Loading...
07-20-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 35-2021 Chris Racicot 1. TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60, 309.10-1-63 Site Plan No. 34-2021 Laphatt Holdings 2. SEQR Tax Map No. 308.8-1-30.3 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 41-2021 Kent & Cheryl Smith 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.19-1-33 Site Plan No. 40-2021 David & Pamela Way 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-23 Site Plan No. 44-2021 Artisan Ink/Melissa Freebern 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14 Site Plan No. 42-2021 Honey Do Enterprises, LLC 11. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-39 Subdivision No. 7-2021 Cerrone Builders, Inc. 15. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 301.18-2-1 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 07/20/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting thth for Tuesday July 20, 2021. This is our first meeting for July and believe it or not it’s our 14 meeting thus far this year. If you have an electronic device, if you would either turn the ringer off or turn the device of so it will not interfere with our meeting we’d appreciate it. In the event of an emergency the red illuminated signs, in the event of an emergency, is your way out. We do have a couple of items with public hearings this evening which we will announce at the time. So we do have a couple of administrative items before th we get to our regular agenda this evening, the first being the approval of minutes for the May 18 and May th 20 meeting, and we do have a draft resolution to that effect. Does anyone have any suggestions for amendments to those minutes? Otherwise we’ll take a motion to approve them. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m trying to think if I missed one day. I’m not sure if it was May. I don’t miss too many, but I know I missed one. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th May 18, 2021 th May 20, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY THTH 18 & MAY 20, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. We also have, under Administrative Items, Site Plan 35-2021, Racicot. Request for further tabling to August 2021. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 35-2021 RACICOT TABLE TO AUGUST 2021 th MR. TRAVER-I believe it’s August 17 Planning Board meeting. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has turned in their information for the August meeting. That includes a change to this application where there’ll be three buildings instead of just one. It’s two buildings of six units and one building of two units. So you’ll get a whole new project information for the August meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions or comments regarding that requested tabling? If not we’ll entertain the motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a 14 unit two story townhouse building of 12,740 sq. ft. footprint, 23,400 sq. ft. floor area. Each unit will 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) have a garage and a patio area. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new residential building of 14 units shall be subject to Planning Board and other department reviews. Applicant requests tabling to August 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the August 17, 2021 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is Tabled Items. And for that we have Laphatt Holdings, Site Plan 34-2021. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 34-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. LAPHATT HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): TOM CENTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: NR. LOCATION: MANOR DRIVE. SEQR: PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CAN PROCEED WITH SEQRA REVIEW. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS. EACH BUILDING IS TO BE 3,200 SQ. FT. WITH EACH UNIT TO HAVE A GARAGE, TWO BEDROOMS AND A DRIVEWAY ONTO MANOR DRIVE. THE SITE IS TO HAVE TWO ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND EACH BUILDING IS TO BE CONNECTED TO WATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MULTI- FAMILY BUILDINGS IN THE NR ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR DENSITY. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQRA AND MAY MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 33-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: .87 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30.3. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application was tabled last month. This is a construction of two 4-unit buildings, each building to be 3,200 square feet. Each unit to have a garage and two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The relief sought is for density and at this meeting the Board can conduct SEQR if they wish and they may provide a recommendation to the ZBA. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Center. I was here last month with Matt Steves, one of the owners. The Board looked favorably upon this project that you wanted us to respond to Chazen and get their response back which we now have. So we’re looking for, as Laura said, a SEQR resolution and a recommendation for the Zoning Board for the density variance. Even though it looks like a lot going from one to eight, it’s totally appropriate for what’s already been developed on that lot, and it can be done nicer on that lot than what the neighbors are, more green, a little more thoughtful without all the parking in the back. MR. TRAVER-I know we had some discussion about the difference in the garage which I think is, you know, is more attractive than the older set up, but all right. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? This is a variance for density. So tonight our goal is to look at the environmental review under SEQR and make a recommendation to the ZBA for the density request, variance for the density request. MR. DEEB-Jon, what was the reason you went with two buildings instead of one? MR. LAPPER-Generally it’s viewed as a more upscale project with two buildings. You’re right it looks more like a barracks when it’s one large building. So it’s broken up for light and air and vegetation. It just looks better when it’s two buildings. MR. CENTER-And also the other buildings are also the same type, four unit type style. So the box is similar to each one. It would, to do one long one and then you have all these other ones that are four units, 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) it wouldn’t be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. We’re continuing what Mr. Slate started down that road, just finishing up the last lot similar to all the other ones with the four unit style. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Any other concerns regarding the density variance? It is a variance, but again it’s. MS. WHITE-It is very much in keeping with the remainder on that road. MR. TRAVER-Yes, very much so. Okay. How about the environmental review? We did receive the environmental information. Does anyone have any concerns that would impact this project under SEQR? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman I noted that the Staff raised the question about snow removal. Could you just answer that, please. MR. CENTER-I believe Matt discussed that the last time. They have a bobcat with a snow blower on it. So they will be maintained, they will be owner maintained. If snow needs to be removed when it gets high it will be, but it will be maintained by the owners. MR. MAGOWAN-A snow thrower. MR. CENTER-A snow thrower or a snow plow is much more preferred especially in this setting. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes . You don’t see that too often. MR. CENTER-They’ve got a few apartments that they manage with the snow. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well our first order of business is the resolution under SEQR. I’m not hearing any specific environmental concerns. So if the Board is ready to move forward on a SEQR resolution, I believe we have a draft. Note, too, that the public hearing remains open on this project. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR. DEC SP # 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS The applicant proposes Applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two on-site septic systems and each building is to be connected to water. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction of new multi-family buildings in the NR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the 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 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS. 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 20 day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, are there any written comments from the public? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-Not at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this application? I’m not seeing any. MRS. MOORE-You wouldn’t close the public hearing because you have to wait for the recommendation. MR. TRAVER-That’s right. We have to wait until it comes back. So we will not close the public hearing. We will leave the public hearing open. All right, and so then we’re making a recommendation to the ZBA with regard to the variance for density. I did not hear any concerns specifically about that variance request. I’ll ask again, does anyone have any concerns about a referral regarding density? Okay. And I believe we have a draft resolution to that effect as well. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 33-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct two four- unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two on-site septic systems and each building is to be connected to water. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction of new multi- family buildings in the NR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for density. Planning Board may conduct SEQRA and may make recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 20 day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everybody. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to the next section of our agenda which is Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the first application we’re considering is Kent & Cheryl Smith, Site Plan 41-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 41-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. KENT & CHERYL SMITH. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 379 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY ADDITION OF 1,964 SQ. FT. THAT IS TO BE 32 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE ADDITION IS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING OF 1,333 SQ. FT. AT A HEIGHT OF 28 FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,561 SQ. FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO E 4,525 SQ. FT. THE USE OF THE ADDITION IS FOR AN EXISTING TENANT WHO NEEDS ADDITIONAL AREA FOR A MULTI-USE SPACE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: BAY ROAD. LOT SIZE: .41 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-33. SECTION: 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a single story addition of 1,964 square foot that is to be 32 feet in height and the addition is to an existing building of 1,333 square feet. The new floor area is to be 4,525 square feet. The use of the addition is for the existing tenant who needs additional area for a multi-use space and the variance that is sought is for a relief for setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture, here tonight representing Kent and Cheryl Smith, 379 Bay Road. The building is currently two story offices. The lower office portion is utilized by Upstate New York Autism Alliance which is run by Kent’s sister and her husband. The upstairs is appraisal offices. Nothing’s changing in the upstairs. The folks that run the Upstate New York Autism Alliance have, during COVID, they have a bunch of gym equipment that was used in other spaces. That all got shut down during COVID and they realized that for them to continue doing what they need to do, they’ve got a bunch of different exercise equipment. They’ve got some stuff that they need space for. So that’s kind of the need for this. They’ve decided to bring it all in-house instead of space somewhere else closed out of it. So Kent and Cheryl decided this was a good use for it and something that they could hopefully get to. MR. TRAVER-So the variance is for setbacks. There’s apparently 13 parking spaces. So that doesn’t appear to be an issue. MR. HALL-Yes. We’re actually taking some of the parking away. Currently that’s one big curb cut across Bay Road and we’re actually going to make it 24 foot a real curb cut and take away some of the blacktop and some out at the road space. We felt that was a little better utilization of that. When Dr. Parsons had his dental office there they had a lot more need for additional space. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the rear setback is one issue. There’s a 25 foot setback and you’re going to be 19’ 2”. The north property line is supposed to be 17 and it’s 14, just under 15. MR. HALL-It’s supposed to be 20. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. It’s supposed to be 20. MR. HALL-And what we’re doing is we’re actually stepping the building back a little bit from the existing. So the existing building is closer to that north property line than what we’re going to be and what we tried to do is we tried to center it and leave enough space that we could get the overhead door along the side, south side of the building. So that when you need to move equipment in and out of the building they’ve got a clear path to do that. So we kind of set that back. We kind of tried to balance the setbacks that we needed. It’s 20 feet and 50 total. So I mean kind of balance it as best we could. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Understood. Okay. There were a couple of items, and I know we’ll be talking about site plan technically later, but there was also a question on snow removal, similar to the previous application, and I noted, too, that there’s apparently two lights facing the road. They’re described as facing the road. MR. HALL-They will be downcast. MR. TRAVER-They’re on the road side, but not shining on the road. MR. HALL-They’re wall mounted lights. Snow removal. We’re actually adding some green space. (Lost words due to background interference) MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HALL-I guess my feeling was that because we were making it smaller. MR. VALENTINE-And I understand that. That happens a lot, too. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. HALL-Well, I mean if they want I’ll leave it 75 feet. MR. VALENTINE-Again, I bring it up just as a question. That’s all. MR. TRAVER-A notification of the change at the very least. MR. HALL-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Just check with them. MR. VALENTINE-Well I noticed that there was a referral from Warren County and I don’t know if it came up in their response. MRS. MOORE-It did not come up in their response. MR. TRAVER-Good question. So you’ll follow up on that. MR. HALL-Yes. I’ll follow up both with the Town and find out if there’s any issue with them and I’ll follow up with Warren County as well. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean I would think they’d want the specs on the change just to be notified. MR. VALENTINE-So you’re drawing a straight line right down through the intersection. MR. HALL-Because t here’s a concrete, the sidewalk is actually built into the road at that point, and I didn’t want to flair it before I got to the sidewalk. MR. VALENTINE-The sidewalk, I had another question. The sidewalk in the existing on the existing, coming from that rear entrance at the side is removed? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-And any need for that sidewalk any further? MR. HALL-Well there would be the paved driveway that goes back there. So we’re going to take out the concrete and it’ll be paved all the way back because there is an overhead door on that front facing façade of the addition and that’s so that they can get their equipment in and out of the building if they need to move anything or take anything out. So that does provide the access to that side entrance which goes , that side entrance is the way to the upstairs. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions or comments? Any concerns with the setback variances that are required, requested for this? MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to say narrowing down the driveway is one of the more appealing things. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HALL-Yes, and we looked at that. So that it’s more defined. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m not hearing any concerns regarding the setback variances. If no one has any concerns on that we can entertain a referral motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 43-2021 KENT & CHERYL SMITH The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a single story addition of 1,964 sq. ft. that is to be 32 ft. in height. The addition is to an existing building of 1,333 sq. ft. at a height of 28 ft. with a floor area of 2,561 sq. ft. The new floor area is to be 4,525 sq. ft. The use of the addition is for an existing tenant who needs additional area for a multi-use space. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2021 KENT & CHERYL SMITH. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20 day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next also under Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA, we have David & Pamela Way, Site Plan 40-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DAVID & PAMELA WAY. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 33 CANTERBURY DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 259 SQ. FT. SINGLE STOR7 ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 518 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, REMOVING A PORTION OF A PATIO, INSTALLATION OF EAVE TRENCHES, AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-065 & 179-8-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2020 DOCK WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .20 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-23. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-065, 179-8-040. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-:Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 259 square foot single store addition to an existing 518 square foot single story home. The project also includes a 57 square foot covered porch and the variance relief is for setbacks and permeability and as you know there’s a 20 foot setback as well as the permeability was decreased from it’s current to 74.31 percent where 75 percent is required, and I noted the setbacks for the side and then the shoreline setback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello again. MR. HALL-Hello again. Good evening. Again for your records, Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight representing David and Pamela Way who are in the audience with us. It is a single story camp that they’ve been doing some updating and cleaning up of and they would like to put an addition so they can get another bedroom in the camp so it’s a little more usable, kind of re-arrange the kitchen space inside the camp and make it so that it’s a little more user friendly. We did the septic system design back in 2015. When they bought the camp the septic system had basically a cess pool out back and we designed the system at that point. It has a pressure bed it’s on the opposite side of Canterbury Lane u up against the bike trail property. When we designed the system then, we designed it for two bedrooms knowing that they were eventually going to try and make this addition. So we’ve got it designed for that. It is a one story addition. It won’t be taller than the existing building. It’s kind of an odd shaped lot. It’s an old spur that goes off to the north. MR. TRAVER-Yes, this is only one of those very small Glen Lake, .19. MR. HALL-.19 acre lot, and that pie-shaped triangle is on the north side of it while there’s a lot of, not a ton of square footage there. It helps but it also hinders in that, I’ve been back and forth with Laura on this, average lot width. If you take the average up to that point on the opposite side of Canterbury Lane which is where I come up with the 15 foot. If you take the overall width, that’s 150 feet from that point to the perpendicular side. So that hence the 20 foot setbacks. Again, it’s another kind of crazy one that there’s actually no frontage because Canterbury Lane is a private drive. So this is a landlocked lot. It’s accessed by a private drive. So that’s what we’re looking at for that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And again there is some discussion that really gets to the issue of site plan, but erosion control measures for the work itself, septic, landscaping and the lake frontage landscaping and all that stuff. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. HALL-So everything in front of the house is going to stay basically as it is. There’s no real modification there. One of the changes that you’ll see on the stuff that Laura updated you with today is that the patio up front has already been done. The dock was re-done recently and the patio was done. There is now a brick paver. So really everything on the lakeside of the camp is going to stay as it is, and I noticed there was a question about the erosion and sediment control for the septic system. It’s already in. That’s already there. We’re not doing anything different. That’s already there. So we will provide some erosion and sediment control along the edge of the camp, but all of the work is taking place on the back side of the camp. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HALL-And it’s relatively flat, unlike a lot of the sites on Glen Lake. This is actually, the front of the lot is higher than the back where we’re working. So everything kind of drains to the back. It doesn’t drain towards the lake, which is odd for that end. MR. TRAVER-It is. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Again, tonight we’re, since it/s a referral to the ZBA, we’re just looking for the setback and permeability recommendations. MS. WHITE-Is the existing building conforming or is it? MR. HALL-The existing building is non-conforming. MS. WHITE-So it’s already non-conforming. MR. HALL-Everything that’s constructed now is in front of the 50 foot setback. If you look at Drawing C-1, the setback, the 50 foot setback line is actually right there, and this is the existing building and the lake is up here. So everything on the existing building is in front of the 50 foot setback line. So we’re just connecting to it. MR. TRAVER-And you’re connecting on the opposite lake side. So you’re not further encroaching on it. MR. HALL-Correct. Correct. And both of our side yards are farther away from what the existing is. So this porch is being extended off the back side of it, but the actual building itself is 15’ 10” and the existing is 9 foot 9 and then I don’t remember what it was on the other side. The existing is 9 foot 1 and then we’re 28 foot 9 on that end. So we’re 9 foot 1 to this little bump out. This is the access into the crawl space now and we’re 28 foot 9 to this part and 25 foot 2 to the front part that connects. MR. MAGOWAN-And at the bottom of the steps there you have 9 foot and ¾ quarters. MR. HALL-Nine and a half, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m going to measure that. I want to see that three-quarters of an inch. MR. HALL-We’ll make sure. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? Any other concerns? There’s permeability as well as the setbacks. It’s like a half a percent, from 75 to 74.31. So it’s a little more than half a percent. I’m not hearing any concerns. So I guess we have a draft resolution to refer this. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 42-2021 DAVID & PAMELA WAY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 259 sq. ft. single story addition to an existing 518 sq. ft. single story home. The project includes site work removing a portion of a patio, installation of eave trenches and new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-065 & 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2021 DAVID & PAMELA WAY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20 day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. HALL-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item under Referrals to the ZBA is Artisan Ink, Melissa Freebern, Site Plan 44- 2021. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ARTISAN INK/MELISSA FREEBERN OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 928 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 535 SQ. FT. GARAGE SPACE TO BUSINESS EXPANSION. THE EXISTING 2,394 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) BUILDING INCLUDES AN EXISTING LAUNDRY FACILITY AND THE ARTISAN INK BUSINESS. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO PARKING ON SWEET ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUSINESS EXPANSION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 30-2005, SP 28-2009, AV 18- 2009, SP 71-2018, AV 70-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: ROUTE 9 CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: .34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14. SECTION: 179-3- 040. MELISSA FREEBERN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to convert the existing garage which is 535 square feet into a business expansion. The existing footprint of the building is 2,394. The building includes an existing laundry facility and the current Artisan Ink business. The variance relief is sought is for parking requirements, and I’ve noted that the parking requirements, the site has 11 parking spaces and 12 are proposed. The site requires 16 spaces total. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. FREEBERN-My name is Melissa Freebern from Artisan Ink. I think Laura said pretty much everything. We’re looking to do away with the upstairs. We are kind of combatting the fact that we took a house that was built in the 50’s. The ceilings upstairs are very low. To me that’s not very professional. I would like to do away with using the upstairs. So by pushing into the garage it’s that more doable for us with having everybody on the first floor instead of having all the clients go upstairs. In order to do that we have to add to our usable square footage which bumped us out of the requirements for parking spaces. Unfortunately I don’t think we had enough to begin with. MR. TRAVER-On the parking? MS. FREEBERN-Right, for the type of business that we have. We were required to have more parking, but we also lost two parking spaces because we put in a handicap ramp just recently within the last couple of years. So we’re looking for parking relief. We’re actually downsizing by one artist. We will have four artists altogether. So we should all be comfortable downstairs. MS. WHITE-What are your plans for the upstairs? MS. FREEBERN-Use it as storage because that’s what we were using the garage for. MS. WHITE-So there won’t be any additional clientele? Or services provided? MS. FREEBERN-No. And we’re downsizing by an artist. So we will actually have less people. That’s not the point. MS. WHITE-Because that’s my major concern. I drive on that road every day so the thought of more people. There’s no entrance. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MS. FREEBERN-They kind of park where they want to. MS. WHITE-So that’s my concern. MR. VALENTINE-Those are the same comments I had was the fact of off street parking and increase in business activity and what it’s being considered for, and again I’ll come back to access out of your property. DOT. Did that come up? Route 9, and I’m just wondering will there be anymore, on Route 9, what about that traffic? MS. WHITE-We’re talking about Sweet Road and not Route 9. MS. FREEBERN-Yes, and they’re not connected. It’s two separate driveways. MR. TRAVER-And they’re reducing the amount of services they’re providing by one artist. MR. VALENTINE-That’s right now. MR. DEEB=You’re not anticipating an increase. MS. FREEBERN-We can’t get any busier than we already are. We have like an influx of business. We’re turning more people away than we actually can handle right now. So I don’t want to increase business. I just need more space. The other problem we had was with COVID everybody had to be separated. So we took the space that we had and then it was almost like we didn’t, everybody had to be, you know, it was more than six feet apart because of the way the building is cut up. So where we have two artists in one room, we had to move everybody around. So it’s kind of given us a little bit of a crunch. MR. VALENTINE- MR. VALENTINE-Anything from Warren County? MRS. MOORE-Not at this point. There was an NCI. MR. TRAVER-So you’re actually increasing the parking by one space. You’re going from 11 to 12. MS. FREEBERN-Yes. I believe the way we measured everything out, that’s what would fit. I did give you guys a layout picture. And that does include two handicap spaces.. The 12 is for the laundromat and Artisan Ink. That’s not how it was laid out before. It’s cut up different. It’s just what we measured and everything, those parking spaces fit in that area. I believe before the previous owner, where you can see the porch, now there’s a ramp, but the ramp is in the open, it ended in the open area where the handicap space was. So we had to do away with that and that could no longer be a handicap space, but there is room for two more parking spaces in front of the ramp which wasn’t utilized before. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. FREEBERN-So I think that that was the difference, and nothing’s changing at the laundromat. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? Again, we’re here tonight for the variance relief for the parking. Requires 16 they’re going to have 12. MR. DEEB-Can you give me the breakdown of the parking from the laundromat to the rest of the business? MS. FREEBERN-I think that the laundromat is what it is. I don’t think we can change anything over there. MR. DEEB-No, no, can you breakdown how many. MS. FREEBERN-How many parking spaces? I believe it’s six at the laundromat and it’s six for Artisan Ink. MR. DEEB-Is the laundromat parking lot ever filled? MS. FREEBERN-Yes. All the time? MS. WHITE-It’s a process from that parking lot to this area. MS. FREEBERN-The laundromat is on Route 9 and we’re off of Sweet Road. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I’ve never seen cars piled up on either shop. If push comes to shove that you need to, I’m happy to hear that business is booming, but if push comes to shove, I mean, if you’ve got to park down at Wal-Mart and walk up, the employees, that’s what you’ve got to do. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MS. FREEBERN-Right. Gambles has been nice enough to occasionally they’ll let our employees park. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m up and down Sweet Road all the time, not as much as you, Jamie, but working there and keeping an eye. I’ve never ever seen the cars congested. So you’ve done a good job. MR. DEEB-Gambles closes early. MS. FREEBERN-They do. They do, and they haven’t been open. They’ve never given us an issue if we park there for a short period of time or somebody’s parked and walked across the street, and quite frankly, you’re right. Clients can get dropped off and we’ve had that happen a lot. I have one employee that rides his bike. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well what do we want to pass along to the ZBA regarding the parking? All right. Well we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 46-2021 ARTISAN INK MELISSA FREEBERN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to convert an existing 535 sq. ft. garage space to business expansion. The existing 2,394 sq. ft. (footprint) building includes an existing laundry facility and the Artisan Ink business. The applicant proposes alterations to parking on Sweet Road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, business expansion shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for parking requirements. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2021 ARTISAN INK/MELISSA FREEBERN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20 day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MS. FREEBERN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next part of our agenda is New Business, and the first item under New Business is Honey Do Enterprises, LLC, Site Plan 42-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HONEY DO ENTERPRISES, LLC. OWNER(S): 442 HD, LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 442 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 400 SQ. FT. POLE BARN TO CONSTRUCT A 960 SQ. FT. THREE SIDED POLE BARN WITH AN ENCLOSED PORTION THAT WILL HAVE A GARAGE DOOR. THE 240 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED AREA IS TO BE A SHOP. THE EXISTING BUILDING OF 3,200 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN. THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE TREE REMOVAL FOR THE PLACEMENT OF 3,637 SQ. FT. OF NEW PAVEMENT AREA FOR ACCESS TO THE NEW POLE BARN. THE PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 12-2014, 2014-195 COMM. ALTERATIONS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CORINTH ROAD. LOT SIZE: .69 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-39. SECTION: 179-3-040. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to remove a 400 square foot pole barn to construct a 960 square foot, three sided pole barn with an enclosed portion that will have a garage door. That area is to be 240 square foot area that’s the shop area. The existing building of 3,200 square feet remains. The site improvements include tree removal for the placement of the new pole barn and pavement area and the relief that’s being requested, actually there is no relief being requested for this one, and there’s no signage changes. There’s a wall sign and a freestanding sign, and the only information I have suggested to add to the site plan would be parking arrangements on the site, any new site landscaping and any additional clearing that’s being proposed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. HALL-Good evening. Again for your records my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight representing Honey Do Enterprises, LLC, Kevin Tucker. The back of the existing lot there is an existing pole barn that’s back there that Kevin’s got some equipment and stuff and it’s basically falling down. It’s right around the property line basically. He wants to tear that down and build a new pole barn with open bays and one enclosed bay that he can keep his equipment in and his trailers in and get stuff under cover. Right now it’s kind of all scattered around the yard and he wants to be able to put it way back in the back of the lot back here. This is the shed that’s right up against the existing property line. That’s all going to come out. The power that’s in this building right now for lights and electrical outlets is just going to be extended back to here so that there will be some lights up underneath the building. Nothing on the outside. Lights up underneath so that they can see the trailers and things if they need to work on equipment or whatever. That’s basically it. We’re extending, this is the existing parking area here now. This is going to be all crushed stone going back to back here. This won’t be paved. Portions of this are concrete and it was all broken up paving. He’s pulled the pavement out and they’re prepping to re-pave it, but that’s all ready to be done. Nothing there is changing. Nothing’s changing with the main portion of the building. It’s only from here back. There won’t be any additional clearing. There’s a couple of trees that came down in one of the last windstorms. Those have all been taken out. There are three, I take that back. There are three trees that are right here in this clump and right now the guys come in with the trailers. They drive around these trees and then park here. The intent would be is that they’re going to come in and turn around and back the trailers into the storage area and keep all of their stuff back here and that opens up this area here for vehicle parking. MR. TRAVER-So is there going to be any landscaping to replace the trees? MR. HALL-It’s a fairly vegetated lot. This area along here is fairly well done. There’s a big hedgerow that runs along this side where at this point we’re really not planning any additional plantings or anything. So what’s there, he’s done a good job cleaning it up. The building was there. Kevin took it over, and he’s done a pretty good job cleaning it up and keeping it well maintained . One of the questions, Laura, I think that came up in the Chazen review was about the septic system. The existing septic system is right here. There’s a septic tank that comes out of the building and there’s a drywell right there and it’s there. There’s one toilet in the building. Kevin has it pumped out every year or so, maintains it. He’s never had an issue with it. We’re not planning on making any modification to that. I think that’s one of the questions that came up. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Questions comments from the Board? MR. HALL-The building is so far back. Corinth Road is here, and this is all thickly wooded. You can see the edge of the tree line here and then there’s a big hedgerow between them and what used to be Web Graphics and then this down here I think is the parking lot for the Church and the parking lot for the Church is quite a ways back. I don’t know if the aerial picture shows it, but anyway there’s really not any view into the lot to speak of. MR. VALENTINE-Outdoor storage? MR. HALL-As far as outdoor storage, that’s what this is being put up for, so that he doesn’t have a lot of stuff stored outside. He can get it under cover. He’s got job trailers and things like that, but it’s not, like he’s got stuff piled up outside now that he needs to get under cover and that’s what he’s doing with this. As far as snow storage goes, they have a skid steer with a bucket on it and they pile up all the snow out behind it, out back. So, yes, this the parking lot for the Church next door and this is the line in and out to what used to be Web Graphics. So there’s not a lot. These are the trees right here. There’s a couple that blew down back there. Other than that, we’re not taking any other trees down. MR. VALENTINE-So that snow will be pushed to there? MR. HALL-Yes. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. DEEB-So, Ethan, you don’t feel it necessary to replace the trees that were blown down? MR. HALL-They’re pretty big pine trees that are back there. There’s only three of them. (Lost words due to static in the background) MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. I’m not seeing anyone in the audience. I’ll ask Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SHAFER-Can I ask a question while she’s looking? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Ethan, why is the pole barn being set so far back on the lot and so far from the MR. HALL-So that he has the room to turn stuff around, so that he can turn his job trailers and stuff around to back them in. MR. SHAFER-Where will it end up relative to the Church? In front of, behind? MR. HALL-It’s well in front of the Church. This whole lot is in front of the Church. MR. SHAFER-Will you be able to see the building from the Church parking lot? MR. HALL-Not really. It’s pretty densely wooded between the parking lot and the lot itself. So, John, in the aerial, we’re putting the building right here, and the Church is back here. And this is all pretty thickly wooded. There’s a lot of low brush and a lot of the bigger white pines. So there’s not a lot of visual through to this lot. MRS. MOORE-So the tree line, where it says 52 foot setback, it’s going to still be wooded back there? MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Because if you look at that tree line it looks like there’s no trees. MR. HALL-And if you, yes, if you look at it from where they did the survey, but if you look at the picture overhead, this is all, that’s all wooded back there. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HALL-It’s the tree canopy. There’s not a lot of actual trees coming out of the ground, but if they go up, and of course the white pines have a fairly good sized canopy on them. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HALL-So it appears as though there’s a lot. The surveyors actually pick up the ones that are on the ground and then just kind of draw a line between them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? And, Laura, did you check for comments? MRS. MOORE-I did, and there’s no comments in the file. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type II. Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward on this application? MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll entertain a motion, then. The Fire Marshal has no comment. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 42-2021 HONEY DO ENTERPRISES, LLC 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 400 sq. ft. pole barn to construct a 960 sq. ft. three sided pole barn with an enclosed portion that will have a garage door. The 240 sq. ft. enclosed area is to be a shop area. The existing building of 3,200 sq. ft. is to remain. The site improvements include tree removal for the placement of 3,637 sq. ft. of new pavement area for access to the new pole barn. The project includes grading and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction 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 07/20/2021 and continued the public hearing to 07/20/2021, 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 07/20/2021; 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 42-2021 HONEY DO ENTERPRISES, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, 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 as the project involves limited clearing of trees for construction of the pole barn. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 20 day of July 2021 by the following vote: 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time tonight. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have Cerrone Builders, Inc. with a Sketch Plan for a Subdivision. Subdivision Sketch Plan 7-2021. SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 7-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE UNLISTED. CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): CITY OF GLENS FALLS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: UPPER SHERMAN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 49.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO 49 PARCELS WITH ACCESS TO UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES 12.65 ACERS TO BE PART OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE LOTS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 0.47 ACRES TO 1.57 ACRES WITH MAJORITY LESS THAN 1 ACRE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 49.5 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-1. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to subdivide a 49.5 acre parcel into 49 parcels with access to Upper Sherman Avenue with two access points, and there’s approximately 12.65 acres of Homeowners Association. The lots range in size from 0.47 acres to 1.57 acres with the majority less than one acre. The area is zoned MDR. So it would need to be two acres to be in that area because there’s no sewer and water there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. For the record, again, Jon Lapper and Tom Center the project engineer, and Steve Cerrone and Gianni Cerrone members of the applicant are here. This is an interesting piece of property with a big story. This was a City of Glens Falls stump dump for a long time. So it’s somewhat of an eyesore now, and although in 2003 it was re-zoned to MDR, as Laura said, two acre minimum, it would be pretty inappropriate to do two acre estate lots on this piece of property where all of the subdivisions in this area are essentially half acre lots. There are some that are a little bigger, but it’s all smaller lots and it just wouldn’t make sense. It wouldn’t be affordable to build a roadway to do two acre lots, but also because of the area where the stump dump is in the middle, Matt’s had all the environmental reviews and DEC has signed off on it, but it needs to be left as a park, as an open area. So this design is to have basically 12 acres including along the road as forever green and almost 10 acres in the center cut down and made into trails. It’s appropriate for hiking, for passive recreation and building houses along the outside. So we think it’s a pretty well thought out plan for use of a piece of property that again has some history, but it needs to get cleaned up and it’s pretty appropriate for what’s in the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you’re here to get feedback under Sketch from us. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments on this Sketch from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-So that center, is it almost like a conservation type? MR. CENTER-Yes. It would be a parkland, a pocket park, if you will owned by the homeowners association and maintained by the homeowners association. We do have some, the large mound that’s there is predominantly made up of stumps, tree branches, leaves and things. That’s all going to be ground down and all made level in that area. Galusha’s going to come in and grind all that down. We’re also planning on coming through and compacting the whole area. It was a sand pit basically. Prior to the City purchasing it and starting to fill it in it was a sand pit. So it’s been filled in over the years with various construction debris and yard waste and those types of things. We’ve got a full Phase I and Phase II environmental assessment. We got a clean bill of health from that. DEC said there was no restrictions other than it cannot be used for a single family home. That’s why it’s a park land. that’s why we’d have to stay away from that area. MR. MAGOWAN-Just in the center. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. CENTER-Just in the center. That’s where the sandpit was. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s all been filled in. That’s got to be some awesome topsoil. MR. CENTER-Yes. With some of the leaves and things and what not that they picked up, yes, that’s very rich. MR. LAPPER-It’ll be landscaped as well. So it’ll look a lot different than it does now. MR. CENTER-In talking with DEC, we’re going to run a roller through there and bring in some soil across the top so that we can get rid of any potential sediment in that area and then create trails along the outer perimeter and maybe some cross trails, and you can get almost, I think I figured out it’s close to a half a mile, maybe a three quarter mile track in there to kind of go around and give a decent trail within that little area, and there’s an entrance that comes in. There’s one that comes in from Sherman Avenue, but there’s also one that goes out to the new subdivision road so they can access it internally from the subdivision road. MR. TRAVER-It’s interesting, too, to see what Laura has called up on the Town mapper. You can see not only that area in the center that you talk about, but also the character of the surrounding lots. MR. VALENTINE-Can I go beyond that question, Jon, from what you started off with, because you started off first of all saying what’s in, and it’s good to show the other area in there where, you know, those lot sizes are. What you had said that it’s not economically feasible or beneficial. So have you done an analysis of the two acre lot layout and then figured out what a road cost would be, a development cost? MR. LAPPER-We know from doing that all the time, but we could do that, but it’s more that nobody’s going to want an estate lot where they have to maintain the two acre lot in this area where, as you can see, you have half acre lots all around it. MR. VALENTINE-Those are two different viewpoints. One’s economic and one is. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I think that the character of the neighborhood is a stronger argument that it’s not appropriate. MR. VALENTINE-I believe that, too. All right. I just wanted to make sure because I didn’t know if an analysis was submitted for you to make that statement off of. MR. LAPPER-Because it’s the center it has to be left undeveloped. It just means that you need more roads to have two entrances. We certainly couldn’t do this road for large lots. MR. DEEB-So, Jon, have you explored the possibility of two acre lots for the whole thing? MR. LAPPER-What the Cerrones have in mind, you’re probably all familiar with The Village at Sweet Road. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Which is more empty nesters, you know, really nice homes on smaller lots because people don’t want to maintain larger lots, and that’s really the character of what they think would be appropriate here. So it’s just not in their market that they want to build large, four or five thousand square foot homes on the two acre lots. It isn’t just what the market is calling for in this part of Town. MR. DEEB-I understand that, but our Comprehensive Plan calls for two acre lots, and we’re already looking for variances, looking for changes to reduce it. I’m wondering why do we have the two acre lots? MR. LAPPER-Well at the time that that change was made the school systems were full and it was totally different that we’re saying that the impact on the school system was that we had too many kids. That’s all changed, you know, so it’s sort of an anti-development time, and now the school system is looking for kids. MR. DEEB-My question was we’re trying to keep the lands rural, not rural, but you’re shoving 49 lots in there. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that’s exactly what everything else is around there. MR. DEEB-And I was thinking, because that’s what it was before the zoning came in and I just was wondering. We’re always getting bombarded with this and I don’t know why we can, maybe we need to look at the two acre lot zoning and maybe that has to be looked at in the Comprehensive Plan. We’re always doing this every time somebody comes in. Now maybe I’m solo with my thoughts here. I don’t know what the rest of you feel. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well, in my mind it’s a matter of context, and if you look, again, at that part of the Town and the developments surrounding this particular area, it’s going to the two acre that’s the change, not going from two acre to this. MR. DEEB-That’s what we have zoning for, but I mean you could look all over Queensbury and say. MR. LAPPER-But, Dave, especially here. Look at the. MR. DEEB-I see that, and a lot of those houses, at the time they were built, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. MR. MAGOWAN-Well which phase? MR. DEEB-When it started. MR. CENTER-McEchron is the newer one, but that wasn’t a two acre lot. I believe they got variances for McEchron. The Algonquin Drive, it’s probably 20 years, the one to the south, which is quarter acre lots, and I believe those are on shared septic systems, which is a little different than what we’re proposing for this subdivision. The other different with this subdivision versus a traditional where the homeowner owns the subdivision, this is a maintenance free. This is very similar to the Cerrone Sweet Road project. So keeping the houses closer together for maintenance free purposes allows it to be maintained, allows them to offer that service. Also allows them to offer through the Homeowners Association to have the septic systems pumped out on a scheduled basis where they just pay their homeowners fees and their septic tanks are being maintained, which in a traditional, you know, where the homeowner owns it and there’s no homeowners association, they don’t care about the septic system, there’s some additional levels in this one that we’re offering for this proposal to keep those smaller lots. MR. DEEB-Well Sweet Road was the same principle. Do you recall how many of the residents in Sweet Road, in the Sweet Road development, joined the HOA? I mean it was voluntary, if I’m not mistaken. MR. MAGOWAN-No, that was mandatory, wasn’t it? STEPHEN CERRONE MR. CERRONE-It was mandatory. MR. DEEB-It was mandatory. I thought at first, I remember when we reviewed this a few years ago. MR. CERRONE-We’ve done a couple of other ones where there was half and half, where you could opt into it, but that was mandatory. MR. DEEB-That was quite successful. MR. MAGOWAN-Quite successful? I will tell you I drive through there just to say, wow, thank you guys. That really came out very nice, really beautiful. Even going up Sweet Road it just looks so nice and to see the sprinklers out there. It looks great out there, but just to drive through. Really, I have occasion to just drive through there just to see it. When I first looked at this project, I said, boy they’re cramming it in there, and I said, the first thing I thought was, this is some good topsoil that’s going to come out of there, but just looking at the little small pit I kind of forgot how large that lot is. My question would be, what are the price range of homes that you’re looking to build in there? Because I know Sweet Road ended up being pretty pricy. MR. CERRONE-You mean where I’m supposed to start the pricing at earlier this year or? MR. MAGOWAN-Well we can drag our feet a little bit longer. I think the prices will come down. The 2 bys are almost down a dollar right now, from 10 down to like $9.17. MR. CERRONE-So we definitely think that that’s a market for those low 400’s up to 5. MR. MAGOWAN-Really, you think that high? MR. CERRONE-Yes. MS. WHITE-On Sweet Road. GIANNI CERRONE MR. G. CERRONE-Yes, Sweet Road’s re-selling like crazy. