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2021 JENNIFER BALL (PAMELA HARRIS), Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. rd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we can move to Final Stage subdivision approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB. FINAL STG. # 2-2021 JENNIFER BALL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision and a boundary line adjustment. Parcel 266.1-1-9.1 is 16 acres – Lot 1 to be 12 acres and Lot 2 to be 3 acres. Boundary line adjustment with parcel 266.1-1-8 that is 0.64 acre and add 1.00 acre for total of 1.64 acres. Lot 1 has an existing garage of 2,400 sq. ft. on site that is to remain and to be expanded with 1680 sq. ft. roof sections, total to be 4,080 sq. ft. Also a new single family home is to be constructed on Lot 1. Lot 2 is to also be developed with a single family home. Pursuant to Chapters 183, 147, 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land, major stormwater and new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 2-2021 JENNIFER BALL (PAMELA HARRIS). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: no waivers have been requested. 3. 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. 4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) 8. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 11. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; rd Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set with that. MR. DOBIE-Very good. Thank you so much, Board. MR. TRAVER-So the next application, also Jennifer Ball’s subdivision Preliminary Stage 18-2020 and Final Stage 3-2021. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 18-2020 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JENNIFER BALL. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 253 PICKLE HILL ROAD. UPDATE: APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 7.98 ACRE PARCEL TO LOT 1A OF 5.89 ACRES WITH AN EXISTING HOME AND LOT 2A TO BE A 2.09 ACRE SALEABLE BUILDING LOT. AREA VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR LOT 1 – LOT SIZE AND LOT 2 – ROAD FRONTAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 46-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA & LGPC. LOT SIZE: 7.98 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9.2. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Again this application is for a two lot subdivision of a 7.98 acre parcel. Lot 1A is 5.89 with an existing home and Lot 2A is to be a 2.09 acre parcel with a saleable building lot. The variance was granted in December. The Board tabled this application because the applicant requested that they needed to do that for stormwater and preparing that information. So it was reviewed by the engineer. The application is back in front of you in reference to completing the Preliminary Stage and now also the Final Stage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Lucas, do you want to tell us about this section of your project? MR. DOBIE-Yes, thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Board and Staff. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. Also on the Zoom call are Jennifer Ball and Dan Davies my clients on this. Ms. Ball owns the eight acre parcel at 253 Pickle Hill which contains presently her existing home, and they propose a two lot residential subdivision where her house would retain 5.9 acres and the southeasterly toe of the loop, if you will, which comprises 2.1 acres will be a saleable lot, and we received our area variances back in December for that lot, for the lack of road frontage and lack of average lot width. We’re here to ask for your Preliminary and Final review, final approvals on this, and again the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan encompasses these parcels as well. So it’s a full comprehensive plan that we’ll work through the process with Chazen and feel comfortable that we can address those comments and with that we’d be happy to entertain any questions the Board may have. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? It’ll really all part of the one large project. I will note that we also have a public hearing on this application and ask if, Laura, do you see anybody with their hand raised? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MRS. MOORE-At the moment there’s nobody with their hands raised. I don’t know, there’s a person in there, Ford, and I don’t know if that’s for the next project or for this project here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And so they didn’t raise their hand. So I don’t know what they’re interested in. MR. TRAVER-Are there any additional written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well if there’s no one indicating they wish to make public comment, we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I’ll ask again if members of the Board have questions for the applicant. Anything that they want to clarify? I guess this is also an Unlisted action. So again we have the SEQR review process. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB PRELIM. STG. # 18-2020 JENNIFER BALL The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 7.98 acre parcel to Lot 1A of 5.89 acres with an existing home and Lot 2A to be a 2.09 acre saleable building lot. Area Variances have been granted for Lot 1 – lot size and Lot 2 – road frontage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 18-2020 JENNIFER BALL, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; 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. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. So we can move on to consideration of the Preliminary Stage approval for Subdivision 18-2020. David, I think we have a draft resolution for that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB PRELIM. STG. # 18-2020 JENNIFER BALL 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 7.98 acre parcel to Lot 1A of 5.89 acres with an existing home and Lot 2A to be a 2.09 acre saleable building lot. Area Variances have been granted for Lot 1 – lot size and Lot 2 – road frontage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 02/23/2021; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 18-2020 JENNIFER BALL, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption. rd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: MR. VALENTINE-I just have a small question. Lucas, I don’t see a dimensional measurement, separation of well and septic on that smaller lot. Am I missing that? MR. DOBIE-There’s not a dimension per se, Mr. Valentine. Our project plan, Sheet S-3, which is the Detail subdivision plan, we do show the 100 foot radius from the proposed well on there with a label. It might not be on the overall subdivision plan, but the Sheet S-3 does have that. I’m looking at it now. MR. VALENTINE-That’s all I need to know. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-So next we consider Final Stage approval, 3-2021. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 3-2021 JENNIFER BALL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 7.98 acre parcel to Lot 1A of 5.89 acres with an existing home and Lot 2A to be a 2.09 acre saleable building lot. Area Variances have been granted for Lot 1 – lot size and Lot 2 – road frontage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2021 JENNIFER BALL. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: no waivers were requested 3. 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. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) 4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 8. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 11. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; rd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. You all set. MR. DOBIE-Very good. Thank you so much for your time. MR. TRAVER-So the next application we have is JP Gross Properties, LLC. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 19-2020 and Final Stage 4-2021. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 19-2020 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 4-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 1 – COMPLETED 1/192021 NEGATIVE DECLARATION. JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. AGENT(S): OWEN SPEULSTRA, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR/LC-10A/RR-5A. LOCATION: 748 LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SIX LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THE PROJECT SITE IS 52.31 ACRES AND CONTAINS AREAS OF STEEP SLOPES AND APA WETLANDS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A WATER DISTRICT EXTENSION THAT IS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE TOWN BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD HAS COMPLETED THE SEQR REVIEW OF THE PROJECT. THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH THE APA AS THE PROJECT SITE CONTAINS WETLANDS TRIGGERING THEIR REVIEW. 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. 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. CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MR. TRAVER-This is a Type I SEQR action and we completed that and arrived at a Negative Declaration back in January. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Again this application is for a six lot subdivision and again as you mentioned you already did SEQR and issued the Negative Dec, noting that the Town Board did grant their water district extension last week and now the applicant is before the Board for the six lots for Preliminary and Final as well, MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. It looks like we have a Mr. Wilkinson. MRS. MOORE-Yes, Clark is here. Clark, do you want to unmute yourself. MR. WILKINSON-Good evening, Board. For the record my name is Clark Wilkinson with the Environmental Design Partnership, representing JP Gross Properties on this property before you tonight. As indicated by Mr. Traver, we did receive a Negative Dec from this Planning Board back in January so that the district extension could move forward, and that has been approved by the Town Board last week as Laura indicated. We did receive some comments on stormwater from the Chazen Companies on Friday. I read through them this evening in detail. I’d skimmed through them earlier and didn’t think there was much to worry about and they are relative minor comments that I think we can work through with Chazen, moving a couple of things here and there. They’re like 20 feet of setback from some of the stormwater areas to the house and they want 25. I mean that’s how minor we’re talking about, and just re-classifying one of the drainage areas is the other big thing. Other than that I think it’s pretty easy stuff and we can get through those technical comments with Chazen. I also want to report to the Board that I’ve received an e-mail from the APA. They have everything they need and I’ve not gotten a final document from them. So I would recommend if you want to take action on this project that you include a contingency on the APA approval as well or any comments they may have, and other than that, again, it’s a simple six lot subdivision. It’s a non-realty subdivision which means that there’s no more than four lots that are less than five acres, and as a non-realty subdivision, Health Department approval is not required. These lots will be served, four of the lots will be served by public water and that’s where the district extension came in. The other two lots, which is Lots Five and Six, will be served by individual wells. All of the lots are served by on site individual septics as well, and at this time as well I’ll turn it over to the Board to see if