Loading...
03-25-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING THIRD REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 49-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 1.. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Site Plan No. 9-2021 Trevor Flynn 2. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48 Site Plan No. 48-2020 Mark Prendeville 3. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Site Plan No. 11-2021 Stephen Haraden 4. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-74 Site Plan No. 15-2021 Paul Derby 6. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-22 Site Plan No. 19-2021 Adirondack Trust 9. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47 Site Plan No. 16-2021 Ed & Beverly Tobin 11. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-88 Discussion Item 2-2021 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-48, -49, -54, -55, -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 03/25/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING THIRD REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-For those folks watching us on Zoom, welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th meeting for Thursday, March 25, 2021. This is our third meeting for March, our seventh meeting for the nd year, our 22 meeting under the COVID Pandemic and our seventh meeting held in a virtual basis. Be advised, those of you that are here to make public comment, that we are going to be considering tabling motions for three of the applications before us, and that is for the Godnick, Flynn and Prendeville applications, and also the Clear Brook LLC application has been withdrawn. So we’ll be discussing that in detail when we get to them, but just, if there are folks anticipating here wanting to address the Board on those applications, be advised that, although we will be opening the public hearings, they will be tabled. Also, Laura, has it been confirmed that we are going to return to the prior COVID format, in that we’ll be meeting at the Town office or Town building next month? MRS. MOORE-It has not been confirmed, but it’s my understanding that that’s what the plan is to do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The only reason I ask is because I note that on the agenda it still shows that all the meetings are going to be virtual, and I wanted to let the public know if that was going to change. We’ll wait until there’s a formal decision and announcement on that. MRS. MOORE-I would appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. Okay. So we’ll go ahead and start the meeting. We have one Administrative Item and this is for Site Plan 49-2020 for Jeffrey Godnick requesting a further tabling to th May 20 of 2021. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK FURTHER TABLING TO MAY 20, 2021 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application still has some items to address with the site development data and their survey that they had updated. I had explained to them that I had reviewed the information that they submitted and that the numbers need to be adjusted to make sure that they match. So they’re still working th on those details and I’m anticipating information coming in by April 15 for that project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there any discussion on that application for tabling? Does anyone have an issue with that? MR. SHAFER-No. MR. TRAVER-Then, David, I guess we can entertain a tabling motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant requests to maintain a 188 sq. ft., 10 ft. high shed to replace a shed that has been removed. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. (footprint) with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft., which includes 188 sq. ft. shed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) 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. Applicant requests further tabling to May 20, 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the May 20, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by April 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 25 day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda being tabled items, and the first item under tabled items is Trevor Flynn, Site Plan 9-2021, and we understand there is a request to table this application. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 9-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TREVOR FLYNN. AGENT(S): BRANDON FERGUSON, EDP; JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): DANIEL GRASMEDER. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3222 RT. 9L. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 884 SQ. FT. LIVING ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, A 436 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BREEZEWAY/MUDROOM ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME CONNECTING THE EXISTING 1,315 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MASTER BEDROOM THEN ALTERATIONS TO THE THIRD FLOOR TO INCLUDE A 48 SQ. FT. STUDY NOOK AND A NEW ROOF OVER THE EXISTING BATHROOM AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITH THE UPPER LEVEL GARAGE AREA OF 576 SQ. FT., LOWER LEVEL OF 672 SQ. FT., AND WORKSHOP AREA OF 572 SQ. FT. (TOTAL FLOOR AREA 1,820 SQ. FT.) AND HEIGHT TO BE 21 FT. 4 INCHES. EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: 2, 172 SQ. FT. HOUSE AND 1,315 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,390 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 AND 179-6- 060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43-2002, AV 27-2002, AV 76-2002, ALL RE: GARAGE/GUEST COTTAGE; AV 8-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-060, CHAPTER 147. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is being tabled. The applicant would like to continue to address engineering comments so that when he does come back before the Board that the engineering information can be satisfied. th MR. TRAVER-Okay, and this is going to be tabled to the April 20 meeting. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So in the event that there are folks in the audience that wanted to make public comment, note that we open a public hearing on this application and we will entertain a motion to table I to May 20, 2021. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-David. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 9-2021 TREVOR FLYNN Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes interior alterations on 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to includes a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the upper level of 1,344 sq. ft. and the lower level of 786 sq. ft. Existing building footprints: 2,172 sq. ft. house and 1,315 sq. ft. detached garage. New floor area to be 6,582 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010 and 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and expansion of a non-conforming structure and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 9-2021 TREVOR FLYNN (D. GRASMEDER). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Tabled until the April 20, 2021 Planning Board meeting. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-Did you say May, Steve? MR. TRAVER-No, April. April 20. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s what I thought. All right. Thank you. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shafer ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-The next item is also a request for tabling. This Mark Prendeville, Site Plan 46-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARK PRENDEVILLE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 102 ASH DRIVE. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION WITH A BASEMENT TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE EXISTING HOME IS 778 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,964 SQ. FT. THE FLOOR AREA OF THE NEW ADDITION IS 3,844 SQ. FT. WITH A 1,518 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. TOTAL NEW FLOOR AREA 5,808 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065, 179-13-010, & 179-4-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND PREVIOUS SHORELINE VEGETATION REMOVAL IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 88723-1824 SHED, 90279-8236 DOCK, AV 17- 2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065 179-13-010, & 179-4-010. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application was tabled at last night’s Zoning Board meeting. So in this case it’s tabled automatically at the Planning Board meeting. So they’ve requested at the Zoning Board to be tabled th to a May meeting. So it’s been identified to table them to the May 20 meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the ZBA tabled this. So would it be appropriate for us also to open the public hearing on this, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we’ll open a public hearing on this and we’ll entertain a motion to th table to the May 20, 2021 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 48=2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Revised: Applicant proposes a two story addition with a basement to an existing home with associated site work. The existing home is 778 sq. ft. footprint with a floor area of 1,964 sq. ft. The floor area of the new addition is 3,844 sq. ft. with a 1,518 sq. ft. footprint, total new floor area 5,808 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010 & 179-4-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and previous shoreline vegetation removal in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 48-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the May 20, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by April 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 25day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda, also under Tabled Items, is Stephen Haraden, Site Plan 11-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEPHEN HARADEN. 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. 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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this application was tabled Tuesday so the applicant could update the landscaping plan and I’m going to bring in Jon Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I’m on. I was not at this part of the meeting on Tuesday because I was still in Bolton on Zoom, but I know that you asked for the landscaping plan to be submitted, and that’s what was done. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we received that. Thank you. Yes, there was just a question about the number and location of some of the items on that plan. So has everyone had an opportunity to review that? And I see Laura has also got it up on the screen for us. There were just some concerns about clarification on the numbers and types and locations. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn’t say at the meeting that he was going to plant trees along Cleverdale Road as well because people were parking on his property? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think what he was going to do is re-locate the trees that were there already, just move them closer to the road. I don’t think it was new plantings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Is that your understanding, too, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was just wondering why it wasn’t showing on the revised landscaping plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, actually as I recall it was on the original, the plan we looked at on Tuesday. So evidently this has been updated to show the change. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s still the plan. MR. TRAVER-All right. So the public hearing is still open on this. Do you know, Laura, if there are any additional people that want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MRS. MOORE-There is nobody additionally that has requested to speak on this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Have we received any new written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And if Board members are comfortable moving forward, David, we can entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 11-2021 STEPHEN HARADEN 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 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. 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 03/16/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 03/17/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/23/2021 and continued the public hearing to 03/25/2021, 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 03/25/2021; 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 11-2021 STEPHEN HARADEN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, 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) 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) Both landscaping plans are to be included in the entire site plan. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, should we make note of the two different planting plans, one has trees that were moved to the front and the one that we got for the update for clarification doesn’t have it. Should that? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think both plans are part of the record. Is that not correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So you want to approve the existing landscaping plan along with this revised planting plan. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So does that need an amended motion, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It doesn’t hurt to do that. MR. DEEB-Thanks, Laura . AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. So next we move to Old Business, and the first item under Old Business is Paul Derby, Site Plan 15-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PAUL DERBY. AGENT(S): CLARK WILKINSON, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 31 CANTERBURY DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 639 SQ. FT. UPPER LEVEL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOME WITH A 2,044.5 SQ. FOOTPRINT AND NEW FLOOR AREA OF 2683.9 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF CONCRETE TO BE REPLACED WITH PERMEABLE PAVERS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179- 13-010 & CHAPTER 91 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND SEPTIC SYSTEM IN A FLOOD PLAIN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 764-2019 SEPTIC ALTS., AV 18-2021. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-22. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010, CHAPTER 91. CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PAUL DERBY, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application received their variance the other day from the Zoning Board and that included the setback relief and floor area relief and in regards to information that’s been provided to this Board, in regards to what we call a septic variance, which is an odd one for us, I went through with Town Counsel and the Town Engineer and we identified the items that were required to be addressed . There were 12 of them in that section of Code, as well as four other items, five other items under 91-20 A through G and then Section 91-19 Letters D 1-12. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Mr. Wilkinson. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-You received your variance last night at the ZBA. Correct? MR. WILKINSON-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-And as a result of that, were there any changes made to your project? MR. WILKINSON-No, there are not. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? Why don’t we go ahead and open the public hearing on this application, and I’ll ask Laura if there’s anyone you can see in the waiting room. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I’ll ask those that are in the waiting room if they’re interested in speaking on this application if they could raise their hand using the Zoom function. I don’t see anybody’s hands raised, but there does appear to be someone on the phone and it’s very difficult to determine if they’re here for this application. So I’m going to let this person talk. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So this person has the last four digits of 2403. Are you here in response to information on the Paul Derby application? You can unmute. It’s the star function. I don’t see them unmuting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In the meantime are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. And again, this person’s not unmuting so I’m going to assume that they’re not here to speak on this application. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Well we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing, then, on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We did discuss this, obviously, on Tuesday, but I’ll just ask members of the Board if they have any additional questions for the applicant? The plan evidently has not changed since it was seen by the ZBA last night. MR. SHAFER-Laura, we’re just dealing with the Site Plan and nothing to do with the septic, flood issue? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you’re absolutely dealing with both, and I apologize. When you do get to a resolution I do have some information to add to the resolution that I didn’t add before, but do you have questions, Mr. Shafer, on the septic? MR. SHAFER-Somewhere I read in the text about Elevation 404, and I don’t remember whether that was the flood elevation or the normal elevation of the lake. MR. WILKINSON-That is the flood elevation. MR. SHAFER-What is the normal elevation of the lake? MR. WILKINSON-Approximately 398. MR. DERBY-398. MR. SHAFER-So the lake would have to go up six feet to be an issue? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Okay. That’s my question. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And I do believe the lake level is regulated, is it not? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, it is now. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. MR. MAGOWAN-There is a picture of the dam at the end of Glen Lake where he has the shoot and then the shoot’s a little bit lower and then it’s got the concrete wall. So as long as I can remember being on Glen Lake and around and knowing that spot, I actually had a friend that had a grandfather that lived down near that. Unless you had a tremendous amount of rain, I don’t think I ever remember seeing the water rush over the dam over the top. I’ve seen it go through the spillway pretty good, but it is interesting. That was a good picture. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. All right. Well if there’s nothing else, then I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 15-2021 PAUL DERBY 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 639 sq. ft. upper level addition to an existing single story home with a 2,044.5 sq. ft. footprint and new floor area of 2683.9 sq. ft. The project also includes the removal of concrete to be replaced with permeable pavers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010 & Chapter 91 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and septic system in a flood plain shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 03/23/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 03/24/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/25/2021 and continued the public hearing to 03/25/2021, 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 03/25/2021; 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 15-2021 PAUL DERBY. 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, 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. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) l) Section 91-19 D (1-12), as well as Section 91-20 A-G (Flood Damage Prevention) has been reviewed by this Board and the Board finds that the application meets the test of the variance to be granted. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 25 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Laura, what’s L? MRS. MOORE-So I apologize, we’re going to have to do some wordsmithing. The Board has reviewed Section 91-19 D (1-12), as well as Section 91-20 A-G. MR. DEEB-Why don’t you just add it, Laura? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s in the Staff Notes, Dave. MR. DEEB-Then why are we putting it on here? MRS. MOORE-Because it should be specifically addressed, because you’re doing two functions here. You’re reviewing that Site Plan and you’re review the septic variance. I did not put that language into the draft resolution. MR. TRAVER-We should add it. MRS. MOORE-So if you look at your Staff Notes, those two titles, Section 91-19 D 1- D 12 and Section 91- 20 is A-G has been reviewed by this Board and the Board finds that the application meets the test of the variance to be granted. MR. HUNSINGER-So was that the complete motion? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second the motion. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You are all set, Mr. Derby and Mr. Wilkinson. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you very much for your time. MR. DERBY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item under Old Business is Adirondack Trust, Site Plan 19-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 19-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ADIRONDACK TRUST. AGENT(S): JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION 79 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 45 SQ. FT. FREE STANDING MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE ADIRONDACK TRUST BANK CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 140-7 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW SIGNS IN THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP PZ 73-2016, SP 26-2019, SV 2-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: .88 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47. SECTION: 140-7. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, this is the Sign Variance, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. I’ll just get Jon back in here. So this Sign Variance was granted in reference to the setback relief the other night and nothing else has changed about this application. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, it was pretty simple except that it was the largest percentage variance that I’ve ever seen. MR. LAPPER-It’s the record. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. TRAVER-Yes. So pretty straightforward. There is a public hearing on this application. Laura, do you know if there’s anyone here that wants to address the Board about this sign issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Again, if there’s people in the waiting room, if they wish to speak on this application they can use the function in Zoom to raise their hand, and again, there’s an individual that has a phone call in and I don’t know if they’re here for this discussion, so I’m going to allow them to talk and see if it’s in reference to this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Again, the extension here is 2403. If you are interested in asking to speak on this application, I’d ask you to unmute yourself. I don’t see this person doing that at this moment. So I’m going to move them back. MR. TRAVER-Are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments for this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Jon, did you have anything you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. The Zoning Board was in favor of it, as was the Planning Board the other night. So it’s an attractive important building in that corridor, and I think this is an expensive sign with a stone base that’ll enhance the building. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. MRS. MOORE-So I’ll just ask a quick question. I know we’ve talked about this, and there may be additional lighting proposed for this signage. It sounds like there may be some down lit features that may be added to the sign. Are you familiar with that, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Well, we know we can’t have internally illuminated. So usually the alternative is gooseneck lighting from the top so you do know what it is. MR. TRAVER-You just want to submit those cut sheets to Laura when you submit the final plans. MR. LAPPER-That sounds good. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, one quick question for Mr. Lapper. Can you just remind me. How much clearance did we have in between the sign and the road? I don’t recall what we said at the last meeting. MR. LAPPER-So I’m looking at the, to the edge of the curb it’s 4.6 feet, from the closest part of the sign. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And then there’s some sidewalk. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that includes the sidewalk what I’m looking at, but that’s, you know, and there’s a traffic light. So it’s set back behind the sidewalk. MR. DIXON-All right. So we still have greater than four feet of sidewalk. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. This one should be a little simpler than the last one. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, did you close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-My checklist says that I did. At least I put a checkmark that I closed it, but I will close it again just to be double sure. Thank you, Maria. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 19-2021 ADIRONDACK TRUST 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) 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 install a 45 sq. ft. free standing monument sign for the Adirondack Trust bank currently under construction. Pursuant to Chapter 140-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, new signs in the Main Street zoning district shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 03/23/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 03/24/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/25/2021 and continued the public hearing to 03/25/2021, 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; 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 19-2021 ADIRONDACK TRUST. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 25 day of March by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item under New Business is Ed and Beverly Tobin, Site Plan 16-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 16-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ED & BEVERLY TOBIN AGENT(S): NICHOLAS ZEGLEN, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 196 LAKE PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE ADDITION HAS A FOOTPRINT OF 515 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA ADDED IS 1,545 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A 1,250 SQ. FT. PATIO AREA AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF 180 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK ADDITION TO THE PORCH AREA. THE EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT IS 2,298 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 3,785 SQ. FT. WITH NEW FLOOR AREA OF 5,330 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1-1989, AV 5-2002, AV 59-2000, SP 8-2002. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.06 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-88. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is for a two story addition to an existing home. The addition has a footprint of 515 square feet and the floor area to be added is 1,545 square feet. The project includes removal of 1,250 square feet of patio area and the construction of a 180 square foot open deck addition to the porch area, and it’s in front of this Board because it’s new floor area in a CEA. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you, and is Mr. Zeglen with us? There he is. Hello, Nick. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening and welcome. Tell us about your project. MR. ZEGLEN-So this is the proposed site improvements for 196 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. As Laura said, the applicant is proposing a two story addition on the south side of their existing house as well as a 180 square foot deck and they’re also going to be removing about 1200 square feet of existing hard scape which will actually result in a net decrease in impervious area on the side of a little over 500 square feet. Also, as part of the improvements, part of that addition is another bedroom, and that will result in, we’ll evaluate the septic tank for capacity and update the capacity if necessary, as well as adding additional laterals to the septic system for the added flows. Pretty straightforward. With that I’d like to turn it over to the Board to see if there’s any questions. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You said that you’re going to evaluate the septic in the future to see if it’s sufficient? MR. ZEGLEN-Well, yes. So we’re understanding it could be a 12,000 gallon septic tank. If that were the case, it would have sufficient capacity. There’s conflicting reports that it might be a 1500 gallon tank. So if it were a 1500, we could either replace that with a 12,000, or 2,000 gallon tank, or add a 1,000 gallon tank to the cottage and that would give us the necessary capacity. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well my only concern is it’s a little odd for us to approve an expansion of bedrooms without a confirmation of the septic capacity, but as you said I’ll open it up for questions or comments from members of the Board. MR. SHAFER-Steve, you just made my comment. John Shafer. Somewhere in the documents it said that there was a 2,000 gallon tank already installed. Is that not correct? MR. ZEGLEN-We just, with the winter conditions and the weather, we haven’t been able to confirm it, but, yes, on the inspection report, it says that there’s a 2,000 gallon tank. Yes, Dennis wrote a letter. I’m not sure if he’s on. He knows a little more about it than me, but Dennis did write a letter explaining this, but, yes, if there’s a 2,000 gallon tank, that’s sufficient capacity, and all that will be needed would be additional laterals for the flows. MR. SHAFER-Well his letter says replace the 1500 with a 2,000, but somewhere on the plan as I recall it said there was a 2,000 already there. Can you clarify that? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. So we didn’t get the FOIL request in, in time to have the information before we submitted the application. We got the FOIL request in after the fact and it had it as a 1500 gallon, and that’s when Dennis wrote the letter stating that it would be a, we would upgrade the capacity. MRS. MOORE-Nick, do you think he’s on as a phone call? MR. ZEGLEN-He could be. What was the number? MRS. MOORE-2403 and I can’t remember if that’s his number. MR. ZEGLEN-No, that’s not his number. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Well, I agree. He said he was going to be on tonight. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. I’m not sure, but he wrote the letter addressing the system. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application, but before we go to public hearing, I’ll ask if other Board members have initial questions for Mr. Zeglen? MR. DEEB-Well, I agree with your comment, Steve. I hate approving something like this, only if we could condition this that the 1500 gallon would be replaced with a 2,000 gallon. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess the concern I have is, and this is all hypothetical unfortunately, but let’s assume that the system is inadequate and needs to be expanded. Now that’s going to change the site plan, and what if the site for some reason isn’t adequate or an updated system isn’t going to work. Then we’re kind of in a bind. Laura, do you have any comment? MRS. MOORE-I did have a conversation with Dennis about this, and he explained to me that it wasn’t, I said the concern is, as you mentioned, if we come into this and it needs a septic variance, septic variances are required first and I will say that he confirmed that he doesn’t believe that it needs a variance. He was pretty confident that it didn’t need one. How’s that? MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ZEGLEN-Could I just add that, yes, so really there’s two, if the septic tank is 1500 gallons, there’s two options. You could replace the septic tank in place with a new 2,000 gallon tank, which would maybe be one to two feet bigger and would not encroach on any setbacks to cause a variance, or you could add a 1,000 gallon tank to the cottage which would add the sufficient capacity, and this would all be inspected by the Town at the time of installation to get okayed. So if we could make it a condition of approval that once the work is done, the Town goes out to inspect it, they could verify that it was done according to the plans. Correct? MR. TRAVER-The problem is that we don’t have a hypothetical, I mean that’s not what’s before us this evening. MR. SHAFER-The plans also show an additional lateral to serve the seven bedrooms. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Here’s Dennis. MR. SHAFER-Laura, the deed shows that it was recorded in 2018. Was the Town law in place at that time that required an inspection of the system when it changes hands? MR. TRAVER-No, I don’t believe so. MRS. MOORE-I don’t think so, but it was an approved system at that time. One of the things that occurs here is that this was a tear down re-build a while ago. So a variance was requested as part of keeping the cottage there as well as constructing a new house. So at that time there was, the system wasn’t installed. So Dennis is on line if you want to refer some of the questions. Dennis, I don’t know if you’ve been listening, but there was questions about whether the system is to be expanded and a couple of other questions. So I can’t paraphrase it all. MR. TRAVER-We don’t know the answer to that. MRS. MOORE-But Dennis is here. DENNIS MAC ELROY MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Yes, the system would be, will be required to be expanded in the field area, and that, we’ve looked at that in terms of what the Town records show, the inspections that were done on the installation of that system in, was it ’98, I think, and so we have the ability to expand that system on the, what would be the easterly side of the system and still maintain proper setbacks to a little pond area that’s over on the corner of Tobin’s interior portion of the property. So it’s just a matter of the septic tank and pump tank that are on the house side of the property being confirmed as far as the septic tank capacity. I wrote this in a letter that should be in the file as far as the certification, and we’d need to increase the capacity, yes, increase the capacity of the field from the 650 that it was originally designed for to the 770 gallons per day for a seven gallon system. MR. TRAVER-And that’s on the assumption that existing tank is adequate, right, just the field? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, the tank we’ve got conflicting information from the Town files and from the owner’s files saying that either it’s a 1500 gallon tank that serves the house or it’s a 2,000 gallon tank that serves the house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, that’s why your letter says 1500 and Plan S-2 says 2,000? The S-2 plan says existing 2,000 gallon septic tank. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, we have records that the owner provided that shows that they’ve had pump outs and that there’s record of that in a Town inspection being 2,000. So when we were filing the application we couldn’t really access the tank with the winter conditions. So we will confirm that certainly and either they’ll add, change the, if it’s a 1500 gallon tank at the house, we will add, make it a 2,000 gallon tank, or, because two of the bedrooms are being contributed from the cottage, we’ll just have that flow into a 1,000 gallon tank and the effluent will go directly to the pump. MR. SHAFER-What about the additional lateral that is mentioned in your letter? MR. MAC ELROY-The additional lateral on the field which will be required in any sense. You have to expand that field to add the 120 gallons a day capacity that is being increased from what it was originally designed for. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think at this point I’d like to poll the Board and see how members feel about going forward with this gap in information and potential of putting a requirement that this be clarified or do we want this septic information confirmed and the plan depicting those potential changes before we move forward? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, could I just reiterate, Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, that I mean I don’t think it’s that uncertain. Either there’s a 2,000 gallon tank or there isn’t and we’ll have to just verify that by digging to the cover and being able to measure the interior of the tank so we know. MR. TRAVER-The issue here is that the plans before us state that it’s a 2,000 gallon tank, right? MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, again, how do Board members feel? Do we want to move forward and we can address this issue by conditioning something potentially? Or do we want this issue clarified and the plans reflecting the real conditions before we move forward? MR. DEEB-I’d like clarification. The weather’s good now. We can get that taken care of in a week. We can put them on the agenda again. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I’d be comfortable with a condition. He’s already committed to a 2,000 gallon tank, irrespective of what the measurements show, and they’ve already committed to an extra lateral in the leach field. With those as conditions, aren’t we covered? MR. TRAVER-Well that’s the question I guess. MR. SHAFER-Yes.. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Magowan? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you know, what I’m concerned about is, you know, usually this is taken care of before we get it because frankly this is not our forte. This is the Town’s decision on what it is. So there is a little we don’t know. Would this be setting a precedent of, you know, into the future with them saying well, geez, I really don’t know. I’m kind of confused. I mean I respect Dennis. MR. TRAVER-To answer your question, Brad, it wouldn’t be setting a precedent because we can’t do that, but it would be setting a practice. MR. MAGOWAN-And that bothers me. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And if it’s a case that we have to add 1,000, if that is exactly where those two tanks will be positioned and like I said, it really bothers me because to me we’re guessing here. MR. TRAVER-Right. I agree. Well we’re not quite guessing, but my concern is that we don’t know if the plans that are before us are completely accurate. I mean we have Mr. MacElroy’s I think expert opinion and he’s assured us that he will address it, but we don’t know what, if anything, needs to be addressed and the plans that we have before us state that there’s a 2,000 gallon tank there. MR. MAGOWAN-Really the thing that I’m concerned about is creating a practice, and that’s something that we have to be careful with, I believe. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you’re right about that. Mr. Dixon? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. DIXON-I’m looking at the plans and listening to what’s being said, and Mr. MacElroy had indicated that it has an existing 2,000 gallon septic tank per their records and now he’s really wanting to verify and validate that. I think that’s very honorable. So I would be comfortable with just conditions . However, having said that, even if it is a 2,000 gallon tank, does there still have to be additions to the laterals that are out there? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. DIXON-So no matter what, there’s going to have to be, well I guess do we have to verify what’s in the ground out there? MR. SHAFER-Well, the Plan S-3 shows install two additional laterals to accommodate additional proposed bedroom. So it’s already there in a note on Sheet S-3. MR. DIXON-I missed that one. Yes, so I think all the information is already there to hold them accountable. If this was anybody else debating about the 2,000 gallon tank and they presented records as Mr. MacElroy has, that there is a 2,000 gallon tank, but he wants to do t e homeowner justice as far as validating that because they don’t want to overtax the system, again, I think I’d be okay in this instance with a condition. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mr. Hunsinger? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree with John. The plan clearly states 2,000 gallon septic, well, if it’s not there they’re going to make sure it is. So I’m fine with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think it’s really any different than somebody saying, hey, we’re going to put in a new system that’s a 2,000 gallon tank, you know. So I agree with John and Mike. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Jamie? MS. WHITE-I admit this is not my expertise, my area of expertise, but I think as long as we’re pretty specific in the conditions that those will be met, you know. I’m comfortable with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Very good. Then we won’t have to worry about that issue. Then we also, we do have a public hearing on this application. So let’s go ahead and open the public hearing and, Laura, I’ll inquire if there are folks in the waiting room that wanted to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So again if there’s folks that wish to comment on this particular application, if they could use the function in Zoom to raise your hand or there’s a chat function. You can let me know to let you in as a speaker. I don’t see any hands raised. I don’t see any notes in the chat box and there are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions for the applicant or Mr. MacElroy? MR. HUNSINGER-I had questions on the shoreline planting plan. My concern is I think the way it’s presented is that it would be fine, but when I look at the pictures and I look at the site plan, I’m not so sure. The note says that shoreline plantings will be in conformance with Section 179, but then the site plan shows two circles with additional plantings. The Code requires shoreline plantings for 35 feet, and that certainly doesn’t look like 35 feet in those two circles. So that’s my concern. Just clarification. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Sure. So, Mr. Zeglen, can you confirm that the shoreline buffer will be the 35 feet as required? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. We’ll be adding those plantings kind of varying within that 35 foot buffer, and there’s also, not within the 35 foot buffer, but there’s more plantings up above a little bit between the dwelling and the lake that kind of serve a very similar purpose, but, yes, we will have them spread out throughout the 35 foot setback. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. I mean you certainly have, I mean just looking at those pictures right there, you certainly have enough trees, shrubs and low level plants. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct, and that’s the goal. The purpose is we didn’t have all the trees shown in this x box on the survey. So they’ll be spread out throughout that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. David, how are you making out? MR. DEEB-I’m doing fine. MR. TRAVER-Are you ready? MR. DEEB-I’m ready for the motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 16-2021 ED & BEVERLY TOBIN 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 a two story addition to an existing home. The addition has footprint of 515 sq. ft. and floor area added is 1,545 sq. ft. The project includes removal of a 1,250 sq. ft. patio area and the construction of 180 sq. ft. open deck addition to the porch area. The existing home footprint is 2,298 sq. ft. and a floor area of 3,785 with new floor area of 5,330 sq. ft. .Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure 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 03/25/2021 and continued the public hearing to 03/25/2021, 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 03/25/2021; 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 16-2021 ED & BEVERLY TOBIN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 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) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 25 day of March 2021 by the following vote: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Deeb ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. You’re all set. MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda is Clear Brook, LLC. That application has been withdrawn. So we need not take any action on that. And then final we have a Discussion Item. Legacy Land Holdings, LLC, Discussion Item 2-2021. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION ITEM 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: O. LOCATION: BAYBRIDGE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 72 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT WITHIN THE FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SUBDIVISION ON BAY ROAD. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR 27 UNITS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD MAY BE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 15-2006, SP 4-2011, SP 4-2008, SP PZ 230-2016. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR DISCUSSION. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 0.84, 0.61, 0.89, 0.70, AND 1.23 ACRES. SECTION: 179-9-040. TOM JARRETT & MIKE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant wants to present information to this Board to a change to the previously approved plan, instead of 27 units it would increase to 72 units, and there’s two sets of drawings that have been provided to you, and as noted in my Staff Notes, the application, or the subject matter of having a use within 600 feet would require the applicant to work with the Town Board to determine if they were willing to change that language to allow a use such as that within 600 feet, and at this point the applicant has met with the Town Board in a workshop and they can clarify that information and they were given some guidance to come discuss this with the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good, and is someone here from Jarrett Engineers? MRS. MOORE-Tom’s here. MR. JARRETT-Hi. This is Tom Jarrett, Jarrett Engineers. Mike Borgos is here representing Dan Valente. He will start off and I will jump in to any layout questions we might have, but I think Mike’s going to introduce the