Loading...
04-27-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 13-2021 Robert McCormick 1. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-45 Site Plan No. 21-2021 Ron & Ruth Jameson 4. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-24 Site Plan No. 26-2021 Paul Lorenz 5. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-61 Site Plan No. 24-2021 Peter Rienzi 6. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-60 Site Plan No. 25-2021 Robert & Peter Nemer 9. Tax Map No. 303.6-1-3, 303.10-1-6 Subdivision No. 20-2020 Foothills Builders 16. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 279.15-1-85 Subdivision No. 5-2021 Native Development Assoc., LLC PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.20-1-9.2 Subdivision No. 6-2021 FINAL STAGE THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting th for Tuesday, April 27, 2021. This is our second meeting for April, our ninth meeting for the year and our twenty-fourth meeting under the COVID guidelines. We will be having some public hearings this evening, and I want to give people who may be observing us on the Town YouTube channel a heads up for how they can participate in that. What you would do is at the proper time when that public hearing is announced you would call 518-761-8225, and I will repeat that number as those items with public hearings come up. Also I want to announce for those who are planning on perhaps public comment or other interests in certain applications, there are three items tonight that are not going to be heard. One is the Site Plan Modification 8-2021, which is Frazier. That application has been withdrawn. There are two applications that will be tabled. One is under Old Business, Ron and Ruth Jameson. That item is also to be tabled, and Native Development Assoc., LLC is also going to be tabled. That is for a subdivision, and so we will process those as they come up on the agenda, but I just wanted to give people a heads up if you’re awaiting those items for public comment. Those folks that are joining us in person this evening, if you would make note of the red illuminated exit lights. In case of an emergency that is the way out. If you have an electronic device, cell phone or tablet or IPad or whatever, if you would turn it off or turn the ringer off so it won’t interrupt our meeting, we’d appreciate that. I talked about the public hearing. Those of you that are going to be addressing the Planning Board from the podium if after you speak if you would take one of the sterilizing wipes that is beneath the top of the podium and wipe off the microphone for the next speaker we would appreciate that. And with that we will begin our agenda. The first section is tabled items, and the first item is Robert McCormick, Site Plan 13-2021. TABLED ITEM: 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. REVISED: 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 NEW GARAGE OF 1,995 SQ. FT., THREE BAYS. 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 AND A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 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, 179-5-020, 179-13-010, 147. JON LAPPER & JOSEPH BIANCHINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant revised their application. There’s still two porch additions. One is 110 square feet and the other is 116 square feet and then the new project is in reference to the other project the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) carport addition with the garage, and the new garage, the second garage has been reduced to 1,995 square feet and it has three bays. The applicant has revised the site plan and has noted the driveway has been moved closer to the house and the new garage and the variance was granted by the Zoning Board for the second garage and the size of the garage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Joe Bianchine the project engineer from ABD Engineers. Like Laura said, we were here a couple of months ago for a Planning Board recommendation. Two visits to the Zoning Board which resulted in a dramatically scaled down garage project. The three minor additions to the house are on the non-lakeside, two small porches and a carport. What the Zoning Board was focusing on was the garage. This is a 4.7 acre lot. So ironically it could have been subdivided and done the whole second principle dwelling, but that wasn’t the direction that the applicant wanted to go, but that was justification for the variance, and the Zoning Board felt that it was more disturbance than necessary, the longer driveway and mostly the size of the garage. So we reduced from over 3,000 square feet to less than 2,000 square feet and the site disturbance is reduced. It’s pretty straightforward at this point. No development on the lakeside of anything. The three additions are about 130 feet from the lake on the non-lakeside of the house and again the garage could have been a whole structure with a bathroom and bedroom, and actually when you last saw it, it had a bathroom proposed and a well and that’s all gone. It’s for a classic car collection. We’re seeing a lot of those on the lake these days, but this is a lot smaller than how it started. Joe is here to answer any engineering questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I’d like to start off in thanking your client, Jon, for making, I know it was a hard process but looking at the previous plan, you really did. You moved it down. You shortened the driveway, tied in the basketball court and that. It looks a lot more appealing, a little less invasive. That’s a long run for that leach field all the way out there on the top of that hill. MR. LAPPER-Away from the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Jon, did I hear you say there would be no plumbing in the garage? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I’ll still ask the question. There’s a note on the plan that says the reported location of existing tile field. Can you say anything more than reported? JOSEPH BIANCHINE MR. BIANCHINE-Joe Bianchine with ABD Engineers. Yes. The original, the tile field serves the house and it located way up here. Up by Route 9. So it’s all uphill. It’s got to be pumped up from there. MR. SHAFER-Right. MR. BIANCHINE-The new garage here will not have a bathroom. So we’re not tying in to the existing septic system, tile field at all. So it will all be no bathroom. So there’ll be no mechanical work or anything else in the garage. MR. SHAFER-Do you know the age of the tile field? MR. BIANCHINE-I actually went up here in the mid 90’s with the McCormick’s when they bought this property, and it was there then. So it’s got to be from around 1990. So 30 years. MR. SHAFER-And as far as you know it’s working fine? MR. BIANCHINE-It’s working fine. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. I’ll remind members of the public that are not present that may be wanting to call in, if you wish to participate, the number to call is 518-761- 8225, and now is the time to call if you’d like to comment on the McCormick Site Plan 13-2021. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application to the Board? I’m not seeing any hands. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions from members of the Board? Comments, concerns? Okay. Well, we’re not getting any phone calls. This is SEQR Type II. The variance has been approved on 4/21. I guess we’re ready to make a motion. I’m sorry. I’ve got to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Now we can entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 13-2021 ROBERT MC CORMICK 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 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 7,167 sq. ft. The project includes a 500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 524 sq. ft. garage and construction of a 1,995 sq. ft. 3-car garage. 