you have any questions, comments or discussion. MR. TRAVER-Thank you . Questions, comments from members of the Board? We did look at this previously obviously. The Sketch Plan was many moons ago but we did look at that, and it’s a fairly straightforward project. We do, also, this application has a public hearing associated with it as well. So let’s go ahead and open that and we’ll alert folks if they wish to comment they are to raise their hand so Laura is aware that you wish to comment, and while we give people some time to do that, Laura, I’ll ask if there are any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments and I still have one attendee that’s not raising their hand, and I don’t know whether to ask your thoughts if I should just bring this individual in to see if they wish to talk about this project. MR. TRAVER-Well maybe they’re just a fan of Planning Board meetings. MRS. MOORE-That could be. So, again, if this individual that’s listening, I know his name is Ford. I don’t know if they wish to raise their hand and speak on this topic. If you’re not raising your hand, then I’m not going to put you in as a speaker. Again, I don’t see this person raising their hand. So I’m not going to put them in. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Well in that event we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And as noted we already addressed SEQR last month. So if there are no other questions or concerns from members of the Board, Laura, there was the issue of the APA approval. Is that something that we would just condition? MRS. MOORE-You can condition it. It’s primarily because of the wetland that triggered their review in this. So it’s primarily an issue with the wetland. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. To be specific, Laura, it is the location of any property lines near that wetland, APA wetland, if it’s within 100 feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And there’s no reason to believe that the APA will not be granting approval. So it’s really just something that needs to be added to the record. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) MRS. MOORE-That would be good. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right, David, are we ready for Preliminary? MR. DEEB-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBD. PRELIMINARY STG. # 19-2020 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a six lot residential subdivision. The project site is 52.31 acres and contains areas of steep slopes and APA wetlands. The project includes a water district extension that is to be completed by the Town Board. The Planning Board has completed the SEQR review of the project. The applicant is working with the APA as the project site contains wetlands triggering their review. 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. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on February 23, 2021; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 19-2020 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. rd Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: MR. SHAFER-I just have a question. Clark, it’s been a while since we’ve looked at this. Remind me about the soil conditions visa vi on site septics. MR. WILKINSON-The soil conditions are mostly sandy and sandy fills in the lower portion. The upper portion which is a very large lot, it’s sandy but it’s a little bonier. It does have some larger rocks, but again nothing that you can’t put a septic in. One of the comments of Chazen was to have more infiltration trenches, but they agreed to allow that to happen once the weather breaks rather than trying to get out there in frozen snow ground. MR. SHAFER-All right. Great. Thanks for reminding me. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right, and last but not least we have Final Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBD. FINAL STG. # 4-2021 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a six lot residential subdivision. The project site is 52.31 acres and contains areas of steep slopes and APA wetlands. The project includes a water district extension that is to be completed by the Town Board. The Planning Board has completed the SEQR review of the project. The applicant is working with the APA as the project site contains wetlands triggering their review. 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. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 4-2021 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: no waivers were requested 3. 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. 4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 8. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 11. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 12. Pending APA signoff. rd Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 23 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you very much for your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Board. Just a housekeeping reminder, I’m sure Laura will remind us, but next month we are going to take the option of using the third meeting we had provided on our calendar. That 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2021) thrd will take place on the 25. So that week we’ll have a meeting on Tuesday the 23 and a meeting on th Thursday the 25. Is there anything else to come before the Board tonight? MR. DEEB-Laura, I have to ask you, do you need my IPad by tomorrow? MRS. MOORE-By Friday. If it’s next week, that’s fine. I need it sooner than later, and, Chris, I’m looking into your questions. I’m pretty sure that nothing will change, but I want to confirm that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there’s nothing further, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY RD 23, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 30