application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BORGOS-As, Laura, you’re pulling up the materials, what we’ve provided for you is a plan for 72 units of senior housing on the site. You’re all familiar, I think, with the 27 units that was approved several years ago. What we’re trying to do here is kind of provide for another use for what this property can be utilized for, and there are a couple of factors to this. Number One, we believe that the 72 unit design is more economically viable than the one that’s already been approved, but one of the driving forces really has been some of the things we’ve learned from the COVID impact on our community. I see a tremendous amount of people re-locating to this area and I deal with the real estate brokers on a daily basis, and you may have heard that there is a tremendous absence of available properties to look at. Their listings are very, very small in number and they really don’t have any properties to show, and I think what we’re seeing from a demographic standpoint is that we have some housing stock in the Town that is potential empty nesters who would like to stay in our community but they don’t have any viable options for places to go to, and with so many people coming from out of the area, the more affordable smaller homes have all been snapped up very quickly. So we’ve been hearing that there is a demand for senior housing in Queensbury specifically. So we’ve been having this discussion about re-visiting what could be done with this property and what would be necessary to make that happen and our chief issue here is the overlay district within the corridor that restricts residential development within 600 feet of Bay Road in that corridor. So we 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) thought we would bring this proposal to the Planning Board to talk it through and see what the thoughts are from the Planning Board. Then we would convey those to the Town Board and maybe modify the plan accordingly, but just try to bring this up for discussion. As you know this property’s been vacant for quite some time and since not many people are going to offices anymore, we think that the work from home thing is going to stick and the demand for professional office is likely to stay very, very low. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So for discussion purposes, if we hypothetically grant you the issue with the overlay and assume that this is an active proposal, we’d want to look at any concerns we might have with the structure of this particular use of the property. MRS. MOORE-You’re also looking at the layout preference. So do you prefer an “L” versus a “U”. So something to think about. MR. JARRETT-Very premature, if I can jump in. That’s very premature. We thought we’d throw a few alternatives at you to see if there were any preferences, to see what really jumps out at as more preferable than others. Dan likes the “L” shape significantly more than the “C” shape or “U” shape, but we don’t want to presume to usurp your opinion or the Town Board’s opinion. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-Laura, can you drop down that first one in the front there that we have a picture that was originally, and show more of the “U” shaped one? / Yes, I have a good picture of that. That’s what we approved, right? That’s the 27 units. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-That’s the original one. MR. MAGOWAN-But I want to see more of the “U”. MR. TRAVER-There’s the “U”, and then to the right of that I think is the “L”. MR. JARRETT-Just to make it a little more confusing, actually the other “U” shaped design that was withe courtyard facing Bay Road. We didn’t show that to you. We didn’t want to get too confusing, too complicated tonight. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-But there are a lot of variations on these themes and when we discussed we thought these two would be a good starting point. MR. DEEB-Can I ask a quick question, Tom? Any idea of the size of each unit? MR. JARRETT-Each living unit? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. JARRETT-It’s the same size as what we showed in the 27 unit. I don’t remember the exact square footage offhand. MR. MAGOWAN-Wasn’t it like 890 square feet? MR. JARRETT-I don’t recall, honestly. It’s the same size as before. I don’t recall that was. MR. DEEB-Does Dan know? Is he here? DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-Yes, I’m here. MR. TRAVER-Myself I kind of like the one with the courtyard, only because it seems like it’s more of a friendly or more of a green space to it than the “L’ shape which looks like it’s down in a parking lot. MR. DEEB-I also like the “U” shape, but, Tom, maybe Dan could finish answering my question. MR. VALENTE-Well, yes, we honestly didn’t change any of the unit sizes from what was proposed originally with the 27 unit building. So we just extrapolated out. We didn’t get into too much detail at this point, but unit sizes wouldn’t have changed from what was previously approved. It would just be additional units. The one note, one comment that I like why I prefer the “L” shape is due to, if you’re 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) standing in your apartment and you’re looking out the window, you’re not looking at the other leg of the building. In an “L” shape unit you get to look out and see open space, or an “L” shaped building versus the “U” shaped building being more compliant, where you’re looking across back and forth at each other. As far as that goes, that wouldn’t really excite me too much as being a client there, but that’s my big drawback to that style versus the “L” shape, but we’ll listen. MR. DEEB-Aesthetically I agree with you. I think aesthetically it is nicer. MR. VALENTE-We’ve got the cart way ahead of the horse anyway. I appreciate the feedback, that’s for sure, and that’s what we’re looking for. MR. SHAFER-How tall are these buildings, how many floors? MR. JARRETT-They’re three stories. MR. SHAFER-Three stories. Okay. MR. JARRETT-The same as what the 27 unit was approved for. MR. SHAFER-Gotcha? MR. MAGOWAN-Dan, do you remember what the square footage was? MR. VALENTE-Honestly, Brad, I do not. It’s been too long. I’d have to go back and pull the plan. They were all two and three unit apartments at the time, and again,. we’re looking at 55 and up, senior housing here, not anything less than that, but they’re all decent sized units. I can tell you that. Honestly I’ll dive in and get that information. It’s been so long I can’t remember it anymore. MR. DEEB-Are you making any headway with the Town? MR. TRAVER-The same size as what was approved previously, right? MR. VALENTE-Yes. I’ve got to go, Tom used the identical 27 unit footprint and just extrapolated it out with the same amount of square footage to get the same, I think his, Tom can actually add to this better than I can, but I believe the footprint of the building is going to be a little larger than what’s shown. I think he’s kind of stretched it to what he kind of felt comfortable making sure we had coverage for all the units necessary. MR. JARRETT-That’s fair. It’s not down to an architectural design yet, but I think we tried to be conservative enough to make sure that we didn’t have to expand it a lot during the final design. MR. VALENTE-One other note I would add is that the “L” shape, the closest point of the “L” shape building to Bay Road is just under 450 feet. So then that pushes the rest of the building even further away. I don’t know where we are with the “U” shape. We could find that out with Tom. So again we’re trying to keep, I know that was a reason why they, part of the reason why they changed the zoning on us was to keep these buildings back as far off of Bay Road as possible. So I thought the “L” shape did that a little better as well. MR. HUNSINGER-So the issue you’re really looking for feedback on, not so much you but the Town Board, is how the Planning Board feels about the 600 foot setback, more than a building design, and if I could just comment on that quickly, I always kind of thought it was a random number and I don’t think it was ever very well defended or justified, and I’d much rather look at projects, as we are here, than, you know, talk about some random number of a setback. So I’m okay with it. It shows right on your plan, and I like the “L” shape better, too. It shows right on the plan that that building is 555 feet from Bay Road up at the top of the plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, compared to 450. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say, I like, Dan, I’m sorry, Tom, but I do like the “U” shape. I don’t know why. MR. VALENTE-That’s fine. MR. MAGOWAN-Being a senior citizen, well, senior citizen center, an adult home, I don’t feel it would bother the people as much to wave to the people across the way. I just like that feel, but I also like the design of the parking lot. I like that little, you know, drop off. It makes it look very fancy, very rich, and I like that idea. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. VALENTE-We can work with the “U” if we get everybody’s blessing. We’re fine with that. MR. MAGOWAN-But for the setbacks, I mean, I look at, those setbacks have changed so many times on Bay Road and like Chris says, they’re like a random number, and I’ve always had a problem with that and we’ve always come across projects that, you know, it’s a shame because if you drive up and down the road, there are some buildings that are right on the road. So I have to look at like kind, and right across the street you have one that seems like it’s 30 feet off the road. It might be a little bit more than that. So I don’t have a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s an office building. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s not residential.. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not residential. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but this I don’t call residential, but I understand it is under residential, but it’s a larger building to look like all the other three stories all around it. So I don’t have a problem with any of the setbacks if that has to go before the Town Board, but I just wanted to state for some reason I just like the “U” better. MR. HUNSINGER-Well really what we’re saying is we’d rather talk about design than talk about use. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think the point’s well taken. MR. SHAFER-Tom, question. Did you consider the “U” shape, I don’t know what the view shed is either to the north or to the south, you considered it both east and west. Did you consider it facing either north or south? MR. JARRETT-No. You bring up an interesting point. We did not. We could certainly. I probably would not face it north, but south would face it toward the wetlands, and that’s not a bad alternative to think about. MR. SHAFER-North would be the mountains. Why did you dismiss that? MR. JARRETT-Well, maybe I’m being short sighted literally and figuratively. Walker Lane is right there and I’m not sure I wanted to put the building right facing those neighbors, but maybe it could be screened low. We could consider all the alternatives. MR. VALENTE-I think we already have, Tom. We’ve got more layouts than we can shake a stick at. MR. DEEB-I’d like to say, I’m with Chris. We’re looking more at design than anything else. The setbacks, that doesn’t matter that much to me. I would like to see some development there. I think it’s important. It’s been sitting there too long. How are you doing with the Town Board? That’s the big issue. We can make recommendations. MR. JARRETT-We’re starting here. We will move on to the Town Board now with your feedback. MR. DEEB-So if they get our feedback, they’ll see how we feel. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And I’m not hearing any objection to the 600, you know, the setback. MR. SHAFER-Right. MR. DEEB-Just the opposite. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-I was going to jump in with two thoughts before we go any farther. One is that we’ve shown parking, build out parking with two spaces per unit which exceeds the Code, but Dan thought would be important to show that, on both of those designs. We don’t think we’re going to need to build all that, but we have room to build it if need be. The other concept is that we would be trying to preserve a couple of commercial, two or three commercial lots along Bay Road if we possibly can, depending on what the Board, both Boards do in regards to these projects. Our intent is to try to preserve some commercial space along Bay Road. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. DIXON-I think this is a very good project, and I do like the “U” design that everybody’s commented on. I would like to see the “U” incorporated. I would almost like to see it pointed south so you can take advantage of the solar gain there. Because if I wanted to go in there, I’d like a nice sunny spot in the wintertime because we do have six months of winter. So concept, I think you’re right on par. I think it’s good use of space. MR. DEEB-Well, I don’t think it’s up to us to design the building. Whatever they come up with we can look at. MR. JARRETT-Well, we’re certainly hearing what your thoughts are. MR. TRAVER-All right, gentlemen. Any specific questions for us? MR. JARRETT-This has been great feedback. Mike, Dan, do you have any questions or thoughts? MR. VALENTE-I’d just like to say I appreciate you guys taking the time to give us your feedback and we’re just hoping that we can get the Town Board to move and give us some leeway here and flexibility because it’s been almost 10 years since we’ve had a build there. 2008 the property, that was approved, the whole subdivision. So it’s been a long time and we don’t see really any end in sight with this professional office, and we’ll retain the lots up front for that. We want to protect that Bay Road corridor to that extent and keep this as far off of Bay Road as possible. So we appreciate your feedback and we’ll take it to heart and we’ll see where we go with the Town Board. MR. JARRETT-I hope we’ll be back. MR. DEEB-I hope you’re back, too. I hope this moves forward. I’d like to see this move forward. MR. TRAVER-Laura, did you have anything to add? MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to explain that I did throw up the information back from 2016 and this was the first appearance that we took a look at and I apologize I can’t figure out if these are square footages or not. This was sort of an interior arrangement. MR. VALENTE-No, those are just unit numbers. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it looks like figures. MR. TRAVER-Well, what’s important to remember, too, is that whatever the number is, we did review it and approve it and this isn’t changing the individual numbers. It’s just changing the total number of units. MR. DEEB-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? I want to thank everybody for doing three meetings this month. I know it’s a lot of extra work but we appreciate it, and it gets us kind of back on the agenda during the growing season, here, in Queensbury, and next month we may be back to semi-in person, and there’ll be an announcement one way or the other fairly shortly after that. All right, well, if there’s nothing else, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. SHAFER-So moved. MR. DEEB-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2021, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/25/2021) MR. TRAVER-All right. Thanks a lot, everybody. We’ll see you next month. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 23