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. 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 04/21/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/23/2021 and continued the public hearing to 04/27/2021 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 04/27/2021; 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 13-2021 ROBERT MCCORMICK. 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. The waivers requested are reasonable to request as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of April 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. BIANCHINE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business. The first item is Ron and Ruth Jameson, Site Plan 21-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. RON & RUTH JAMESON. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 94 HALL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO AN EXISTING HOME AND GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 2,440 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND A 3,478 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA INCLUDING AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND A COVERED PATIO. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR GRADING, STORMWATER CONTROLS AND PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2002-453 DOCK, AV 21-2021 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA – GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .33 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-24. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-As mentioned earlier, this application is going to be tabled, and there was a public hearing scheduled for this evening. So we’ll go ahead and open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And that public hearing will remain open until this application is re-heard, and I believe we have a draft tabling resolution. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Can I ask a question? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-Why was it tabled? MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the application was tabled since the Board expressed concern about the setback to the lake, and so they were wondering if there were alternatives to the setback versus the height requirement. MR. TRAVER-And the setback was something that we had discussed as well. Sorry, Laura, I should have had you introduce it at the beginning. Any other questions or comments on the concept of tabling this? Is there a specific tabling date? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It should be on the resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 21-2021 RON & RUTH JAMESON The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to demo an existing home and garage to construct a new home with a 2,440 sq. ft. footprint and a 3,478 sq. ft. floor area including an attached garage and a covered patio. The project includes associated site work for grading, stormwater controls and plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Application tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals level. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 21-2021 RON & RUTH JAMESON. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) nd Tabled until the June 22, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by May 17, 2021. th Duly adopted this 27 day of April 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-The next item, also under Old Business, is Paul Lorenz, Site Plan 26-2021. Laura? SITE PLAN NO. 26-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PAUL LORENZ. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 78 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 240 SQ. FT. SHED TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF 4,079 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN. THE SITE AND BUILDING USE REMAINS THE SAME – AUTOFIX (AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR FACILITY). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-5-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INSTALLATION OF A SHED ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 80-1990; AV 91-2002, SP 26-2003, UV 83-1990, SP 92-90, AV 24-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2021. LOT SIZE: .5 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-61. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-050. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a 240 square foot shed and the Zoning Board did grant the relief from the property line. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett with Jarrett Engineers. As Laura said, this is a 240 square foot shed on the west side of the existing building. By the way, Paul and Joan Lorenz are in the audience if you have any questions for them. They’re the owners of AutoFix, and pretty straightforward application. The Zoning Board did grill me for hours over it but finally relented. I think this is pretty straightforward. We are providing stormwater management for this. There’s no new impervious other than the building itself. It’s abutting the existing pavement. It’s for storage of their materials, and by the way I’ll say this for the Lorenz’s. Both Boards complimented you on how you keep the site. So I guess I can open it to questions if you have any. MR. HUNSINGER-Well you just took our thunder away. Since they were here. MR. DEEB-We were going to do it personally. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How we appreciate the holiday decorations. MR. MAGOWAN-You really do a nice job on that corner. MR. DEEB-I love Halloween. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. If members of the public wish to comment on this 240 square foot shed, they can call the Planning Board at 518-761-8225, and I’ll ask Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application tonight? Okay. Well we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Then I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 26-2021 PAUL LORENZ 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) 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 a 240 sq. ft. shed to be placed on the property. The existing commercial building of 4,079 sq. ft. is to remain. The site and building use remains the same – AutoFix (auto service/repair facility).Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-5-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, installation of a shed on a commercial property 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 04/20/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 04/21/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/27/2021 and continued the public hearing to 04/27/2021, 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 04/27/2021; 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 26-2021 PAUL LORENZ; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are reasonable to request as these items as the project involves a shed and no other changes to the site are proposed. 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of April 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-You’re all set. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda under Old Business is Peter Rienzi, Site Plan 24-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 24-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PETER RIENZI. AGENT(S): NICHOLAS ZEGLEN, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 374 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD AN EXISTING 472 SQ. FT. DECK AREA AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 304 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE DECK – TOTALING 767 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING TWO STORY, 1,414 SQ. FT. HOME IS TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1452-1998, SP 25-1997, SP 26-1997, SP 2-1989, AV 23-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .23 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-60. SECTION: 179-13-010. NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a re-build of 472 square feet towards the shore. The Zoning Board of Appeals did grant a setback and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership, here on behalf of the applicant Peter Rienzi of 274 Cleverdale Road. The applicant is proposing to rebuild an existing 472 square foot deck with a new 776 square foot deck, an increase of about 320 square feet. This was before the Board last Tuesday for a referral to the Zoning and we got the variance approved by the Zoning Board with the condition of some additional plantings. So we’ve prepared this extra sheet with some of those extra plantings kind of buffering that northeastern corner of the new deck and then more down towards that northern part of the shore there next to the walkway to kind of add an additional buffer for that deck. With that I’ll turn it back over to the Board for any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Did everyone receive the update that Laura distributed this evening on the planting plan that the Zoning Board wanted? Okay. Thank you. Laura, did you have an opportunity to look at this and compare it to what you might recommend in terms of plantings? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I actually had a conversation with him today and we went through that and there was a different version that we took a look at and he wanted to include some more plantings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So as to the deck itself, you received a variance. They just were interested in these additional plantings basically. Correct? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I want to thank you for being accommodating on that and getting back to us as quickly as possible. It really is nice. I kind of like that double tiered look there and the deck is going to come out to about the edge of that first one. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application, and I will remind the public if they wish to participate in that by phone the number to call is 518-761-8225. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application tonight? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are some written comments. This is addressed to Craig. “Just a note to let you know I’m fine with the proposed project for the Rienzi house on Cleverdale. I’m their abutting neighbor to the south.” And this is from Chris Martin. And another one addressed to Craig, “We totally support the Rienzi deck.” And this was from Ann Marie Mather. That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. I’m not receiving any phone calls. So I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I’ll ask the Board again if there are any questions or comments regarding this application? Okay. I guess we’re ready for a motion, then. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 24-2021 PETER RIENZI 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to rebuild an existing 472 sq. ft. deck area and construct a new 304 sq. ft. expansion to the deck - totaling 776 sq. ft. The existing two story, 1,414 sq. ft. home is to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 04/20/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 04/21/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/27/2021 and continued the public hearing to 044/27/2021, 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 04/27/2021; 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 24-2021 PETER RIENZI; 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. The waivers requested are reasonable to request as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) Updated planting plan is to be included in the site plan. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 27 day of April 2021 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion? MRS. MOORE-So there is one discussion. So that you’ve included the planting plan, can you include an L? MR. DEEB-I’m sorry. This is an old resolution. I didn’t bother reading it. Okay, and also amend this resolution to include, L, Updated planting plan is to be included in the site plan. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Robert & Peter Nemer, Site Plan 25-2021. Laura? NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. ROBERT & PETER NEMER. AGENT(S): MATT HUNTINGTON, STUDIO A. OWNER(S): ROBERT NEMER & NATIONAL GRID. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 290 CAR PARKING LOT FOR CAR LOT STORAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE DISTURBANCE OF 6.1 ACRES. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER CONTROLS, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: P2-94- 20168 REZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2021. SITE INFORMATION: UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICT. LOT SIZE: 14.63 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.6-1-3, 303.10-1-6. SECTION: 179-3-040. MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to construct a 290 car parking lot for car lot storage. The application includes stormwater, lighting and landscaping, and originally there was a proposed building. So it’s on the materials that you may have received. It seemed to reference a building on the site, and my updated information was in your packet as well that includes just the lot with no building on it. You have information in your packet that may reference stormwater, but it shows information about a building. I apologize for the confusion but at this point in time they are not proposing a building on the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening, Board. Matt Huntington with Studio A representing Robert and Peter Nemer, the Nemer car group. The parcel is located right next to the ARC building on Quaker Road, and believe it or not it is one of the few parcels in there that is not in a wetland. The parcel itself kind of goes off gradient from Quaker Road and you’ll see on the site plan there are some wetlands to the north and the south of the proposed development. However we’re going to be maintaining a minimum of a 100 foot buffer from the development to the wetlands. The proposed development as Laura stated is really an overflow parking lot for vehicle storage for the Nemer car group. One thing that isn’t included on the site plan that will be is this is actually not going to be for public access . So both the exit and entrance will be gated. The building that was proposed was for material storage only. That’s been removed. We may be back before the Board at some point in time for the building. To allow our stormwater controls to function for this building as well as the parking lot, the wetland area is impervious as far as the calculations. So if we were to come back with