Loading...
03-16-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 21-2020 David Hartmann 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Subdivision No. 16-2020 Harrisena Church 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59 FURTHER TABLING Site Plan No. 7-2021 ADK Developers and Builders 3. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-52 Site Plan No. 56-2020 Joseph Leuci 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 290.-1-48 Tabled Item/new recommendation Site Plan No. 13-2021 Robert McCormick 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-45 Site Plan No. 12-2021 Steve & Cathie Schonwetter 16. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-42 Site Plan No. 11-2021 Stephen Haraden 21. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.12-1-74 Site Plan No. 14-2021 Charles Carder/Caren Tucker 23. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.14-1-24 Site Plan No. 18-2021 Robert C. Wing 26. Special Use Permit No. 1-2021 Tax Map No. 279.17-1-60 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 03/16/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN SHAFER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. TRAVER-Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, March 16, 2021. To go through the growing list of numbers here, this is the first meeting of March, the fifth meeting th for 2021, the 20 meeting, believe it or not, since the COVID protocol started and our fifth meeting in a virtual setting. I’ll also note that Mike Dixon is sitting in for John Shafer this evening. So thank you for that, Michael. We appreciate that, as usual. We have a couple of Administrative Items. The first being approval of minutes from this past January, January 19 and January 26 of 2021. David? APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 19, 2021 January 26, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH JANUARY 19 & JANUARY 26, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right, and we also have two tabling requests. The first is Site Plan 21-2020 for David th Hartmann. He is requesting a further tabling to May of 2021, I guess May 18 technically. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO MAY 2021. MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to comment on that request? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Hartmann hasn’t been able to pull together the information to submit for this month, and so he asked for an additional month to be able to do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and I think we have a draft tabling motion, David. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN Applicant proposes to remove a 1,513.2 sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a 1,771.6 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a floor area of 3,474.5 sq. ft. Project includes site work for stormwater, landscaping and septic. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) for setback, height and floor area. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Applicant requests further tabling the first Planning Board meeting in May 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Tabled until the May 18, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by April 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have another tabling request. This is for Subdivision 16-2020 for th Harrisena Church. They’re requesting also a further tabling to the May 18 Planning Board meeting. SUB (P) 16-202 HARRISENA CHURCH REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO MAY 2021. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application has currently been denied at the Area Variance level by the Adirondack Park Agency. So the applicant is not certain what direction they’re going to move in, whether they’re going to withdraw this application and start over, or whether they’re going to try to have discussions with the APA. So they need another month to figure that out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the APA say why they deny projects? MRS. MOORE-They were concerned with it not meeting the density requirements and so it looked like they may have been okay with maybe two lots, but again it’s something that the applicant is aware of. The same with the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board has been made aware that this application didn’t make it past the APA. So I can share that information with you, whether it comes back to you or not. It’s not a problem. I can send out information from the APA so you at least have it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That will be interesting. That hasn’t happened to us very often. MRS. MOORE-Not very often. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Similar comments that we had when we passed it on to the ZBA. th MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well, we have a tabling request to May 18. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB PRELIM STG. # 16-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of 3.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 1.3 acre to maintain an existing home 1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint); Lot 2 to be 1.3 acres and Lot 3 to be 1.2 acres for new homes and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant requests further tabling to the first Planning Board meeting in May 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Tabled until the May 18, 2021 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. Well that concludes our Administrative Items. MR. DEEB-Don’t we have another tabling? MR. VALENTINE-Just two. MRS. MOORE-Just the two. MR. TRAVER-Just two as far as I’m aware of. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we next move to the part of our agenda for Tabled Items. The first item being Adirondack Developers and Builders, Site Plan 7-2021. TABLED ITEM: 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. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 4,709 SQ. FT. HOME AND A 978 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,776 Q. FT. WITH 514 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 5,770 SQ. FT. HOME INCLUDING AN ATTACHED GARAGE WITH THREE BAYS. SITE WORK IS PROPOSED FOR MUCH OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE DRIVEWAY AREAS, 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 CROSS REFERENCE: AV 25-1991 ND 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. DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application was revised to remove a second garage, and so the Zoning Board granted setback relief where the home is to be located 13.8 feet from the south property line where a 20 foot setback is required. The applicant has completed the Site Plan application for the teardown of the existing home and constructing a new home. The applicant has revised the plans showing the existing garage to be demolished and the new home is to have a three car garage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you, and who is here representing? MRS. MOORE-I have Devin and Peter. Devin, is there anybody else that needs to be on that? MR. DICKINSON-I don’t think so. I think that should do it. MR. TRAVER-Devin, do you want to talk to us about your project, the changes. MR. DICKINSON-Sure. Absolutely. Thank you. So my name is Devin Dickinson. I’m representing Peter O’Neil as the owner and developer on this project. So, yes, the project is located at 123 Seelye Road. It currently has a house, to detached garages, a shed and a copious amount of pavement. The current home a has a footprint of approximately 2300 square feet and is only 43 feet from the shoreline of Lake George. The current home sits seven and a half feet from the southerly property line. As Laura mentioned the Zoning Board did grant us relief from that southerly setback to 13.8 feet. The last time we were in front of you we kind of had a discussion meeting before we went to the ZBA and I know there was a little bit of trepidation about the second garage. When we got to the ZBA we had a split Board there as well. So ultimately, like Laura said, we removed the detached garage, increased the garage on the house from two cars to three cars. In doing that we really came up with a better site plan in my opinion. So what we are here is we’re proposing to remove the 2300 square foot home, build a new 2800 square foot house and a three car garage. The footprint actually includes the garage as well. We are looking to remove 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) approximately 3300 square feet. We’re going to reduce the impervious area by a total amount of 5500 square feet. This puts us at about 80% permeable. . Other aspects of the site plan. We are adding stormwater devices in the form of those two raingardens and an infiltration trench around the garage. We’ve designed an Elgin septic system and pump station that has capacity for five bedrooms. We’ve complied with the vegetative buffer requirements. Right now it’s currently all lawn. So we’re calling for that vegetative buffer. Like I mentioned earlier, the currently house is 43 feet. We’re proposing 89 feet from the shore of Lake George, moving it back quite a bit, and lastly we have undergone review and have a signoff from Chazen. So I think overall it’s a big improvement to the property. I think it fits in with the neighborhood. I think it’s an improvement to the neighborhood and I think it also is much more environmentally friendly. That’s it for me, if you guys have any questions. MR. TRAVER-I’ll go ahead and open it up to members of the Planning Board for questions and comments. MS. WHITE-I just want to say I appreciate. I think this is an excellent compromise from the original plan. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you. I agree. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this is a nice compromise. What a big change. Thank you very much, and please pass that along to your client. Because it really, it just fits so much better, and I really appreciate you doing the extra effort and doing your due diligence and changing this. I appreciate it. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? If not we’ll go ahead and open the public hearing and I’ll ask Laura if there’s anyone in the waiting room that wanted to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I’m going to, I don’t see anybody with raised hands at this point. I’ll say it. There’s a function on the tool bar called raise your hand, or if you have a question or answer, you can simply do that from your, you as the location attendees , if you wish to speak on this application, and I don’t see anybody speaking at this point, no one’s raising their hand. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What about, are there written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments on this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let’s go ahead and close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I’ll ask the Board one last time if there’s any other questions or comments before we move to a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-I just have one comment on the landscaping plan. On the site plan there’s a little box that says Town Code five red maples proposed, but on the text just above that to the left it says four, but the plan clearly shows five, but there is that inconsistency in the numbers on the plan. MR. TRAVER-Good. Nice catch. All right. So we’ll want that revised on the final submitted plans. Devin, you should be able to do that, right? MR. DICKINSON-Yes, absolutely. Typo. Thank you. I made a note here. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good. Okay. This is a Type II under SEQR. So we don’t need to be concerned with that this evening. I guess if there’s nothing further, we’ll entertain a resolution, David. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 7-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Revised: Applicant proposes to remove a 4,709 sq. ft. home and a 978 sq. ft. garage to construct a new home of 2,776 sq. ft. with 514 sq. ft. porch/deck area footprint with a floor area of 5,770 sq. ft. home including an attached garage with three bays. 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. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) 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 02/24/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 02/23/2021 and continued the public hearing to 03/16/2021, 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 03/16/2021; 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 7-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-Just one question, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we have to put in there for the extra tree? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-No, the inconsistency, I think the default will be what’s depicted on the plan, and I’m sure Laura will review that when the final revision comes in. It’s a typo so I don’t think that requires a condition. Do you, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don’t, either. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That’s a good point, Brad. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. You’re all set. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Before we go on, Maria, I was a yes on the previous vote. For some reason my microphone was turned off. So I wasn’t able to get on that. MS. GAGLIARDI-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-That was on the previous resolution. MR. TRAVER-For the tabling? MR. MAGOWAN-For the tabling, yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well she can address that. Thank you, Brad. MS> GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right the next section of our agenda is tabled items with new Planning Board recommendations. So this is an application that we looked at and we’re going to be making a referral to the ZBA. So this evening we’re going to be looking at the variance which is the request for a second garage. This is for Joseph Leuci, Site Plan 56-2020. TABLED ITEM W/NEW PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 56-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOSEPH LEUCI. AGENT(S): MATTHEW HUNTINGTON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 277 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE HOME IS 2,796 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT FIRST FLOOR, 1,700 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SECOND FLOOR IS 1,580 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. FOUNDATION/BASEMENT PLAN INCLUDES BOTH UNFINISHED AND FINISHED BASEMENT AREAS, 1,700 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT WILL INCLUDE NEW ON-SITE SEPTIC AND WELL. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A SECOND GARAGE 780 SQ. FT. WITH TWO BAYS AND STORAGE ABOVE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR A SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-2017, AV 15-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020/MARCH 2021. LOT SIZE: 34.20 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-48. SECTION: 179-6-060, 179-5-020. MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to have to garages on this site. We did take a look at this. This requires Site Plan Review because the part of the house is within 50 feet of 15% slopes. They tabled it on the applicant’s request. They were going to do a little bit of a re-design. It came to be that there’s a proposed second garage, 26 by 30 feet, and as noted this property is 34.20 acres in size. So that’s where they’re at. They’re requesting that relief for the two garages. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you, and who is here for the applicant? MR. HUNTINGTON-Matt Huntington with Studio A representing Joe Leuci. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNTINGTON-I prepared the site drawings for this. I’ll give you a brief summary. As Laura said the reason for the Site Plan Review is the house is located within 50 feet of 15% slopes. That was to accomplish a walkout basement. However, that 15% slope extends probably five to six hundred feet downhill, the undisturbed woodland vegetated buffer area/ To mitigate any stormwater that would be coming off the roof we designed a small retention basin and a swale that kind of follows the driveway down. The roof lines were adjusted so there’s actually less runoff directed towards that 15% slope than there is for the existing conditions. Also as part of the site development it’s on-site septic and on-site well. The Leuci’s are proposing a second garage because as it’s stated they have 34 acres there. So they need some room for property maintenance equipment, that sort of thing that’s not necessarily going to fit in to their attached garage that’s part of their house. MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Matt, is there anyone else that needs to be on this end of the call? I wasn’t sure if you had others. MR. HUNTINGTON-No, I don’t think so, unless Joe’s out there. He may want to chime in. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So our discussion tonight is on the variance for the second garage. So I’ll open it up for questions or comments from other members of the Planning Board. I would just say the second garage is kind of large. I know you’re talking about some equipment for grounds keeping and so on. Would not more of a smaller structure or a shed be sufficient? MR. HUNTINGTON-That’s something we can bring back to the applicant. However, we weren’t the architects for the garage. We did the site design for it. I will say that in terms of site disturbance, which is around 20,000 square feet, and stormwater management, it was easily, it was easy to accomplish the footprint with the garage and keep all of our environmental concerns down with that. So the room in there is just based on their needs for, like I said, property equipment and possibly maybe a recreation vehicle for use with the property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Do members of the Board have concerns on that variance for the second garage? MR. MAGOWAN-Normally I do, but this is Chestnut Ridge. It was all farm land. He’s got, what, 34 acres. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And it’s quite back far down off of the, I mean that’s a lot of acreage. That takes a little bit more than an average home shed, and being that far back off the road, I really don’t foresee, because if you actually do drive along Chestnut Ridge, you do see a couple of the homes that have the extra barn. So I’m comfortable with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anyone else? MS. WHITE-I actually do feel that if you’re going to do it, do it on 34 acres, and just like Brad said, I happen to drive down Chestnut Ridge every day and it is in keeping with the surrounding, you know, there’s a lot of grandfathered in barns and sheds and this is not something that’s going to really stand out and be different, and it’s a lot of property. It just kind of makes sense on this particular case. MR. TRAVER-Yes, one of the things that always strikes me about Chestnut Ridge is the stonewalls. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I forget the name of the guy who built all the stone walls around the area, but they’re pretty amazing. Okay. Well if no one has any objection, then we’ll entertain a referral resolution for the ZBA. David? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 15-2021 JOSEPH LEUCI 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home. The home is 2,796 sq. ft. footprint first floor, 1,700 sq. ft. floor area. Second floor is 1,580 sq. ft. floor area. Foundation/basement plan includes both unfinished and finished basement areas, 1,700 sq. ft. floor area. Project will include new on-site septic and well. Project also includes a second garage 780 sq. ft. with two bays and storage above. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for a second garage. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2021 JOSEPH LEUCI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. HUNTINGTON-Thank you, Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-Mr. Chairman, I have a question or comment. Motion’s done, vote’s taken. If you remember at our last meeting Brad and I had discussions back and forth about a second garage on a property, and I think we, out of all of our referrals that we had last time, we either had three or four second garage applications. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be worth something now, because both Brad and Jamie had come up with reasons why this second garage is not foreseen as a problem, and I think they were legitimate, and that’s how the vote played out, but I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be worth something if we come up with some standards for ourselves internally, and it can only be five or six bulleted points that we use in reviewing these applications so that there’s consistency in our review of applications that involve two garages on a plan. MS. WHITE-Michael, because of that, because last time we talked about that, because this time we have a number of them, I actually went right back to the book and read through and tried to get a better understanding of what were the reasons behind this and why is it set forth and what are the specifics? I would highly entertain having more discussion and having some of those things laid out, because my gut instinct on a second garage is just no. So if we did talk about that more and I had that to fall back on to understand better, I think that would be great. MR. VALENTINE-I think it would be helpful, and I appreciate that, is that, if you remember, particularly Country Club Road, we had an application, and it was looked over for a long time with the ZBA after us, and then that applicant walked away with nothing. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. WHITE-However, they wanted to put residents in that second garage. Big difference.. Huge difference. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. VALENTINE-Right, and that’s one of the things that we should look at as far as when do we consider that, or what design features do you think in a second garage, you know, is it going to be two bay or three bay and it’s only for vehicles. I mean, like you said, that’s a big difference. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but I think if you have people living there, I don’t think that fits the description of a garage, but I think that we can certainly say, in this case I think that we use neighborhood character, and we also use the size of the property. I’m not certain that we want to put guidelines in writing. That might be a problem. I guess I would maybe ask Laura to have an offline discussion maybe with Craig on that. I’m not sure that if we put written guidelines and then we use our own written guidelines to make decisions on applications that are obviously individual, I think, you know, to discuss it and have it be part of the minutes is fine, and certainly we share a common experience in terms of reviewing these things, but I’m a little bit concerned that some people might interpret written guidelines as kind of codifying these things, and I’m not sure if that would be a good practice. MRS. MOORE-I agree with you, Steve. MR. VALENTINE-I understand that. MR. TRAVER-But I certainly agree with the concept of what you’re saying, and we’ve done that with other things as well. For example, one of the things that we have not put in writing but we’ve adopted as a practice is when we have applications that have huge numbers of engineering comments we’ve usually sent them off and said come back when you have resolved or mostly resolved your issues with the engineer so that we don’t end up spending the whole night talking about engineering issues that are often difficult for us as a Planning Board. That’s something that we started, I think, when Chris was Chair, and found that quite effective in most cases I think. I don’t know, I’ll ask Laura, do you have any guidance or suggestions? You’ve heard the discussion obviously. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I agree with your comment that I would have to have a discussion with Craig. I wouldn’t necessarily put something in writing. You understand that if you go through the site Plan Review criteria and you identify this as part of your discussion, then you have something to stand on. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-The one comment that I wanted to make on this is when I saw that we had several more this month, I went right back to the Code. The Code does spell out some parameters I think that are kind of broad but are a good starting point, and the last discussion I think was pretty much right on target with what the Code specifies. If it’s less than three acres, so big. If it’s more than three acres, so big. So I think that’s a good place for us all to re-visit and start, also the Comprehensive Plan to see how it’s mentioned in there, and that goes to the comments about neighborhood character that we just talked about. MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly. I think when you take the two, the size of the lot and the neighborhood character, I think that’s really where we start and go from there. MR. VALENTINE-I’d agree. I think those two that you just mentioned were important on this one because I drove by. Jamie and Brad said they drive by it all the time. I don’t. I didn’t know the area. so I went out there and drove by and the way that the lot is configured with the zigzag in here, that there’s a bit of a buffering created already. That second garage is not going to be as visible or stand out that much, and I think that’s something that has to come into play, the conditions as you had said, not only neighborhood character, but what’s the topography and layout of the lot already. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-I’m all set with that. I just wanted to throw that out there for consideration. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It’s a good point and it’s a good discussion to have and I’m sure it’s something we’ll bear in mind the next time this comes up. So, thank you. All right. So moving on we have some additional Planning Board recommendations as we often do for the first meeting of the month. The next one is not a tabled item, but new recommendations, simply an application coming in for which we need to make a recommendation. Robert McCormick, Site Plan 13-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 13-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT MC CORMICK. AGENT(S): JOSEPH J. BIANCHINE, ABD ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 18 DARK BAY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 110 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) AND A 116 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION TO THE MAIN HOME. THE MAIN HOME IS 3,287 SQ. FT. WITH 535 SQ. FT. DECK-PORCH AREA. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,446 SQ. FT. WITH NEW FLOOR AREA 8,285 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 500 SQ. FT. CARPORT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 524 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,113 SQ. FT. 8-CAR GARAGE. SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND A WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND PROJECT WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR GARAGE SIZE, SECOND GARAGE AND NUMBER OF BAYS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 59-88, SP 15-91, 2000-485 RES. ALT., AV 14-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 4.69 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-45. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-065, 179-5-020, 179-13-010. JOSEPH BIANCHINE & JIM TOBIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So, Joe, is there anybody else that needs to be on? I have Jim. Is there anybody else that you need on this call? All right. So this application, there’s a couple of main house additions. There’s two porch additions, one is 110 square feet. The other is 116 square feet. The major part of this project that is triggering this Area Variance is in reference to the second garage which would be 3,113 square feet and eight cars, or eight car vehicle storage. Vehicle storage includes antique vehicles, boats, classic cars, and I believe that’s it for this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. So is Mr. Bianchine? MR. BIANCHINE-Yes. I’m here representing the McCormicks. First of all, they’ve just recently moved to this location from their Clifton Park address. So this is now their permanent home. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BIANCHINE-Yes. They own 4.67 acres here on this property, and then they have a couple of other lots just to the south of this, but just to go around the property, to the north was the lands of Grande and there was a similar application last month for them for a second garage with some additions to the house. They have quite a bit of frontage on Route 9L on the east and then on the south it’s Dark Bay Lane and the Dark Bay Association, and then they have frontage, the dock on Lake George. Their house is about 3300 square feet, two story, and what they want to do is put two porches, one at each of the exterior doors, just to cover the doorways and the covered entrance into that. They’re not on the lakeside. One’s on the east side and the other’s on the south side, and then they have an existing garage. They don’t have an attached garage. It’s a detached existing garage with two cars, and then they’d like to put a carport on that which would give them basically room for three cars and they typically use three cars for their personal use. So the main focus then would be the new garage they would like to put. It’s a little over 3100 square feet. They tried to site it so that it’s out of the way and not really visible. We do have a driveway coming in from Dark Bay Lane. It’s listed as eight bays because we’ve got overhead doors, but really the McCormicks have a couple of classic cars and like a gator that they use to drive around in on their property. The rest is really going to be storage of their antiques. He’s a collector of antique signs and gas pumps and things like that. So there’ll be storage in there. Then there’s also storage of property maintenance equipment, tractors and lawnmowers and things like that. They’ve sited it, as I said, such that it’s in a wooded area. We’d have to do some clearing, but pretty much all of their 4.67 acres is wooded. We are clearing some for the driveway and the garage and then we are putting in a stormwater infiltration facility around the garage to accommodate the increase in impervious, and that would go into a sandy soil. We have a lot of soil. We’ve done test pits up there and the rock is down to the three feet. So the foundation for the garage will be right on rock, even though we’re within the 15% slope area. The garage would be anchored well to the rock. There’s not much disturbance there other than around the outside of the garage. We did add some landscaping, but again, it’s all treed. We’ve not doing anything along the shoreline. That would remain treed. There won’t be any outside lighting or anything. Just lights over the overhead doors. There is a bathroom in the garage, but we’re just tying that into a small septic system or septic tank, excuse me, and then pumping that into the existing force main to the existing septic system. There’s not much use expected. It’s just for convenience. That’s pretty much it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it’s described as eight bays. How many bays is it? How many vehicle bays is it? MR. BIANCHINE-It can store eight vehicles. There’s room for eight vehicles in there. There’s four overhead doors so that you can have two in each garage door, but typically they would only use three, maybe four, at most. The rest would be for storage, and as I say they just moved up here from a bigger house in Clifton Park so they’ve got a lot of things to store. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you’re also indicting that this garage is going to have plumbing and septic and obviously electrical hookups and all of that kind of thing. Are there any plans to make bedrooms or residential? MR. BIANCHINE-No. As I said, they own 4.7 acres of land there, plus another two lots just to the south of that, but there’s no plans to expand it to other bedrooms or anything. It’s just something for their use for vehicle storage and antique storage. MR. TRAVER-But it would be capable of hosting some additional bedrooms though, right? MR. BIANCHINE-Yes. You would have to modify it in the future or something if somebody bought it or something and wanted to convert it, but there’s no intention of doing that. MS. WHITE-But if it’s storage for cars and other materials, why does it need a bathroom? MR. BIANCHINE-Just because he’s up there and the convenience. MR. TRAVER-All right. So let’s take questions and comments from members of the Board. MRS. MOORE-So Jim Tobin had his hand up. MR. BIANCHINE-Jim is the architect on the garage and the house additions. He also lives in the area. MRS. MOORE-Jim, do you want to speak? MR. TOBIN-My name’s Jim Tobin. I’m the architect for this project. The garage is for storage of really four vehicles that the owner has, and they’re classic cars, and so he stores them, and they’re rarely driven. So the remaining space is he has a number of collections. One being the collection of petrolmania which are gas pumps, some signs, that type of items that he has, he has a place to store them. This is where he stores them. The garage is just for storage. There’s no repairs. There never will be. There’s an attic but the attic is a truss so it’s not convertible for occupied space. So it’s one big open space the interior of the building. Let me go back quickly, and I’ll hit the house. The house two porches. The porches are in a timber style. The garage, there’s a carport that’s on it which is an open style. All it is is a roof to store a car. So the house has been added. We’re putting some metal roofs on in an Adirondack style, stone. There’s a couple of bears that you see that are columns that are holding the porch up. So that’s basically what the project is, and also I may add that the garage is in an area that you will not see. Driving on Route 9L you will not see it because the mound in front of it, if you look at the site plan you’ll see a mound, an existing mound that’s there. It extends almost north to south on the property, and even from Dark Bay Lane road you will not see this garage. The garage is a low profile, meets the zoning requirements for the height. That’s about it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Joe, the vegetation lines that are on the plans, they’re pretty accurate? MR. BIANCHINE-They’re taken from an aerial. So they should be pretty good. I can also say that we did a cross section through there and you won’t be able to see this garage from Lake George because of the existing vegetation, because of the low, only a 16 foot height of the garage. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DIXON-First of all, on the site plans I see that there’s overhead power that’s going to be brought from probably the main house out to the garage. Wouldn’t you want those buried, at the very least for aesthetics? Mr. BIANCHINE-It could be buried. We just went overhead so we didn’t have to cut the trees through there to get the power that way, but there might be another way of doing that, if we can find out if there’s other poles that we can come off of or something. That would be better. MR. DIXON-And this year makes it a little tougher to really see the property up close, but are you planning a footpath or something from the main residence up to the garage? MR. BIANCHINE-No, usually just the driveways. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-You use the gator for that. Right? MR. BIANCHINE-That’s what I was just going to say, the gator’s for that, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-And the only thing, unless I’m missing it, I think, since this is a recommendation, for stormwater control or stormwater measures, unless I’m missing something, I don’t see it in this packet. MR. BIANCHINE-We’ve submitted a brief report on our calculations as to when it, it’s basically an infiltration trench, stone trench, so that the water gets in there and then infiltrates into the top one to two foot of sand that’s on the site. MR. TRAVER-And our focus this evening really is on the variance. MR. DIXON-It looks like a nice project. MR. TRAVER-So in terms of preparing a referral. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, before you go there I’ve got some concerns about the scope and the size of this project. You look at the Code, if you have more than three acres you can have 750 square feet. This is four times what’s allowed in the Code. Not double, but four times. I think it does change the character of otherwise a residential neighborhood. I understand the intent of the owner, but you have to look past his intent to what could be used in the future. He’s not going to own that house forever. What will that garage be used for, the next owner or the next owner? You have eight bays. You could do all kinds of things that would maybe not be as appealing as storing petroleum artifacts. I’m concerned about a separate curb cut because again that changes the character of the neighborhood, and even if he only drives the cars once in a while, you still have up to eight cars coming in and out of there and it’s only a three acre lot, or, I’m sorry, 4.7 acre lot. The other one we looked at was 34, and the garage wasn’t anywhere near that big. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So I’ve got some concerns with the size and the scope, the impact on the neighborhood and the overall impact of the scale of what’s being proposed. MRS. MOORE-So, Chris, in reference to garages they have a little bit different size information in that section of Code. So if you just skip a little bit ahead it talks about the garage on lots less than five acres can’t exceed 1,100. So I mean you’re correct that this is much larger, and then up to five acres can go up to 2,200. So it’s just further down that page. That’s all. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that’s listed as part of the variance, the garage size, and that’s what I was trying to get at. So we need to compile our concerns as we forward our discussion to the ZBA. So certainly the garage size. I mean I have concerns with the fact that there’s plumbing and electric. Maybe not so much electric, but certainly the plumbing I think is going to have an impact long term on the potential for this structure. MS. WHITE-Can I just say that Chris very succinctly and in much better words than I would have expressed my concerns as well. MR. TRAVER-And your concern is also with the size of the garage? MS. WHITE-Absolutely. The size and the plumbing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if they were too, hypothetically, if they were to reduce the size of the garage, because one of the variances is for a second garage, right. So we have the size of the garage. So we have a concern with the size, and then what about the issue of the second garage at all? MS. WHITE-It still requires a variance even though this is three acres, more than three acres. It still requires a variance for a second garage of any size, correct? MR. TRAVER-That’s what I’m trying to get clarification on. The fact, if they come back and they say, okay, look, we’ll make the garage smaller, are we still going to have an issue because one of the variances is for a second garage regardless of size. We would have been focusing on the size, which is immense, but the applicant could conceivably come back with a modification that would say okay it’s only going to be two bays or it’s going to be half the size. So I think it would be valuable to have a discussion about just the existence of a second garage on this site. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MS. WHITE-I think you’re absolutely correct, Steve. I would still have concerns. Just a second garage at all, even though this is 4.7 acres. It’s still a second garage. MR. TRAVER-Also the second curb cut was mentioned. Right, Chris? MS. WHITE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-I think that one has potential because it’s something that’s there. There are two curb cuts, and I think Steve alluded to the fact that somebody’s not going to own this forever, or Chris it was you, I don’t know, but it would be very easy just to draw a subdivision line here. MR. BIANCHINE-You could easily get two lots out of this. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. Right. MS. WHITE-But you can’t have just a garage on that second lot. MR. VALENTINE-It leaves the potential for conversion, though. MS. WHITE-I see what you’re saying, yes, because it would become a home. MR. VALENTINE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-It already would have a bathroom, plumbing and electricity and septic, its own separate septic system. All right. So we have the, it sounds like concerns, David, thus far, for our referral is the existence of a second garage on a site this size and type, the size of the garage that’s proposed, being so much more the limits again for the type of the property, the scale of the garage I guess I would say, and the existence of plumbing and electric such that the future use of this structure is a concern. Does anyone have any other, do those represent the concerns that we want to mention in our referral? Or does anyone have anything else? MS. WHITE-I think Chris also mentioned in keeping with the neighborhood. This is not in keeping with this neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-So potential conflict with neighborhood character. MS. WHITE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Well, the only thing I wanted to say is the lot is 4.69 acres and it just comes under .3 acres of being almost compliant where you could have a larger square footage garage. So we’re flirting with a minor detail there. MR. TRAVER-Well, a second garage is not a minor detail. MR. DEEB-That’s not what I meant. That’s not what I meant. I meant if you look, Laura, if it’s five acres or more what is allowed? MRS. MOORE-Two thousand two hundred square feet. MS. WHITE-Of a single garage. One garage. Not a second. Am I misunderstanding, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. So remember they have an existing garage that they’re adding a carport to, and then this would be truly a second garage that would be new on this site. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. One of the comments I would make about that. We’ve never, ever reviewed a garage that big. I don’t think we’ve ever seen one 1,000 square feet. We approved a horse barn, but never a garage. Certainly nothing 2,000 square feet. So when you start to think about changing the character of a community or neighborhood, I would just point to that as something that would. Again, eight bays. There’s a lot of activities that could go on in there, some of which may not be appealing to the neighborhood or to the Town. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not suggesting that. I’m just saying, you know, down the road, that’s what you have to think about. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Exactly. Okay. Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman? MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. MR. MAGOWAN-It is an awfully big garage. I do agree with changing the character of the neighborhood, and in the past I have done this. I have not wanted it to forward to zoning to come back and put it on zoning if we’re not all happy. Why can’t we have him go back and not forward this to zoning? You know what I’m saying? Because I hate to see him go to zoning and then zoning passes it and it comes back and we’re still not happy with it and then there’s a possibility of us denying it. MR. TRAVER-Well, I mean, the applicant has the opportunity to withdraw and revise, the, submit a new plan, but our task before us this evening is to look at what we’ve got. I mean you’re talking about a hypothetical. What we have before us, we need to discuss the variances as they exist and as they are requested. It’s up to the applicant, I believe, to proceed to the Zoning Board based on our referral this evening. Is that not so, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. I mean the applicant could ask to be tabled at this point to come back to the Planning Board to re-discuss this issue or understanding that the Planning Board has identified a few items that are going on to the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board will look at those items as you’ve directed and then you’re in agreement that there are concerns on this project. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-So my question is, sorry, we have stated that. It goes to the Zoning Board and if the Zoning Board doesn’t see what we see and then it comes back and then we have some people that say no, it’s too big, we don’t accept it, we’ve wasted the applicant’s time and money. MRS. MOORE-Brad, I’m going to interrupt you. So if you’re going to deny it in any way, shape or form, I would suggest that you table an application such as that to work with Town Counsel and identify specifically what is going on in reference to your denial. If the Zoning Board has granted relief for specific items that are outlined as requirements for variances, the Planning Board has to be very careful. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think we need to avoid talking about what we might have and look at what we’ve got at this stage, Brad. I mean I understand. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s fine. I’d just hate to send it on to variance and then come back and still fight over it. MR. DEEB-Well the applicant has the right to table it. He can ask to table it if he wants to do that. Let the applicant do that. MR. TRAVER-Our responsibility here is clear. I think, you know, it remains for the applicant and his agent to take it from here and whatever comes back to us we will address when it does. I think what we have before us is what we’re asked to respond to, and I think that we’re doing that. I don’t think that we can do anymore and after the discussion this evening it’s up to the applicant and the ZBA to take it forward. MR. DEEB-Well, I think the applicant has, like I said, if the applicant wants to change this, he can. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Obviously that’s always the case. MR. MAGOWAN-In that case, I agree strongly with Chris and Jamie. I have some major concerns on that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well those, I think David is including those in our outline in our referral to the ZBA. I think we have the size thus far, correct me if I’m wrong, David, or anyone. We’re concerned with the massive size of this structure, the fact that it has plumbing, electrical service. We’re concerned about long term implications of that structure on this property. The scale of the project, again, seems immense. We have a lot of concerns, regardless of the size, of the fact that this would be a second garage on this property, and we’re concerned about potential neighborhood impacts on how this might impact or how it would, we believe, impact on the character of the neighborhood, including the additional vehicles that were being discussed with an eight bay garage. Did I miss anything? MR. MAGOWAN-The curb cut. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. I’d add one more relative to the curb cut if you don’t mind. MR. TRAVER-Sure, go ahead. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. VALENTINE-Sort of kicking back on what Michael had thrown in before. This is a site plan thing but it also could be thrown in. There’s a force main that goes right across from the driveway of the existing house and runs right up to the septic, and if that’s in there, I don’t see why a driveway connection couldn’t be made from the top of the existing driveway, go in a southerly direction, and tie into the proposed other driveway to the new driveway and then eliminate the curb cut altogether. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the existence of a second curb cut is a concern as well. So have you got all that, David? MR. DEEB-I think I do, but I think we should ask the applicant how he feels before we proceed with a motion. MR. BIANCHINE-Well, yes, I think we’d like your recommendations and I can take them back to the applicant, discuss them, and we’ll decide as to whether we want to move forward with the ZBA. MR. TRAVER-You have the option, as was discussed earlier at this stage, if you wish to request that this application be tabled and that we hold this referral until you have an opportunity to have that conversation and potentially come back. That’s entirely up to you. MR. BIANCHINE-No, I think we’d rather have the recommendation and then I have it so I can talk to the owner. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. In that case, I guess we’re ready for that motion. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 14-2021 ROBERT MC CORMICK The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 110 sq. ft. porch addition and a 116 sq. ft. porch addition to the main home. The main home is 3,287 sq. ft. with 535 sq. ft. deck-porch area. Existing floor area is 4,446 sq. ft. with new floor area 8,285 sq. ft. The project includes a 500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 524 sq. ft. garage and construction of a 3,113 sq. ft. 8-car garage. Site work includes a new septic system and a well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure and project work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for garage size, second garage and number of bays. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2021 ROBERT MCCORMICK. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) The size and scope of the garage. 2) Addition of a second garage. 3) Added plumbing to the garage. 4) Conflict with neighborhood character. 5) Addition of a second curb cut. 6) Concerns about potential uses. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Okay. Comments, discussions from members of the Board on that motion? MR. DIXON-Steve, I think that motion’s appropriate. As I was looking at the numbers again, because we were talking the size and scope, the garage is almost as large as the main dwelling. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s a big garage. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the other implicit concern is the use, the land use within the garage. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-Agreed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the fact of the existence of plumbing and the size of the structure I think goes to that, or, Chris, are you suggesting that we add a separate line on our referral that talks about potential concerns about future altered use of the structure? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, even the existing use. I mean you say what the intent is today, but you’ve got a space that big you’re going to use it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So concerns about potential uses. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So why don’t we add that, David, if you would. MR. DEEB-Concerns about potential future uses. MR. TRAVER-I would just say uses, as Chris alluded to. MR. DEEB-All right. Potential uses. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. You’ll be off to the ZBA potentially. MR. BIANCHINE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under referral to the ZBA, is Site Plan 12-2021 for Steve and Cathie Schonwetter. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER. AGENT(S): DEAN HOWLAND, JR., JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 17 HOLIDAY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO SITE AND AN EXISTING HOME – FOOTPRINT 2,953 SQ. FT., FLOOR AREA 3,233 SQ. FT. WITH PROPOSED FLOOR AREA OF 3,505 SQ. FT.. THE PROJECT IS REMOVAL OF A PORTION OF CURRENT HOME – 336 SQ. FT. – TO CONSTRUCT A TWO CAR GARAGE WITH A CRAFT ROOM/BEDROOM ABOVE, 329 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. INTERIOR WORK IS REDUCING BEDROOMS FROM SIX TO FOUR. EXTERIOR WORK INCLUDES NEW ROOF, STONE VENEER TO BE ALTERED AND FRONT ENTRY TO BE RELOCATED. SITE WORK INCLUDES SHED REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT OF DECK, PERMEABLE PAVERS, SHORELINE PLANTING AND REPAIRS TO SEAWALL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 58-99 ADDITION, SEP 88-2019, 2001-692 DOCK, AV 33- 2004 ADDITION, NOA 2-2004, AV 12-2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .33 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-42. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-050, 179-13-010. JON LAPPER & DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-I will explain that the existing house has a footprint of 2,953 square feet with a floor area of 3,233 square feet. The proposed floor area is going to be 3,505 square feet. The project includes the removal of a portion of the current home, 336 square feet, to construct a two-car garage with a craft room and bedroom above this at 329 square feet. Interior work is reducing bedrooms from six to four. Exterior work includes new roof, stone veneer to be altered and front entry to be relocated. Work for the exterior 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) includes replacement of deck, permeable pavers where currently it’s asphalt, shoreline planting and repairs to seawall. Variance relief is sought for setbacks, floor area and expansion of a non-conforming structure. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening. Jon, are you starting for us? MR. LAPPER-Yes, thanks, Steve, I will. So I’m sure everyone’s familiar with this lot taking a look at it. This is obviously an unusual constrained piece of property because of where the lake is and where the pre- existing house sits. The Schonwetters are seeking to upgrade the property and upgrade the house and they need to have a two car garage, but they recognize that they needed to compromise in order to seek the relief. So they’re taking off, what Laura said, 336 square feet of existing house, and importantly removing two existing bedrooms which goes a long way in terms of the impact of the bedrooms versus having an indoor garage for the winter. In terms of the floor area ratio, they’re only seeking to go up to slightly over 24%. So that’s pretty minor in terms of what you guys look at in general, and the other improvements, the stonework and replacing the deck, doing a bunch of plantings, this is all just to improve the visual appearance of the site. They’re certainly not trying to overdevelop this. They just need to get a garage, and really these are just a bunch of tweaks. So we hope you’ll see this as a pretty moderate application going to 24% FAR and cleaning up all these other items. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Jon. I guess I’ll start. I mean the one thing that caught my eye is the deck, obviously, and it’s proximity to the lake, and I wonder if you’re making the revisions and improving the property if you could re-locate that deck to try to get it a little further away from the lake. Maybe move it to the north side. MR. LAPPER-I’ll let Dean respond to that. MR. HOWLAND-The deck’s been there since this structure was built in the 60’s. Actually it was my parents’ house. That’s how I know about it, and it does have an awning that comes out over it and if you look at the property there’s really no other place to put a deck. I mean it’s been there 60 years I think so far. So I don’t know, it’s been there for a long time. I don’t know what we would gain by moving it, other than something non-useable or putting in a patio on the ground which gives you a hard surface. So I really don’t know where to move it with this particular piece of property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the questions I had is in the narrative talks about additional stormwater management controls. I wonder if you could speak to those. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, I can do that. There’s two things that we’re proposing. One is we’re putting in a stormwater pond it would be on the south side of the property in the rear. That’s where the water comes from. The water comes down from the driveway up above. It goes behind the house on the south side and we could catch it in that particular location . On the other side where they’re putting a bunch of plantings, those are going to be raised beds with mulch. So it’s a very flat lot on all but behind the house, and maybe there it drops maybe four feet, but in front of the place is pretty flat, and along with the shoreline plantings and the plantings out on the north side of the new driveway, that’s going to stop stormwater. Also the driveways are going to become permeable pavers everywhere, including the property that the Schonwetters own next door. So we’re putting a lot of ways to stop the water and I think that’s a major thing when you’re trying to do stormwater is to slow it down, store it, and then have it filtered naturally, and I think we’ve done that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? The variance is for setbacks, floor area and expansion of a non-conforming structure. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things, I’m glad you mentioned the house to the north because the plan that we’re looking at, that Laura has up there, shows paving work on that property as well. So logistically how would that work? Are you going to come forward with a site plan for that property as well? MR. HOWLAND-The pavers are there right now on the property to the north. What they aren’t is permeable pavers. I don’t know why we’d have to come back to put, I’ve never had to do that before anywhere to improve something. MR. HUNSINGER-On the existing plan it really doesn’t show what the driveway looks like on the adjacent property. It just kind of ends. So that’s why I had the question. MR. HOWLAND-It does show it, too. The only thing that’s a little different is that if you see the existing house, as you’re looking at it, on the west side or the left side as you’re looking up at the print, there is a parking area that’s there right now, and that’s going to be removed and re-planted. Every other thing, every 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) other part is already there. So they’re actually taking out some of the, on the other piece of property, some of the non-permeable pavers and replacing what’s going to be left with the permeable pavers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. There’s a propane tank that’s located out in the side yard, the east side of the property back by the shed. Is the propane going to stay out back? Is it a new tank? MR. HOWLAND-There’s a new tank on site that will be buried and it will be buried just east of, there’s two septic tanks, the new septic tank doesn’t have the final approval because there’s no water in the house at the moment because they shut the water off. So the propane tank you will not see. MR. DIXON-All right, and the disturbance needed for that? I guess I would be concerned as far as runoff into the water. MR. HOWLAND-All that has been disturbed and replaced at this time. So that’s on the back side. That’s in line with the stormwater retention pond and at the moment, again, you have to put it in or cover it up, but that’s all part of the construction phase anyway. MR. DIXON-All right, and the shed that you’re showing on the property line, is that an existing shed or is it a newly proposed shed? MR. HOWLAND-It was an existing shed that’s no longer there. Right now there’s, they might come back for a shed, but right now there is no shed on the property. That was removed. MR. DIXON-Thank you for the information. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. So what are the concerns, if any, that we wish to communicate to the ZBA on this application? MS. WHITE-As always, you know, it’s a non-conforming existing and we’re making it even more non- conforming. So I have concerns about that. I just like to usually see, you know, this is an opportunity to bring it into conformance. It’s a small lot with a big house and I just, I would like to see some ways that it could possibly come more into conformance or less expansion. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any suggestions or specifics in terms of how you would like the applicant to approach that problem? MS. WHITE-Well, I mean I know you brought up the deck, for one thing, and I understand the deck’s been there for a long time, but the house has been out of conformance for a long time as well. So I don’t want to tell anybody to make changes. I’d just like to see some things that are changed. Like the last applicant also changed the septic and moved the house further away. So there was at least some attempt to compromise. MR. LAPPER-Well I think the response is when we started out taking off 336 square feet and removing two bedrooms, that’s a pretty good start in terms of the size of a two bay garage is what it is, but knowing that we made the house, the existing house, smaller and removed the bedrooms. So I think that’s significant. MR. HOWLAND-I’d like to add to that, too, that it did not have stormwater management before. It’s got mega stormwater management now, and the hard surfacing being removed. One other thing, too, the new seawall is done. There was an old concrete seawall that DEC gave them permission to put that in. That’s been all turned into natural lot. So that’s been done already. The new septic system I said is in and complete, but the only thing that you might be able to do is something I’ve done, I’m retired now, but underneath the deck place some more crushed stone there just underneath it. It’s just dirt now, and run the gutters on that side of the house just up underneath the deck and let it collect there. It works really great and to be quite honest the old house had a gutter coming off one part and just, it went out over the lake and just dumped in the water. It’s just clear rain water. That might be one application that you could utilize, but the beauty of that house is that deck. Being on the water in the morning that’s a great part of it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and quite honestly that’s the concern I have is doing the renovations, that I would look to re-locate the deck or do something, because that is astonishingly close to the lake. That’s the one concern I have, I guess. MR. VALENTINE-Dean, could I ask you on the, you had said about the wall. Is that the one that’s in the picture? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. HOWLAND-I’m sorry, what wall are we talking about? MS. WHITE-That seawall. MR. HOWLAND-The seawall, if you take, if you look to the right hand side of the plan, you’re going to see, you have the two straight docks coming out, and you go over to where the larger docks are on the other piece of property, and that seawall has been replaced from, if you look there, there’s a shed on the other piece of property. So everything’s been replaced from that upper second, one pier dock looks like it may be six feet wide, and so the seawall’s been replaced all the way to the end of the property and that’s been done. DEC came over and approved all that and gave them the go ahead. So that’s been done. MR. VALENTINE-I didn’t finish my question. MR. HOWLAND-I’m sorry. MR. VALENTINE-That concrete wall that runs along the water in the back of the deck, I’m looking at a picture sheet, the sheet that shows the pictures. MR. HOWLAND-Right. MR. VALENTINE-All right. That wall looks to be in pretty bad shape there now. Is that one that is going to be repaired, replaced? MR. HOWLAND-No, that’s the old seawall. That’s gone. Al that’s gone now. It’s all been removed and it’s been replaced by natural buffer in the water. MS. WHITE-One of the things that I thought about and I forgot, there’s a second story over the garage. So that’s adding to the floor area ratio as well. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, that’s included, but we also took away the attic in the house, which was a, a bedroom had to be 35 feet long, and in the construction drawings drop overlay. So it’s got less than three feet of headroom, and those areas will be removed. MR. TRAVER-I’d like to go back to something that Mr. Valentine asked about, and that’s the wall by the deck as depicted on the photograph. So you’re saying that the photographs in the packet do not depict the existing conditions? MR. VALENTINE-There’s my question. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. The photographs were taken before the wall was installed. The new shoreline wall has been, all that concrete’s been removed and has been replaced as per DEC specs with, it’s just natural stone now, riprap. MR. VALENTINE-Well what’s the grade down to water from the back of the deck, then? How much room have you got if you’re placing stone out there without a wall, obviously the purpose of a wall was to gain more of a breadth or width off of that deck area. MR. HOWLAND-No, it had to go back to where the inside of that old concrete seawall, it used to be a seawall. It hadn’t been repaired in years. MR. VALENTINE-Let me throw this out. The site plan does not reflect a stone wall between the water and the deck. It just shows deck and then it’s labeled as concrete. So I’m looking at the picture thinking that the concrete that’s shown on the plan is the concrete that you’re showing in the picture. It’s in disrepair and of no strength at all, particularly with runoff. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Well that’s all be replaced. MR. VALENTINE-Well how come we don’t have a picture of that? MR. HOWLAND-Well they just finished it last week. I’ve not been by since they finished it. MR. TRAVER-The concern, sir, Mr. Howland, is that the pictures and the plans that we have before us this evening for review do not reflect current conditions. MR. HOWLAND-Well, when I turned the plans in, what you got was current conditions. That’s been, but that’s all been replaced at this time. I can certainly get you, I can go there and take new pictures. I’ve only seen it from across the bay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Right, well, and again, our discussion this evening is for the variances, but I think we should include, David, just a note to the ZBA that there is some concern that the plans do not reflect the current conditions, and I would also like to ask that I have a concern about the proximity of the deck, that in the revision the deck is proposed to remain proximate to the lake. Does anyone have any other concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA? Okay. All right. If there’s nothing else, then I guess we’re ready for a motion, David. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 12-2021 STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes alterations to site and an existing home – footprint 2,953 sq. ft., floor area 3,233 sq. ft. with proposed floor area of 3,505 sq. ft. The project is removal of a portion of current home – 336 sq. ft. – to construct a two car garage with a craft room/bedroom above, 329 sq. ft. footprint. Interior work is reducing bedrooms from six to four. Exterior work includes new roof, stone veneer to be altered and front entry to be relocated. Site work includes shed removal, replacement of deck, permeable pavers, shoreline planting and repairs to seawall. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2021 STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) The photos submitted do not reflect current conditions. 2) Proximity of the deck to the lake. th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion on that motion, on those conditions? MRS. MOORE-Steve, can you have that seconded and then I just want to pipe in a little bit about the plans not reflecting the current conditions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. That’s fine. So do we have a second? MR. DIXON-I’ll second. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So discussion here would be in reference to the photos don’t necessarily show the existing conditions, but they show basically what the conditions were at the time. The plans that you have in front of you, the architecturals and that, show a seawall. So I don’t, I mean I get the fact that the pictures don’t show it, but as Mr. Howland pointed out, it was just finished, and they do have the DEC approval to construct that seawall which they have. So I just want to make sure it’s clarified that it’s just the photos because typically we do see the opportunity, when someone shows us photos of the house in relation to their architectural drawings, it’s difficult to reflect what’s really going to happen to that house. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I have great confidence that the applicant is going to be having a discussion about that with the ZBA. Would they not? MRS. MOORE-In reference to the plans not reflecting or the photos? MR. TRAVER-The photos and the plans. MR. DEEB-I think we should change the condition to the photos do not reflect the current condition. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. HOWLAND-I’d just say when all the plans were turned in, that’s what it reflected, and it’s been, what, three or four weeks now. So the new seawall that’s been built, because you want to build it during the wintertime when you can do it, and I can take a picture of what was built and give it go Laura. MR. TRAVER-That might be wise. So, David, do you want to read us the amended motion and we’ll hear that. MR. DEEB-Okay. An amendment that the photos submitted do not reflect the current conditions, and the proximity of the deck to the lake. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEPHEN HARADAN. AGENT(S): DEAN HOWLAND, JR., JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 334 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING HOME AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE BEDROOM HOME WITH A 1,830 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 222 SQ. FT. OF PORCHES AND DECKS. THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 4,312 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR GRADING, INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS, WORK ALONG THE SHORELINE WITH PLANTINGS AND PATHWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065, 179-3-040, & 179-6-050 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. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 13-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .36 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-74. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179- 3-040, 179-6-050. JON LAPPER & DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This project is to remove the existing home and associated building to construct a new three bedroom home. Footprint to be 1,830 square feet with 222 square feet of porches and decks. The floor area is to be 4,312 square feet. The variance relief sought is for setbacks and floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Jon, do you want to go ahead and talk about this. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So this is a very different type of application. Here we have a pre-existing house that was 22 feet from the lake when Steve purchased it and everybody wishes that they could have a house 22 feet from the lake like you used to be able to build it, and most people might want to keep that and do an addition on the back, but that’s not what’s going on here. I’m thinking back to the Bosy application, and I know we all say that Zoning Board, Area Variance applications are all different , but in that case you asked us to move it back to 50 feet, and that’s what’s happening here. So the house is 53 feet from the lake. So everything that was there right up against the lake is going to be gone and the lake setback is conforming, and the variance, so there’s a side setback variance which is slightly better than what’s there now, and the only other variance is floor area ratio. So this is requested to go to approximately 28%, but that, again, is because this is a small lot, not a huge house, but what they’re doing with stormwater plantings, new septic, new house, permeability and most importantly moving it away from the lake, this is a big improvement to the lake, and I just want to throw in that on the garage side of this house, this is directly across from the rear parking lot of the Sans. So it’s really a commercial use that’s right across the street where people double park all summer, including myself. It’s so popular. So it’s an interesting application for that reason as well, but most importantly it’s being moved way off the lake. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Jon. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-It’s a sizeable variance for the FAR. I don’t know if anything could be done with that or not. MR. TRAVER-With the Floor Area Ratio? Yes. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. DEEB-That was one of my concerns. MR. LAPPER-When you have a small lot 28% really isn’t over the top. It’s just, you know, it’s relative to the size of the lot. MS. WHITE-You can build a smaller house. It’s a very small lot and while the other concessions are very much appreciated, what you outlined, it’s still a very large house. I know, Jon, you keep saying this is just an average house, but as far as the .3 acre lot, this is a big house. MR. LAPPER-I understand. MR. HOWLAND-The other thing is, with the nature of the lot being sloped an your 28 foot rule, it’s always interesting to meet those requirements, and so what I did is I had to take an existing area and dig down and that’s fine. So I’m going to, because you’re doing that, there’s a basement, rec room. Where that rec room is, no matter what I do, I’ve got to build, the contractor will have to do eight foot walls there. So we end up putting a rec room down there, that’s what takes it over the FAR. The house doesn’t, the main house doesn’t, the second floor doesn’t. It’s utilizing an area that we’ve got to make anyways. We just have to take it and fill it in if that’s a major problem. MR. LAPPER-Meaning that it wouldn’t change the visibility of the house above the surface. It’s just the subsurface. MR. HOWLAND-Correct. I mean if you look the way that I made a walkway into it, I did it on the south side and it’s just a little entry way to get into it. We put something to get into, no matter what, just to have some sort of storage down there, but most of that basement is less than five feet in height, but there is an area that you’ll see on the front elevation there, the lake elevation, you’ll see the windows. That’s, there’s a retaining wall that’s underneath the front of the deck and the screened porch. MS. WHITE-That is an interesting point, and I appreciate you pointing that out. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, and in that area in there, that’s all crushed stone again. That’s just something I’ve done over the years, run all my gutters, and I’m retired now, but my son runs the gutters, we run all the gutters there so that it gives us a place to not put any, once water comes off the roof, we don’t put, we don’t let any water spill into the ground and this, I’ve done this because it works. It’s a non-maintenance thing that the homeowner doesn’t have to do anything forever with it and it really works well, but again I still have to dig it out just to build the rest of the house anyway, but that’s why we end up putting a room down there, but other than that we meet the height requirement everywhere and stuff. I actually think it’s a good looking house, but again that is a requirement, but that’s where the extra square footage is. It’s just for a summer game room, and I understand Queensbury counts basements and attics. I’m on the Lake George Planning Board we don’t count that stuff, but I get it. MR. DEEB-I think that’s a viable explanation. I’m happy with that. MR. TRAVER-Other comments? We need to put a referral together for the ZBA. So what are the concerns am I hearing? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I do have one concern. In the explanation, and Mr. Howland can probably describe this. In the Staff Notes they commented that there was no well noted on the floor plan. So are you drawing drinking water from the lake? MR. HOWLAND-The existing water is from the lake. It will maintain water from the lake. Correct. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you treat the water from the lake? MR. HOWLAND-Yes. What you do is you put a filter and an ultraviolet light on it so it’s 99% pure. We always recommend you filter. If you don’t you get sulfur water. You get bad water. MR. VALENTINE-Could I ask you one question? It’s unrelated, it’s almost like a nosiness thing, okay. The master bedroom up there, I don’t see a doorway to the master bedroom. MR. HOWLAND-There’s a door at the top of the stairs that goes in. MR. VALENTINE-All right. So you’ve got to come back out into the hall to use the bathroom, the master bathroom? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. HOWLAND-No, the master bathroom is on the south side, okay, of that. There’s a closet on the south side, You have to go to the second floor. MR. VALENTINE-All right. I’m better looking at site plans than home plans. MR. TRAVER-All right. So in terms of our referral to the ZBA, are we, we’ve had a lot of discussion, but do we have any specific concerns that we want to convey to them? MR. DEEB-I don’t. MR. VALENTINE-I don’t. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Very good. All right, David, we’re ready for that resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 13-2021 STEPHEN HARADEN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing home and associated buildings to construct a new three bedroom home with a 1,830 sq. ft. footprint with 222 sq. ft. of porches and decks. The floor area is to be 4,312 sq. ft. The project includes site work for grading, installation of permeable pavers, work along the shoreline with plantings and pathway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065,179-3-040 & 179-6-050 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. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and floor area. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2021 STEPHEN HARADEN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. HOWLAND-Good night. MR. TRAVER-All right, and the next item under referral to the ZBA. This is for Charles Carder and Caren Tucker, Site Plan 14-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CHARLES CARDER/CAREN TUCKER. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): CHARLES CARDER. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 93 FITZGERALD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION OF 765 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA RENOVATION OF THE SECOND FLOOR CONVERTING ATTIC SPACE TO LIVING SPACE AND A COVERED PORCH. PROJECT INCLUDES 142 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT ADDITION TO THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT FOR A COVERED ENTRY AND MUDROOM. THE EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT IS 1,138 SQ. FT. WITH A 712 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,088 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS 2,853 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 38-2000, SP 32-2000 SUNDECK OVER DOCK, AV 35-1996 SHED, AV 16- 2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .28 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-24. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010, 179-6-050. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a residential addition of 765 square feet of floor area. The front of this project is actually raising the roof area, converting the second floor space that is currently attic to a living space. This also includes a covered porch area, a new septic system and a new entry mudroom. The variance for the façade is for setbacks, height, permeability, floor area and expansion of a non-conforming structure. As noted, the house is an existing house on Glen Lake that is in close proximity to Glen Lake itself. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. So good evening, Ethan. MR. HALL-Good evening, Stephen. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MR. HALL-So the Carders, Chuck Carder owns the building. It’s in a trust for his children, working with the Carders and the Tuckers. Currently it’s a seasonal residence. It has no basement. It’s a slab on grade building or slab on frost wall building. There are two very small bedrooms on the main floor of the house that kind of break the house up in a really weird way. There is a shared access drive right of way that is the end of Fitzgerald Road and it goes to several properties beyond Fitzgerald, or beyond Carders, I’m sorry. The access to get into the building currently is from that right of way. So if you walk out the kitchen door you basically step right into this right of way, which is one of the problems we’re trying to solve. That’s the reason for the new mudroom which would be on the, I’ll call it the east end of the building. That area is currently unoccupied by any first or second floor space. We also are renovating the downstairs to open up the kitchen which is very tight, moving those two bedrooms to the upper floor and taking basically the roof that’s over the part of the attic, raising it up and moving the two bedrooms upstairs. The basic footprint of the house really doesn’t change with the exception of the mudroom that’s being added, and the additional square footage that goes against the floor area ratio is the covered screened porch that they want to put over the existing deck so that they can use it when it’s foul weather. Laura did indicate we’ve been to the Town Board. We’ve received a variance from the Town Board for the new septic system. The current system is basically a handmade septic tank with a drywell. It’s about 37 feet something from the lake. The new system that we’re putting in is a Norweco Singulair Green system. It’s an anaerobic treatment system. We have an effluent pump and we’re putting a bottomless sand filter on the opposite side of the right of way with a force main that goes underneath the right of way. So we’ve moved that so that it’s compliant or more compliant than it certainly is now. We’ve received our variances from the Town Board. We’re adding some stormwater, some eaves trenches, along the roadway so that the roof water that comes off that side gets into the ground and not out onto the roadway. The height variance that we’re seeking is because it’s an existing. We’re not going higher than what the existing is. The existing roof is 31 feet 2 inches above and it’s really at the front of the building and that height is existing and we’re not going higher than that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Ethan, that roof height, you said that’s the existing roof height as it stands now. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And you’re going to be bringing the second story up , but up to that height. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Ethan, with the bedrooms going up to the attic, again, this is like one of those inconsequential answers you can give me, okay. Is there going to be air conditioning up there? MR. HALL-Yes. They’re going to use mini splits for the air conditioning. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. All right. Thanks. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. HALL-Yes, the ductless split systems. MR. TRAVER-It’s worked well. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, I’ve got one. MR. MAGOWAN-They’re phenomenal. MR. DIXON-Does this property use a well also? MR. HALL-No, they draw water from the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-Ethan is it going to be staying seasonal? MR. HALL-No. They’re going to go ahead and they’re going to insulate everything, Brad. They’re going to use the, they have a fireplace that’s in there. They’re going to use that for the heat on the main floor. Along with the, there is a space, a utility room. They’re going to put a high efficiency furnace in down there and then they’re going to put the mini splits upstairs. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because those are considered heat pumps. As long as when it’s subzero they don’t mind spinning their meter a little, they do work well. MR. HALL-Yes, they do. MR. HUNSINGER-So, Ethan, one of the things I got a little confused on was which of the, there’s five variances referenced in the Staff Notes. Which of those are new? MR. HALL-The maximum floor area ratio is really the only new one. The percentage of permeability, we’re currently at, currently it’s a 75.16, and with the addition of the new mudroom it brings us to 73.99. So we go just barely over the 75%. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And the floor area is about 230 above. MR. HALL-Yes. It’s about 230 above, and most of that is because of the new covered deck. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So how do Board members feel about the variance requests? Do we have concerns, specific concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA as they look at this? I mean in many ways it’s an improvement. It’s sort of a pre-existing, non-conforming. MR. VALENTINE-I was going to that point and come back to Jamie’s consideration before on another project, was the fact that you’re expanding it, not only in a pre-existing, non-conforming, but you’re also ameliorating that, too. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. WHITE-Right. Exactly. Yes. I mean at least the effort has been made to bring things into conformance where they can, and it just seems to make so much more sense the way that this was done. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean just look at the pre-existing septic. I mean that was a nightmare scenario. MS. WHITE-Exactly, and, you know, the effort was made to change that and that means a lot. MR. HALL-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments? MR. DEEB-I think it’s floor area ratio. Everything else is pretty much the same. We have to take the variance into consideration. We’re not changing anything. MR. TRAVER-Right. Absolutely. MS. WHITE-But some of that is utilizing existing space in a better way, but then it ends up being. Yes. Okay. MR. DEEB-I agree with what you’re saying. I just think floor area is one thing you don’t have to look at. MR. TRAVER-Yes. And it’s only two hundred and. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. DEEB-And it’s not a big one. It’s just the deck. MR. HALL-Yes, it’s relatively small. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, I guess we’re ready for that referral. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV# 16-2021 CARDER/TUCKER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a residential addition of 765 sq. ft. of floor area renovation of the second floor converting attic space to living space and a covered porch. Project includes 142 sq. ft. footprint addition to the house footprint for a covered entry and mudroom. The existing home footprint is 1,138 sq. ft. with a 712 sq. ft. deck. The existing floor area is 2,088 sq. ft. and proposed floor area is 2,853 sq. ft. The project work includes installation of a new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, height, permeability, floor area and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2021 CHARLES CARDER/CAREN TUCKER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Have a great night. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we move to the next section of our agenda which is New Business. This application also has a public hearing, so I’ll alert Laura to prepare for that. This is for Robert C. Wing, Site Plan 18-2021 and Special Use Permit 1-2021. This is a Type II under SEQR. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 18-2021 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT C. WING. AGENT(S): MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR. OWNER(S): ROBERT C. WING. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 159 SUNNYSIDE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RE-USE THE EXISTING SITE OF 19.67 ACRES AND THE ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS WITH THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF 7,240 SQ. FT. AND A RESIDENTIAL HOME OF 1,024 SQ. FT. TO OPERATE A TREE SERVICE USE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES NO CHANGES TO THE BUILDINGS, NO CHANGES TO THE ELECTRIC, WELL OR SEPTIC. OPERATIONS INCLUDE DAILY WORK HOURS, COMPANY VEHICLES ON-SITE, AND OUTSIDE STORAGE OF MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH BUSINESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 41- 2010, AV 21-2010, SUB 4-2010, SP 52-2003. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. LOT SIZE: 19.67 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-60. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-10. MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT WING, PRESENT 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to re-use the existing site of 19.67 acres and associated buildings with the commercial building of 7,240 square feet and that includes the canopy area, and then there’s also a residential home of 1,024 square feet. This is to operate a tree service use, and I did note, I’m pretty sure I put it on the plans, this Board had reviewed the referral to the Town Board in reference to adding a new use to this zone that included tree service use. So this is what this project is for and the applicant is just simply re-using it and I did include information about some of the truck traffic from the applicant’s description of comparison between the previous landscaping and this tree service use. So I think Mike and Robert are here if they want to discuss that. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you, Laura. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we provided quite a bit of detail. We did an actual comparison on the present use and the proposed use line by line as to the activities that take place. Then on Page Eight of the application we gave a narrative as to what they’re doing. This is a 19 acre site and they’re not going to change the buildings that are on the site at all, and as Laura mentioned, this has been before the Town Board and before your Board once to make a recommendation to the Town Board when the zoning definitions were changed which would permit tree service as well as the landscaping service. It also was before this Board when the buildings were built and there was a site plan review approval of the buildings and the stormwater and what not that goes with those buildings. So there’s not much new before your Board at this point except to add the tree service which the Town Board did approve. If you want I can read through the narrative on Page Eight, actually there are two Page Eights that were submitted. One typed out and one handwritten, but they basically say they’re very similar businesses on site, very similar business to what presently is there. We did a comparison of the operation, and I think the only difference is we said the average number of trucks on site would be six to eight as opposed to four to six. I’ve got to move my screen a little bit here. High Peaks has four to six and we have, the present use has six to eight. So there’d be a decrease in the number of trucks that are on this site. There is not going to be any sawmill operation or wood chipping on this site. That was some concern by somebody. That’s basically what we have. There is a detailed layout of it that was on Sheet One of Four that shows the existing building, shows the areas that are going to be used for the growth of the vegetation , the trees, shrubbery and has a pretty good layout. They’re also shown on that sheet where plantings are going to be laid which will screen the adjoining properties which was one comment that was made by Staff and there’s also screening along the side road area where there’s a residence that was put there specifically to screen that residence. So we think we’ve pretty much mitigated any difference or any impact. In fact we’ve improved the impact from the present uses, decreased the impacts, and any questions you have we’d be glad to try and answer. MR. TRAVER-So, Michael, just to clarify, there is not going to be any processing of materials on site. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. MR. TRAVER-That was the main question that I had. MR. O'CONNOR-Steve, that’s not permitted in the definition of the use that’s now permitted. MR. TRAVER-That’s why I asked the question. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So I’ll open it up to members of the Board for questions, comments. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had, Mike, is it says, and this is from Staff Notes, but I’m just reading it so I can get your feedback. The plans indicate storage of materials include woodchips, miscellaneous wood, and logs. Can you just comment on that, because I know that it’s supposed to be temporary. MR. O’CONNOR-All right. Okay. The tree service and the landscaping service, most of those activities take place on customer’s property away from this site, but if they do chip shrubs or tree limbs on the other sites the chips will be brought back and stored temporarily on this site and on the layout we’ve shown you where they would be stored. It will not be there permanently. The same thing for logs. If there are some marketable logs that are obtained by people as the tree service is operated, they will be put on the site temporarily but then they will go off the site and go to a sawmill. They will be sold from the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you define temporary, though? MR. O'CONNOR-Rob, how long do you think you’re going to have these on site? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. WING-It depends. I mean a lot of it would be, I mean I would definitely, you know, refer to Chris if he’s listening, but a lot of it has to do with, they bring in the logs from a site. Logs can site anywhere from I mean I would say a week to a month until either the market got better and stronger or depending upon if he had a certain use for certain logs, if he was waiting on a buyer that he was going to deliver it to, so on and so forth. Because he’s bringing the logs back for the purpose to recycle them, to take them to somebody that’s going to saw them and use them. Because as they lay there on his site per se and rot they’re really no good. Where chips kind of the same thing as I do now with my chips that I bring back. They sit there. We recycle them. Some people sell them to different mills. We happen to use them on job sites for erosion control, and it’s going to be that same turnover use. So to tell you whether it’s a day, a week, or two weeks, I mean I would say it’s going to vary a bit. Some may be there a day or two where others may be there a week or two. That’s that cycle of moving them around. MR. O'CONNOR-What’s the quantity that you’re talking about for logs, Rob? MR. WING-When I was talking to Chris, he had said that he isn’t going to have like rows and rows and enormous piles of logs. He’ll bring them in, spread them out. I don’t know if they grade them there or not before they send them out. I’m not sure. That’s just grading them just on where to market them, but it’s not going to be, you know, like there’s acres full of logs. He wants to move them because he can generate income off of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. WING-The same theory really the way I would do topsoil on site. I bring in topsoil that we might take off a site that’s full of rock, etc., and we move it around there, we put it back on the trucks and we re- sell it or we re-use it on a job site, but nothing is, he’s not grinding on the site. He’s not sawing lumber on the site, none of that. He’s well aware of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. WING-You’re welcome. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. DIXON-Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Staff Notes, site lighting plan. It states in here plans do not indicate any site lighting or building lighting. Do you want to comment on that? MR. O'CONNOR-Any site lighting will be downcast. There will be some probably security lighting on the buildings I think. Is there lighting on the buildings now, Rob:? MR. WING-Yes, what’s there now is the original lighting that was approved around the building over the bay doors which face east, and then there’s a porch up at the front of the building that has lights in it. The only thing is a light that surrounds the building for security purposes, and it’s been that way since I built it, and I don’t see any reason that Chris would want to or have to change it. I mean it’s a good looking lighting. If you were to go by the building at night it accents the building and gives you the security and lets people know that there are things back there, and if you had to go there for an emergency at night it is lit. So it’s safe. MR. O'CONNOR-The building’s also a great distance from the road, from Sunnyside Road. MR. DIXON-You’re not proposing any new additional lighting? MR. WING-No. MR. VALENTINE-Rob, I’d like to come back to the plan sheet that you have up there. You talked about log storage. It says material stockpiles and then re-located tree storage, but where on this plan would you designate for the storage of those logs? MR. WING-Most of the material would suit best to the right of where it does say material stockpiles. Number One that’s a pretty level area. It’s buffered tremendously from the road, from any neighbors, even from what I put in the original landscaping, the original site plan which is now very mature. A lot of the other trees I’ve trained and pruned and left a really good dense buffer that’s probably 20 feet thicker now than it was when I originally put in the original landscaping. That was with the site plan. So most everything as you pull into the driveway looking at the plan would go to the right side, where it says pallet storage, material stockpile. That’s a very, very shallow grade. It doesn’t have a lot of pitch right there. It’s just in with the red dirt soils that I’m sure a lot of you are aware of on Sunnyside. Everything drains well. It’s a great area for that. Most of it’s grass. It does have vegetation on it. It’s mowed, and there are trees, there’s islands of trees in that area that aren’t depicted on this older site plan, and there are piles there now, too, though. So if you were to go by today, tomorrow, you can see the chip piles, my mulch piles, etc. So you can see active piles that have been there. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. VALENTINE-But next time when Matt Steves comes in with a plan, can I get to pick on him for spelling pallets like palette? MR. WING-I’d say absolutely. MS. WHITE-So, Laura, I apologize if I missed this, but could you just address or confirm that there will not be maintenance on the trucks at this site? MR. WING-Well there’s routine maintenance like the garage space at the end is your normal, I mean if they go in the garage, that garage is designed to do, if you want to do your oil changes, if you want to do greasing of your truck, I mean normal, everyday. MS. WHITE-The normal, but not the. MR. WING-Yes, not an automotive garage. Correct. MS. WHITE-And you’ve already been doing that. MR. WING-Absolutely. MS. WHITE-There won’t be a change? MR. WING-No. MS. WHITE-Okay. Thank you. MR. WING-No, routine. MR. TRAVER-So we have a public hearing on this application as well. Laura, is there anyone that’s raised their hand or wants to comment that you’re aware of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s nobody who’s raised their hand. There is a public comment that was written that was done as a memo. It was taken as a phone call. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Could you read that into the record for us, please. MRS. MOORE-Sunny Sweet received this phone call from John Reese at 165 Sunnyside Road, regarding the proposed tree service at 159 Sunnyside Road directly next door to him. On Tuesday morning, 3/9/2021, I received a phone call from John Reese, 165 Sunnyside Road regarding the proposed tree service at 159 Sunnyside Road , directly next door to him. He had received a public hearing notice and is adamantly against the project. He stated that he is a veteran and he has lived at this location all his life except when in active service to his country. He is now 89 years old and has dialysis three days a week at 6 a.m. He cannot attend the Planning Board meeting in person or on Zoom due to his health and need to go to bed early to prepare for the dialysis. He says he cannot write a letter and when I suggested that he dictate his concerns to someone and then sign it and submit it to the Planning Board, he complained that it wouldn't adequately express his concerns and emotions. He stated that he would try to get his service superior to write on his behalf but doubted it could get done in time for the meeting. He mentioned that he knew the supervisor for Ward 1 and would contact him. His concerns are: That the project shouldn't be allowed in his residential neighborhood. That after having to listen to motorcycles for years when this was McDermott's now he would be having trucks and equipment from this "logging" company entering and leaving right next to his house. He does not want any chainsaws operating next to his house. This use will disturb his rest and sleep and affect him negatively health -wise. He spent years in service to his country and the government owes him peace in his old age. If this project is allowed he feels the TOQ is "worthless''. He asked to speak to someone in authority and I referred him to Craig Brown. And this is from Sunny Sweet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. So we’ve already addressed, I think, the concerns, it sounds like at least some of the concerns, and I think some of them are out of our jurisdiction, but some of the concerns that he raised with the site I think about processing and so on that we have spoken about. Does anyone have any comment on that? MR. WING-Yes, the only thing that I would say is I have run the same trucks since 2004 in and out of the same driveway, the same building, and as a matter of fact, I know the Reese’s and I have never even one time had a complaint, had them say can you maybe adjust your hours, which the hours are stated. I mean, that’s, honestly that’s pretty shocking to me because he’s really been, I’m not saying that he’s not a good neighbor because I think he still is. It’s just I’m very, if he ever needed anything I go by there. If he ever 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) had a question I was always there to answer, his son-in-law or actually I believe it’s his son has been over to the building to visit. I’m shocked, and the change, vehicle wise, and chainsaw wise or anything like that is going to be no different than what I’ve done. If anything there’s going to be less of the vehicle movement than what I had. Besides morning and afternoon and the occasional use, you come in with a chip truck, dump chips, they go back out to work, same as we did with dump trucks. MR. TRAVER-But it sounds as though his concern was for potential changes, significant changes to the operations. MR. WING-Yes, no. So hopefully and maybe, I mean hopeful if everything goes well, maybe I would just pay him a visit and re-assure him, because, you know, like I said I want to be a good neighbor. MR. O'CONNOR-Steve, that’s why we submitted that sheet with the comparison between Rob’s operation and the future operation of High Peaks. MR. TRAVER-Yes, Michael, I appreciate that, although apparently this gentleman didn’t have access to that. I think he was just expressing a general concern, but thank you again. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, to address the concern, is there any additional buffering that can be done around the residence? MR. WING-I mean there’s, if you go and look now, the tree line that separates my property and his, the Norway Spruce trees I planted 15 years ago are very extensive. These trees are pushing 25 to 30 feet tall and 10 to 15 foot wide and the base and they’re touching, and then there’s an existing Blue Spruce buffer. Those trees are pushing 50 to 60 feet tall that are touching, and they’re even wider at the base. The existing tree that goes in the back part of this property that makes the “U”, there’s a tremendous amount of evergreen coverage, and we did the evergreens so of course he’s got it year round. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-No, I appreciate that, and I did look at the comparison. So I didn’t see where we were going to have as significant an impact compared to what’s been there. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Can I ask a question in regards to the landscaping? So the Board received two plans. There was a survey in reference to what would be proposed on the site, and then this plan that I have up now that was from the previous approval. So just for my understanding, the landscaping that is shown around the Reese’s, that’s already in place? Is that accurate? MR. WING-Absolutely. That’s been in place in the original site plan back 15 years ago or better. Yes. Correct. MRS. MOORE-So it just doesn’t show up on this more recent survey. MR. WING-Right. Yes, he actually, it doesn’t show any landscaping to be honest with you. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s on Sheet One of Two, I think, on the site plan application. MRS. MOORE-Right, but this is the previously approved plan. This was from way back when. So it is confusing that it’s not on Matt’s survey. MR. WING-The only difference is all those trees are four times bigger than they were when they were planted. MR. HUNSINGER-If you pull up Google maps it shows it very well. MRS. MOORE-So I just want to make sure that the Board isn’t, you know, I identified a discussion item regarding landscaping because I look at the Van Dusen and Steves map and I don’t see the same information that appeared on the previous approved plan. So I apologize. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MRS. MOORE-So one of the questions that also came up was in reference to signage. Is there new signage? MR. WING-Right now presently there’s a sign that’s what we call a banner sign on the right side of the entry going in, just simply states my name of the business there just for deliveries and so on, but on the, if you go up the stone surface driveway going in through the gate to the left, it’s approximately, I cannot 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) honestly remember the setback when I got the setback, the proper setback from the Town of Queensbury for the signage. MR. O'CONNOR-The signage will be compliant I guess is the way to answer that. MR. WING-Yes. On that sign where that shows, I’m actually another at least I’m between 30 and 40 feet further into the property because we didn’t want it that close. So we actually brought this sign back up the road a little bit further and that’s where the electricity is and so on. It’s electricity just for down lighting on the sign. MRS. MOORE-It’s not showing and it’s just deceptive that I’m not seeing the right things, but maybe we can have this one updated with some of that information. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the survey by Van Dusen & Steves was for perimeter purposes for description of the property, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That’s probably why, but it’s difficult to say that this is the approved plan that you’re submitting and really some of the information is not showing up. MR. WING-Right, well if you took the signage off of the other one and just moved it back 30 feet up along the driveway kind of where that hand is right now. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, on Sheet One of Two with the Site Plan application you have all that landscaping and I think the sign shown. That’s what we would be compliant with. MR. WING-Right, but I get your point, Laura. The sign is in front of the landscaping on the site plan, but it is technically in the back of it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Michael O’Connor, did you take this through Town Board for zoning change? Were you part of that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Was there ever any kind of written or any other correspondence from Mr. Reese at that point? MR. O'CONNOR-I think once the Board included in the definition that there’d be no on site processing, wood chipping or sawing of logs there was no opposition. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. WING-Yes, he did not make a comment. That’s why I said I was quite, not shocked, I don’t want to use the word shocked. MR. VALENTINE-No, I’m all right. Thank you. MR. DIXON-I do have one more quick question. So we talked about where you would be storing some of the logs. In here it said that you would be storing grass clippings as well, too. Could you describe where that would be? MR. WING-Well the grass clippings that are on site now that I’ve had are over in the right hand, just past the material stockpile. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. WING-But a tree service use won’t have grass clippings. So there’s no need for the grass clippings. MRS. MOORE-Just the storage of wood chips. So one of the things that the Board has, because the Town Board added this a s a Special Use Permit, it’s noted in the resolution in reference to having it as a temporary use, a permanent use or a renewable operation. So that is something that you should consider when you’re going through your review process. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, good. Thank you, Laura. I think probably in this case my own feeling is it makes sense to make it permanent. MR. VALENTINE-I would say so, yes. It’s a business operation. Right? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re talking about a significant investment for the people coming in here. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and if for some reason this were to change hands and somebody wanted to do something radically different, we’d be taking a new look at it anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So does anyone have any other concerns regarding this application, questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to add I would agree with that because the proposed use is so incredibly similar to the existing use that I don’t see any reason to limit the Special Use Permit. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. All right. Well if there’s nothing else, David, I guess we’re ready to. MRS. MOORE-I’m just going to ask one more question. Do you think it’s possible to get that survey updated with some of the information that we’ve heard about tonight? MR. VALENTINE-Well I think Michael O’Connor made the point that the survey is a survey that’s showing you legal bounds and descriptions. I don’t think it’s the survey plan we want to update. Maybe one of the others. MR. O'CONNOR-Laura, you have all the landscaping shown on this plan that I have in my hands. It’s part of the site plan application. MR. TRAVER-Laura, what specifically are you looking for? MRS. MOORE-So that previously approved plan, and I don’t mind them using it, but right now it’s specifically for Rob’s previous business. MR. O'CONNOR-This site plan? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-No, this has been updated as to the new plantings. MR. WING-Right, but, Laura, I understand where you’re coming from. It’s showing the layout of the original site plan back when I went through the original site plan. You’re asking to maybe take the survey map that marks the material stockpiled areas, show the landscaping on that plan, show where the sign is maybe, because you can’t necessarily show down lighting on the structure. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. WING-And the only thing with the landscaping maybe is do you want us to show the existing buffer? MRS. MOORE-Maybe the existing tree line. So it just changes the tree line. Because right now it doesn’t look like there’s any tree line near Mr. Reese’s property and that’s not accurate. MR. WING-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have the application in front of you, Laura? You have Sheet One of Two? MRS. MOORE-Yes, Mike, that is a plan from way back when when Rob did the first application. I don’t know how many years ago you did that, but that’s a previous application. MR. O'CONNOR-Well I think the black dots are new plantings. MR. WING-No, Michael, they’re existing. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would ask that the final submitted plans be updated to reflect the information that Laura’s requesting, the landscaping, the signage. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not a problem. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-You may as well change palette to pallets, too, you know. MRS. MOORE-One of the other things, I know that sometimes we’ve included this in past site plan applications. I know he’s done this similar comparison use for High Peaks versus Volt Landscaping. This is up to the Board, but sometimes you’ve included information in reference to having four to six trucks on the site. Do you want that information on the site plan or as a condition within the resolution. MS. WHITE-I think that would be very helpful. MR. WING-The only thing I would say to that, Laura, is over the years I’ve added a truck or two. How do you? MRS. MOORE-Right, and that’s fine. I’m just pointing it out to the Board if that’s how they want. MR. O'CONNOR-Laura, you’re talking six to eight as opposed to four to six. So you’re talking at most a difference of two trucks. MRS. MOORE-And that’s fine. I’m just pointing out sometimes they’ve put that on the plan. If they don’t wish to do that, they don’t have to do that. MS. WHITE-But there’s other information on there as well that, you know, that’s outlined. That way it’s. MR. O'CONNOR-Well that’s part of our application. We can’t change what’s on here. We can’t o do something different than what we’ve got on this sheet, than what we’ve submitted as part of the application. MR. WING-Right, and we provided this to show similarities. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and that’s fine. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’m not feeling that we need to have a condition on the resolution that the number of trucks be X, Y, or Z. I think it’s part of the existing application. It’s consistent with the use that we’re approving. I would find it hard to imagine there’d be a radical change in the number of vehicles unless there was a change in use. MS. WHITE-Laura, you’re okay with that? MRS. MOORE-I’m okay with that. I just wanted to point it out that sometimes you’ve put it as like a conditions, and to list that condition, or you’ve had that information placed on the plan itself, and I’m okay, if the plan’s going to indicate the location of storage, I think that’s an easy enforceable item. Counting the number of trucks you have on site, that’s not easy. MR. O'CONNOR-I will get the survey updated. MR. WING-And they vary, too. A truck could be left overnight on a job site somewhere. I mean you don’t know. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, gentlemen. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right, David, where are we at now? MR. DEEB-Ready to go. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, you still need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Maria. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And proceed to considering the resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 18-2021 & SUP 1-2021 ROBERT C. WING 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to reuse the existing site of 19.67 acres and the associated buildings with the commercial building of 7,240 sq. ft. and a residential home of 1,024 sq. ft. to operate a tree service use. The applicant proposes no changes to the buildings, no changes to the electric, well or septic. Operations include daily work hours, company vehicles on-site, and outside storage of materials associated with business. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial use and special use permit shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/16/2021 and continued the public hearing to 03/16/2021, 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 03/16/2021; 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 PLAN18-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2021 ROBERT C. WING. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or CO 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) Tree service use is being granted: Permanent Special Use Permit. i) Submission of updated site plan to reflect current landscaping and signage placement. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-David, the only question I have is when you say it’s for one year, application for a building permit. We aren’t going to be applying for any building permit. MRS. MOORE-He still needs to apply for the CO. So it’s similar. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We will apply for the CO. Yes. MR. DEEB-I can re-word that to say if the applicant has not applied for a CO. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Right. It’s just stating that he’s got to get his CO within a year or come back for site plan. MR. DEEB-Yes, well this is just boilerplate stuff. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/16/2021) MRS. MOORE-David, you could do a building permit/CO. MR. O'CONNOR-As soon as we can get the landscaping put on the survey I will apply for the CO. MRS. MOORE-Under H, did you say permanent? MR. TRAVER-For the Special Use. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right, gentlemen, you are all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So that completes our agenda for this evening. A reminder that next week we have two meetings, Tuesday and Thursday, to handle the growing season a little bit here in the spring. Is there any other business before the Board tonight? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 16, 2021, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 36