a building the stormwater would be effective to include that. From a stormwater perspective the parking area has a few main center islands. You see the longer ones there. Those will be actually bio retention areas that a lot of the parking lot would drain into. They will be included as part of the landscape requirements as well as they’ll function as a stormwater device. Those will outflow to infiltration basins on either side of the parking lot and a third basin as well. We have received some comments regarding the stormwater from Chazen and Companies. I don’t know if the Board has seen any of those. There is nothing really that would be a major cause of concern, a little mottling, and it shouldn’t affect any of the development. The landscaping that’s been proposed is in 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) accordance with the Town standards, in the islands and the buffering. Right now the lot’s wooded. So anything that isn’t disturbed as part of the site development for the parking lot or the stormwater can remain. So there will be some buffer there from the parking area. So the lot itself is approximately 14 and a half acres with an acre of and a half of National Grid easement that essentially runs through the center of the property parallel to Quaker Road. The development is going to be comprised of approximately six acres total. So we will be subject to the easements. There would be lighting which is also proposed in accordance with Town standards, 20 foot maximum pole height and there’s a light drawing included in your package that shows no spill off on any adjacent properties. With that I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I was shocked seeing this come in. The last thing we talked was maybe doing something up there at the Chrysler, Dodge Chrysler building and I thought they were going to expand up there. MR. HUNTINGTON-I believe that came about, we weren’t involved in that project, but I thought that was in front of the Board at one time. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I thought it was, and then I saw this and I thought, wow. So that’s good. It’s right in between both and it’ll put the Fords, the Chevy’s and all the Nemer Group cars there. MR. HUNTINGTON-That’s their immediate need is for vehicle storage, which is why the building was pulled off because in the interest of time they had an issue with areas to park their inventory. MR. DEEB-Well the Chrysler building, it was an addition. MR. MAGOWAN-That was an addition, but I think they also talked about putting on some, they were thinking about moving some at one time. MRS. MOORE-They were going to tie into the Nudi building, and they didn’t pursue that. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, that’s what it was. Yes. Good. I mean this is right across from Garvey then. MR. HUNTINGTON-Right, exactly. MR. DEEB-Crushed stone? MR. HUNTINGTON-It’s proposed to eventually be paved. Right now they’ll probably go in with a crushed stone subbase for the parking area and eventually. Paving three acres of parking is not the least expensive. MR. DEEB-But you’re going to put crushed stone. MR. HUNTINGTON-From a stormwater perspective however crushed stone and the asphalt paving are pretty equal in terms of calculations. MR. DEEB-Stormwater, is it going to run off the property or are you going to? MR. HUNTINGTON-No, it won’t run off the property. Well, I mean it eventually makes its way off the property, but our proposed development will mitigate the stormwater runoff from the development, better than, equal to or less than the existing conditions, and they’re pretty significantly less than the existing conditions. The three infiltration basins, there’s a lot of room on this site, 14 acres. So we were able to design a pretty robust stormwater system that really controls almost all of the runoff. Naturally, as they overflow, there will be some leaving the site, but not drastic from the existing conditions. MR. DEEB-All right. Because I’m just looking at the SEQR and Number 17 says, I know we haven’t addressed it yet, but it says will stormwater discharge flow to adjacent properties, and you have yes marked down here. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, that, again, it’s kind of a murky question. Because, yes, eventually stormwater does leave every site. MR. DEEB-Yes, but you’ve made arrangements for it to stay on the property, from what you just said. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, it does stay on, but I mean in the event that we have some 500 year rain event, there’s an outflow that comes from the basin. MR. DEEB-I just wanted to make sure we’re clarified on this. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-It’s one of those yes, noes. MR. HUNTINGTON-Exactly. It’s a loaded question. MR. DEEB-It’s just for clarification, that’s all. MR. HUNTINGTON-That’s fine. You’re right. MR. TRAVER-We also have a public hearing on this application. This is for Robert and Peter Nemer, Site Plan 25-2021, and I’ll remind the public if they wish to call in and comment, the number to call is 518- 761-8225, and, Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So you mentioned a lighting plan. The plan that’s in our package, I thought it was just the one that I downloaded that you couldn’t read, but you can’t read that one, either. So I just wanted to make sure that the actual intensity meets the Town Code. You mentioned the height, which is one of. MR. HUNTINGTON-Nowadays with the LED features, so I mean the intensity of light is reduced significantly, almost everything you get these days. You’re not looking at 10 foot candles directly underneath, five feet away. MR. DEEB-That’s tough to read, MR. DIXON-Are you proposing any light on the storage building? MR. HUNTINGTON-The storage building’s not proposed. So if we were going to come back, if the storage building makes it’s way back, we’ll be back in front of the Board for that, but right now we’re only proposing a parking area. MR. HUNSINGER-If you can read that, Laura. MR. SHAFER-Can I ask a question? Describe the function of the lot if you would. Is this simple to store cars and then transport them over to the sales area? MR. HUNTINGTON-Correct. It’s an overflow storage lot. MR. SHAFER-Did you consider one way in and one way out to these driveways? MR. HUNTINGTON-That is what’s proposed right now. That is what’s proposed, one way in and one way out. MR. SHAFER-I didn’t see that. That’s great. MS. WHITE-So there’s no working on vehicles? MR. HUNTINGTON-No. MS. WHITE-And is it mainly new vehicles or are there old, you know, there’s got to be some concern about gas and oil. MR. HUNTINGTON-I’m not sure the storage intent there, but I would say I mean it’s whatever they have. Even the vehicles they have in the lot I don’t think is. MS. WHITE-I guess I still have a concern. You’re still close to the wetlands and that’s an awful lot of potential spillage of gasoline, oil, antifreeze. MR. TRAVER-I think we can condition that there be no repair work or maintenance work on the vehicles that are in storage. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. DEEB-Yes, it’ll work, but I don’t see how they can work on cars there anyway. It’s just a storage lot, unless they crawl under them. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don’t think that’s their intent. MS. WHITE-You can work on vehicles anywhere. MR. DEEB-You’ve also got Garvey’s across the street with the same situation. MR. DIXON-With this lot, though, I’m going to say there’s the potential, with no eyes on it, that you could store an RV or a boat there. I know that’s not what the intent is, but there’s enough land there. For instance, if you drive around Nemer right now on the service bays, there’s a, looks like an old RV that’s been sitting there for years and I would hate to see that start to crop up here, and I do have one other question, too, and maybe it’s just my eyes. So in the Northeast with our snow removal, where are the planned, where’s the planned snow removal? Where are you going to store that? MR. HUNTINGTON-It should be off to the left. It’s an area where they can potentially push it off the end of the parking lot on the left side of your screen there. I believe that’s on the layout plan. MR. TRAVER-So, Michael, on your comment about the storage, are you suggesting that we condition this on passenger vehicle and trucks only? MR. DIXON-Yes, I think, and I don’t know how we would term it, but I think that they should be usable vehicles. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would say that if this is for storage, there could be unregistered vehicles on the site that are not yet sold. They wouldn’t be licensed. They wouldn’t be insured. MR. DEEB-They’re all unregistered. All the vehicles are going to be unregistered. MR. TRAVER-Well, we don’t know. They might be in storage waiting for repair. They might be customer vehicles. It’s hard to say. MR. DIXON-I guess, and you all can help me out with this. So if there’s a wreck that’s been serviced at your other location and you just want to get it off your primary lot and now you’ve got that wreck that’s going to be stored here, which falls into Jamie’s concerns, is if we start looking at wrecks, we could have oil leakage, gas leakage. So I would like it reserved for new and used cars that are truly viable that are going to be for sale, not for long term storage. MR. HUNTINGTON-I don’t think that there would be any opposition to that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don’t think that, vehicles that are severely damaged are not going to be retained by the dealer. They’re going to send that off to a subcontractor that’s either going to have the insurance company total the vehicle or it’s going to be repaired, but that would be, I don’t anticipate that that would be done. MR. DIXON-I wouldn’t expect it, but if you don’t have it spelled out. MS. WHITE-You wouldn’t expect it but the potential is still there and Mr. Dixon’s already stated there’s a vehicle that’s been sitting on the lot for years. What’s to say they don’t just, out of sight, you know, if we park that over there for a while and then it doesn’t happen. It doesn’t get taken away. MR. TRAVER-So how about a condition that only functional passenger cars and trucks. MR. DEEB-That still leaves it open. You can have a jalopy that’s functional. MS. WHITE-It’s hard to define it. MR. DEEB-It is a tough wording. I’m trying to figure out how to word this right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Well we’ve got the right guy for the job. MRS. MOORE-So Chris had asked, while he’s wording that, Chris had asked about the lighting, and I had it up there, and then I pulled up that Code section. So automobile lots have an average lot for 20. We looked at these lots. They were down to 1.2. So I’d be surprised if this went above five, but that is something that you can request is the average for the site. If you look at this, this is all at .3 and .2, and we have something in our Code that talks about automobile lots being at 20. MR. HUNSINGER-Well those are for cars that are for sale, you know, where customers go. This is not. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s not open to the public. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-But it doesn’t differentiate between sales, it just says the word automobile lot. MR. HUNSINGER-So they’re well within the Code is what you’re saying. MRS. MOORE-Correct, but I mean if you want there to be less foot candles on average, again, I’m trying to think of one of the ones that was in the Code here. So a standard commercial parking lot is 2.5. MR. HUNSINGER-This would probably be less than that. MR. HUNTINGTON-Right to your right where it’s like 2.6. The black dots are the actual light fixtures. So directly under it would be the maximum foot candles, but again, as Laura said, they don’t really exceed. MR. TRAVER-Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well let’s go ahead and close the public hearing then on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We do have also a SEQR resolution under the SEQR act to consider. I know we’ve talked about concerns about waste products from vehicles and we did add a condition of no repair or maintenance. Are there any other environmental concerns that people have that we should consider under SEQR? Okay. I guess we’re ready for a SEQR resolution then. MR. DEEB-I want to ask about the lighting. So we’re okay, then, with the lighting that’s proposed? MRS. MOORE-So it doesn’t exceed the Code but that’s really up to the Board. Lighting is a discussion item for the Board. At this point I would look at it as the Code, and it says that, for auto lots it says 20. This applicant has light poles that are 20 feet in height and around them is like .3 or .1. The highest one around the poles is at 2.6. So I guess I don’t quite know what a good example of that would be. MR. DEEB-You’d have to compare it to other lots. MRS. MOORE-Well it’s tough to compare it to other lots because most of our lots, even Subaru down the way, it has angled lighting that this Board approved. MR. TRAVER-And most car lots are open to the public, too. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-And the other thing, this is a pretty isolated spot. MR. TRAVER-And it’s gated. MR. DEEB-But it’s dark. So any illumination’s going to come right at you. MR. HUNTINGTON-We have maintained a pretty healthy buffer around the site. Again, the total site between National Grid and the Nemer’s property is 16 acres. We’re disturbing six and the parking area itself is only about three acres centralized. So all the trees that are there around it are going to remain outside of the disturbance line. MR. DEEB-All right. I’m good with that. MR. TRAVER-Any other environmental concerns that we should discuss regarding the SEQR resolution? MR. DEEB-I’m okay with that one. Now we’re all set? MR. TRAVER-Yes. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 25-2021 ROBERT & PETER NEMER The applicant proposes to construct a 290 car parking lot for car lot storage. The project includes site disturbance of 6.1 acres. Site work includes stormwater controls, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial buildings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 25-2021 ROBERT & PETER NEMER, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of April 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Okay. So now we move on to the Site Plan. I know we’re going to have an additional condition on the maintenance of vehicles at this location, and we were working on a condition for the vehicle type to be stored. Do you have that? Okay. Why don’t you go ahead and read us that. MR. DEEB-All right. Well, first of all L is going to be no mechanical repairs or maintenance to be performed on the property. The next one’s going to be a little tricky, all right. The way I’ve worded it is only properly maintained vehicles intended for sale to be stored on the property, and I think that’s what they intend if I’m not mistaken. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, I believe that is. MR. DEEB-I mean, I see it, they’ve got so many cars in so many different lots that I’ve got to believe that they’re just going to take the ones that they’re going to, and they’re going to be shuffled quite a bit. They’re going to go in. I don’t think they’re going to stay there long. I think they’re going to go in there for a short period. They’re going to get them out and either wholesale them and get them back to the lot. MR. TRAVER-Well they certainly hope so. MR. DEEB-So I think this works. MR. DIXON-I’m okay with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Because they do have plenty of other storage as well. If they had a vehicle that didn’t fit that description, they could put it on one of their other. MR. DEEB-Yes, but it also prevents them from bringing a wreck over there and setting it there. Okay. MRS. MOORE-You could just say in parenthesis, the intent is not to have a wreck. So that way the resolution can be specific. MS. WHITE-Who’s going to check on that? MRS. MOORE-So we have Code Compliance. That if someone were to go by there and observe that there was some vehicle there that didn’t seem to fit the character of what the resolution is and they called our office, we would have to go out and inspect that. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MS. WHITE-Thank you. MR. DEEB-The other thing that just crossed my mind is that there’s nothing in here, and I don’t know if it’s too restrictive, but we’ve talked about RV’s, other vehicles that are, I think we have to be careful here. It’s private property. MR. DIXON-It is hard because I mean, again, the intent behind it was just to make sure that they’re active vehicles that are actively being sold and moving on and off the lot, not an RV that’s going to be parked there for three or four years, but in reality Nemer could start selling RV’s down the road and maybe they would want to sell them, and we wouldn’t want to restrict them. MR. DEEB-Well if they’re new RV’s, I don’t see where that would be a problem. I’m just saying we don’t want the property to turn into a permanent storage property for vehicles that aren’t going to be used. MR. TRAVER-Well I think these spaces to the business are going to be quite valuable MR. DEEB-I agree. MR. TRAVER-And I don’t think that they would just put an old RV out there that would take up valuable. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re talking about the one at Nemer Ford there out there in the back side of the shop. MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. It’s a break room MR. DIXON-That’s what they use for a break room. Okay. If that works for them. MR. DEEB-All right. So the last condition, M, would be only properly maintained vehicles intended for sale will be stored on the lot with the intention of not storing non-usable vehicles or damaged automobiles on the property. Is that okay with you? MR. HUNTINGTON-I think that’s reasonable. It’s based on the storage that we have. MR. DEEB-I know what the intention is. I know how busy they are, but we could use verbiage all day to try and figure this out and we’d never cover everything. MR. TRAVER-With the enforcement issues that we have, I think the main reason for adding this is just to communicate our wishful intent, and I think your condition does that very well. MR. DEEB-And I know Robert and Peter and I’ve known them for years, and they’re reputable people. They like to have things neat and clean. All right. Are we okay? MR. TRAVER-We are. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP # 25-2021 ROBERT & PETER NEMER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 290 car parking lot for car lot storage. The project includes site disturbance of 6.1 acres. Site work includes stormwater controls, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial buildings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance. The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/27/2021 and continued the public hearing to 04/27/2021, 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 04/27/2021; 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) 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 25-2021 ROBERT & PETER NEMER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal. The waivers requested are reasonable to request as these items are related to building construction and at this time there is no building proposed. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) No mechanical repairs or maintenance work to be performed on the property. m) Only properly maintained vehicles intended for sale to be stored on the property, with the intention of not storing, non-usable vehicles or damaged automobiles on the property. th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 27 day of April 2021 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. MR. HUNTINGTON-Thank you. I’m not going anywhere because we’re the next application. MR. TRAVER-So the next item is a discussion item, Foothill Builders, Subdivision Sketch Plan, 20-2020. SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 20-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS. AGENT(S): STUDIO A – MATTHEW HUNTINGTON, PE. OWNER(S): PATRICIA WELLS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 84 JENKINSVILLE ROAD. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES 18 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 16.89 ACRE PARCEL. PROJECT IS TO HAVE ONE ACCESS DRIVE WITH A CUL-DE-SAC. LOT SIZES RANGE FROM 0.69 ACRES TO 0.97 ACRES. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) PROPOSED HOUSE SIZE OF 1,822 SQ. FT. TO 1,329 SQ. FT. WITH BOTH SINGLE STORY AND TWO STORY HOMES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (S) 11-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 16.89 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.15-1-85. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MS. WHITE-I need to recuse myself from this. Do I just leave since it’s the last one or do I hang out and come back for the adjournment. MRS. MOORE-I would suggest that you join the audience only because you are a potential neighbor for this. Just so you understand she has a potential house in that area. MS. WHITE-Yes, I own property adjacent. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So previously we looked at a 19 lot, and the Board gave some guidance to the applicant to take a look at what the house sizes were and what type of homes were to be placed on the site. So the applicant came back with some outlays of that house and some elevations and he’s going from 19 to 18. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNTINGTON-So Matt Huntington again, representing Foothills Builders here for the subdivision, and as Laura said when we presented this to the Board I think mid to late summer of 2020, we got some feedback based on the type of development that would go there. So we included some of the standard home footprints that Foothills Builders puts together. We’ve also gone a step further. We’ve done some preliminary storage calculations to make sure everything is going to function out at the site. We also went out, in the southwestern corner of the property there are some Army Corps jurisdictional wetlands there. We have contacted the Army Corps. They have to make a site visit just to verify we had those flagged by North Country Ecological Services. Our development is going to stay away from anything on the wetland area. So the subdivision that we’re proposing, you know, we’re going to have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals because we’re looking for a density variance here and how we came up with a number for the density variance is we took the average acreage of the properties around and we kind of looked at that, went a little bit above that. We’re proposing somewhere around, anywhere between .7 and 1 acres per lot. In addition, taking the average density around, what we did is performed some test pits on the site and verified soil conditions looking for anything that’s essentially going to restrict development and what we found were some excellent soil infiltration capacity for both wastewater and stormwater, which helps support this type of development. Additionally the neighbors to the north, the Rainbow Trail subdivision, they’re significantly smaller lots than what we’re proposing here, and aside from the elephant in the room that I will get to shortly, there don’t seem to be any environmental concerns with that subdivision. Now we are aware that the landfills to the north of the site have recently been declared a Super Fund site. So prior to coming back to the Board, Foothills Builders went out and drilled a few potable water wells to serve as test wells and then based on the results of testing on those, they can also serve as, and if they can potable water wells for any proposed development there. So these were tested and they were tested for 1, 4 dioxin. Both wells came back below the maximum contamination limits for 1, 4 dioxin. Pretty substantially below what the limits were. So our understanding is, with a Super Fund site, the DEC is now stepping in, as well as the Department of Health. Our anticipation is that the situation would certainly be improving out there, and we have a baseline data showing that the site itself has not been linked back to a groundwater contamination issue. The wells were drilled proximal, one was at the beginning of the proposed subdivision roadway near Jenkinsville Road, and the second well was drilled on the back side of the property near where the proposed cul de sac is, but we figured that was pretty good spacing to kind of get across the site and get an idea of what was going on with the ground water in that area. As far as I know this site specifically is not included as part of the Super Fund site. The DEC mapping I’ve seen is limited to the plume around the landfill areas north of the site. So we feel that with that knowledge we would like to continue to pursue a development here. So we wanted to come in front of the Board to get some feedback on it prior to obviously submitting for a site plan review and a variance. MR. HUNSINGER-So how close are the properties that did test for the contaminants? MR. HUNTINGTON-Well, that’s an evolving number. So they’re still testing. At the time that, we have been working with the DEC and the Department of Health. We’ve been speaking with them. At the time they were approximately a quarter mile or so away from the site. MR. DEEB-The key word there is evolving. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUNTINGTON-Certainly. MR. DEEB-That’s the thing we’ve got to keep an eye on. MR. HUNTINGTON-But again as we stated we have a baseline value for the contamination levels and with the DEC stepping in as a Super Fund site it’s actually beneficial to the development because something is being done there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-Well, let’s say you go through with this and a year or two down the road something happens where contamination starts to spread, do you have a contingency plan in place, or do you? MR. HUNTINGTON-Well, that would be, I think we would be coordinating with the plan that was becoming in place with the DEC and the Department of Health. I mean this thing is not going to be constructed in the next month or so. It’s certainly not going to be constructed, I don’t think, prior to having some semblance of a plan that the DEC has put forward. The other thing we could offer is additional testing of the wells and time progresses in between now and as we get through the site plan and zoning process. MR. DEEB-Well, I think that would be prudent. MR. HUNTINGTON-Certainly. Yes, I don’t think, no one here wants to propose selling any site with contaminated water and Foothills certainly doesn’t. We certainly don’t want to represent a project of that nature. So just due to the timeframe and how long it takes to get something like this approved, we wanted to continue to keep the ball rolling and provided, you know, extenuating circumstances, we’d like to continue going through the process. MR. SHAFER-There were certain contaminants noted in the paper that DEC was testing for. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, it was 1,4 Dioxin. It’s the contaminant that was above the maximum contamination level. MR. SHAFER-I thought it was PFOA and PFOS and those kinds of things. MR. HUNTINGTON-Well, PFOA, from my understanding, is a similar compound but not the same as 1,4 Dioxin. So we were testing, we tested for what was found to be the levels of maximum contamination. MR. SHAFER-How far west of the site is the closest contaminated well? MR. HUNTINGTON-That I cannot answer off the top of my head. We have to get back with the DEC because as I said they’ve tested more wells since our last conversation with them and they could accurately measure. MR. HUNSINGER-So when you did test wells, how deep did you go? JOE LEUCI, JR. MR. LEUCI-One was about 100 feet. One was about 150 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it clearly wasn’t groundwater. Did you test the groundwater, too? MR. HUNTINGTON-There actually wasn’t evidence of groundwater within the test pits that we dug down to six or so feet. The test wells go down to bedrock or gravel well type area until they actually hit a vein. MR. DIXON-Those test wells, were they on the northern border? MR. HUNTINGTON-So there’s one test well, if you’re looking at your site plan, right adjacent to Jenkinsville Road on that first lot as you pull in and then another one on the southern edge of the cul de sac which is Lot 11 in that area. MR. MAGOWAN-I was out there coming down Jenkinsville Road and I saw that well, and I said boy that’s awfully far down, but I just thought it was DEC testing, because you’re actually on that south side of the property. MR. DEEB-But you didn’t test the north side, closest to the. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, he’s got one back there. MR. HUNTINGTON-One on the north side, and then the furthest one by the cul de sac is on the south side. So they’re kind of split, and each of these wells as they go in, obviously, as part of the development is going to be tested as well as the existing ones throughout the approval process. MR. DEEB-You just have to be extra careful here. MR. HUNTINGTON-Certainly. MR. DIXON-On the plans it shows, so there’s still a barn on the property? MR. LEUCI-It hasn’t been removed yet. MR. DIXON-It hasn’t been removed, and it’s showing that there’s still a well behind the barn. Has that well been tested? MR. HUNTINGTON-As far as I know there wasn’t actually an access to draw water out of that well. We did look at testing that well, but I believe that it was after the pump had been removed. So that’s actually, obviously in the interest of the cause we were going to attempt to test that well first as opposed to drilling two new wells, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that would have been cheaper. MR. TRAVER-So do you have specific questions for us? MR. HUNTINGTON-Really what we’re looking for is a recommendation on the density as we go in front of the Zoning Board. We feel from a site plan perspective and an environmental perspective, the well and groundwater Super Fund site, not withstanding, that this does meet the criteria of the intent of the development. MR. DEEB-Well, we can play the Devil’s advocate here and we get a lot of projects before us that require a variance for lot size, and it seems like every project that comes up, this is what we’re facing, and I don’t know, I mean I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, I’m not saying I feel that way, but you might encounter some resistance because of the size. I’m just saying as a Board, but I know Foothills Builders, I know Joey has done this for a while and he does a really nice, clean project. All his projects look good. They’re done tastefully. They’re done well, except for that first one where they tore all the trees down. Remember that one? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LEUCI-Live and learn I guess. MR. DEEB-But I just think this is something you have to keep in mind when you’re doing this. So just to bring it up front. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. SHAFER-In laying out the subdivision, did you look at any other option than a straight road into the cul de sac and all of the houses line up on both sides? MR. HUNTINGTON-So because of the rectilinear structure of the lot, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for curvature around the road. You’re kind of losing lots and you kind of cram some corners in there, rather than trying to create any sort of loop with the roadway. It actually would encroach on the lot size, even smaller than what’s proposed here, if we were to try and make a curvature in the roadway or some sort of loop in there. MR. DEEB-This is pretty similar to his previous designs if I’m not mistaken. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. What we’ve done is we just advanced them further in terms of preliminary stormwater calculations. We actually looked at some of the houses that would be on there as opposed to just rectangles on it. We ended up removing a lot so we had more room for a stormwater management feature. So those are the main changes since it was here last time. Roadway wise it’s exactly the same as it was the first time that we were here. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments or feedback for the applicant? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MR. DIXON-I do have one, Mr. Chairman. So I thought, somewhere in our Code books, it talks about development and pretty much planned access. So if another development should go in behind it, that there is property set aside for connectivity to that. And I was just trying to pull up on the map there, but I would think maybe, I guess you’d almost call it a forever wild, but that would be an improper term between Lots 10 and 11 that there be a parcel left wide enough to accommodate a road should there be future development, and I can’t see anything on my phone. MRS. MOORE-I would agree that there is a requirement for connectivity between commercial lots, and there’s no reason why to bring it up. There is one, only because if you look at the lot to the east, , there’s no reason why. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? Do you have any other questions for us? MR. HUNTINGTON-No, this is essentially what we were looking for as far as procedure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess you’re all set. MR. HUNTINGTON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. That concludes our agenda for this evening. Is there any other business before the Board tonight? MR. DEEB-You’ve got to table Native Development. MR. TRAVER-Did we not do that? MR. DEEB-No, we didn’t. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for reminding me. I guess I did say we would do it according to the agenda, didn’t I? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have the next application under New Business has not yet been tabled, Native Development Assoc., LLC, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 5-2021 and Subdivision Final Stage 6-2021 th is going to be tabled to the May 18 Planning Board meeting. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2021 PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2021 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC. AGENT(S): ABD ENGINEERS, LLP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 24 NATIVE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH ROAD CONSTRUCTION FROM THE EXISTING NATIVE ROAD FROM CAREY ROAD. LOT 1 – 11.15 ACRES, LOT 2 – 1.86 ACRES. LOT 3 – 8.14 ACRES, LOT 4 – 7.14 ACRES, AND LOT 5 – 3.77 ACRES. A ROAD OF 1.04 ACRES WITH A CUL-DE-SAC TO CONNECT THE EXISTING NATIVE DRIVE ROAD IS PROPOSED. THE PLANS INCLUDE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING AND LOT DESIGN FOR EACH PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL. SITE PLAN REVIEW WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH PARCEL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE EXISTING 117,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING ON LOT 1 IS TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 69- 2017, SP 14-2019, SUB (P) 5-2020 & (F) 6-2020 (EXPIRED). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 33.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-9.2. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MR. TRAVER-And there was a public hearing announced for this evening. So we will go ahead and open that and that will remain open pending the application actually being heard presumably next month. Does anyone have any comments or questions about that tabling? Do you have anything additional to offer, Laura? MRS. MOORE-They still have some engineering issues to resolve and in this case I think that’s a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-They don’t need any more submissions, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, they need to get engineering signoff. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/27/2021) MR. DEEB-Okay. So we don’t have to put a date in for that. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 5-2021 PRELIM STG. & SUB # 6-2021 FINAL STG. NATIVE DEVEL. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes five lot subdivision with road construction from the existing Native Road from Carey Road. Lot 1 – 11.15 acres, Lot 2 – 1.86 acres, Lot 3 – 8.41 acres, Lot 4 – 7.14 acres, Lot 5 – 3.77 acres. A road of 1.04 acres with a cul-de-sac to connect to the existing Native Drive road is proposed. The plans include conceptual building and lot design for each parcel. Project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control. Site Plan review will be required for each parcel for future development. The existing 117,000 sq. ft. building on Lot 1 is to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2021 PRELIMINARY STAGE & SUBDIVISION NO. 6- 2021 FINAL STAGE NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Tabled to the May 18, 2021 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-That does conclude our agenda for this evening. Is there any other business before the Board tonight? If not we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 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-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 22