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-I mean that took off. That really came out beautiful. MR. CERRONE-We have a customer who just sold there and is building with us in Moreau, and they sold it within two days for almost $100,000 more than what they bought it for. MR. G. CERRONE-So that’s kind of been a big thing that we’ve been getting, feedback has been, another maintenance free subdivision. I think a lot of people just need a smaller lot. They need their services to be done for them, and I’ll tell you, what a neighborhood it becomes when the mowing is all on one day, the garbage pickup is all on one day and everybody is, it’s mandatory that they use the same company. MR. DEEB-I live in a maintenance free. MR. G. CERRONE-It’s beautiful. Right? MR. MAGOWAN-It’s the single family home, and it’s almost like a co-op down in New York City. So anybody else would have come in here, I would have questioned more of it, but after seeing what you did on Sweet Road, I’m like, boy, they’re really putting, I mean if you could drop a few lots, make them just a little bit larger, but I wouldn’t, that would just be something that I would ask. You guys know what you’re doing. You’ve been around a long time and I’ve been impressed with the other work that I’ve seen around that you’ve done. MR. DEEB-That was mine, too, the number of lots, and again, I go back to the two acre zoning, and I think we need to address that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just think about how old the Comprehensive Plan is. You’re supposed to revise it every five years. It’s been, what, 12? And when it was done there were these rough concepts and so that’s why you got two acre zoning in this neighborhood, because broad concepts were surrounding Glens Falls which were more dense, and as you pushed out into the neighborhood to Queensbury, two acres and five acres. That’s how you got two acre zoning here. It wasn’t like the consultants in the Ordinance maybe looked at that lot and said that lot is two acres. It was a broad brush. MR. DEEB-I’m just saying that I think the project is admirable, but I tend to agree with Brad. There’s a good big disparity in lot size from .47 to 1.89 or something, if I remember correctly. MR. CENTER-Obviously it’s the back lots that are the larger. MR. DEEB-And I’d love to see them a little more equalized. Get some maybe acre lots or maybe less than acre lots. MR. CENTER-This becomes a unique subdivision because the central portion is basically taken out of it and we can’t include it in those lots, but it’s a parcel. It’s common land that everybody gets to use in the middle and nobody has to maintain. MR. LAPPER-But also like you were saying the front is going to be green and nice for the whole neighborhood. MR. CERRONE-Just for a visual, Sweet Road is all third acre lots. So if you just visualize how they lay out on third acre lots, these are half acres, bigger. MR. MAGOWAN-These lots are bigger than what you have on Sweet Road. MR. CERRONE-So again that’s just for a visual, a scale. MR. HUNSINGER-The only real significant comment that I have about your plan, and this is not on you guys at all, but it’s too bad that that neighborhood couldn’t be connected. In my mind the biggest planning error that we’ve made in the Town of Queensbury is not connecting the neighborhoods, but again, that’s not on you guys. You have the last lot. It should have been done 20 years ago in the other subdivisions, and then that creates traffic problems. MR. VALENTINE-See that’s not unusual, though. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s not. MR. VALENTINE-Not only here, but from town to town, and then you get objections from the residents, we don’t want their traffic. MR. MAGOWAN-But if they were all connected, you wouldn’t have that one connection that got everybody upset. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. DEEB-And it would be nice when you get over to Peggy Ann. So would you consider maybe just increasing some lot sizes, decreasing some other ones, even if you have to cut down a few lots. MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at that. MR. VALENTINE-Can I throw a question in? MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. MR. VALENTINE-Have you guys looked at comps for the existing homes around you, do a comparable, and then go to look at what your road cost is, hard costs, soft costs, and say okay what is my cost going to be and what can I put on it for, and then figure out what size, how many lots do I need? Rather than just say I want to get 49 and I’m going to push them in and see how I can do? I’m not saying this is terrible. I’m just saying have you looked at that? Or is 49 the magic number? MR. LAPPER-It’s more, they’re not trying to get big lots, because they want to do Sweet Road. So they want to do maintenance free and have the mowing. So you don’t want to have everybody having three quarters of an acre lot. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Is it necessary to get 49 lots or are those the numbers that work out for you? MR. LAPPER-We have to have a circle drive. You have a lot of road frontage and they’re trying to build lots on this side. We understand how the process works and we might wind up with fewer lots, a little larger by the time we’re done. This is where they want to start. Like Sweet Road with the same project. MR. CENTER-We’d also have a cost of doing some work in that central portion, to landscape, to plant some more trees in that. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just wondering if that, sitting back having been through that whole process before, you’re answer’s going to be yes, we’ve done that, and I’m still stuck with the conversation of going with two acres and then saying, okay, well it matches the others in the area. What about the re-sale of these houses, will they match the houses in the area, will they be comparable? MR. CENTER-You’re also not comparing apples to apples. The ones that are neighboring don’t have the maintenance free aspect or have some of the amenities., They don’t have access to a pocket park, green space, things like that. They’re 20 years old. So I don’t know if you’re comparing apples to apples to today’s construction, with the amenities that we’re offering here, versus what the neighboring houses are. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just trying to get feedback, this is at Sketch, to see what you can do. MR. TRAVER-I think, too, starting with the concept that they’re all going to be maintenance free, that drives a lot of it. MR. MAGOWAN-Have you driven through the Sweet Road development? MR. VALENTINE-Yes, and I thought the same thing as you. MR. MAGOWAN-Really the concept. There’s a demand in the housing market. People want to come to this area. You almost have kind of like a retirement community, the older families where they want a nice home but they don’t want to take care of everything anymore. MR. DEEB-What size are you targeting with these houses. MR. G. CERRONE-Good question. I think these all fall into that 1800 to 2200 square foot range, maybe an additional floor, a room or two on the second floor, but I see this being nothing but ranches. MR. CERRONE-In Sweet Road it was the 17 to 1800 square foot range. MR. MAGOWAN-And I like the concept in the area. MR. CERRONE-We started Sweet Road at $325,000, and then it just went crazy. MR. MAGOWAN-And right now with the price of anything it’s just scary just to think about it. Now you’ve had grinders in there before. People have tried to, you know, you have years and years of plastic bags. They don’t break down. I know Rick Sears went in there and tried to grind. MR. CENTER-We talked with Galusha and the machines that they’re going to bring in are going to be able to separate that and then grind down and separate the chips from the trash. Then they’re using a different style machine. They have two different ones that they use. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, those little bags are going to load up on the teeth. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. CENTER-Yes, they’ve got one that does it a little bit differently so that they can handle it. They’ve done test pits and poked around in there. They came in and looked at it. Again, Phase II they’ll do good soil borings, test pits. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s all sandy over there? MR. CENTER-Everything on the outside is all deep well drained sands. We didn’t have any groundwater. This is kind of a small irregular shaped area. It fits in to, nine acres is rather large, but it’s kind of unique and that’s why the pocket park fits. We can provide trails and new plantings. Be able to bring the small trails out through the Homeowners Association up to Sherman Avenue, so we could come in, you know, not have to be on the road. It’s something that could be discussed. MR. VALENTINE-So right now, no, there are no trails mapped out in the center area? MR. CENTER-I did a rough trail through there and came up with about a half mile, maybe three quarters of a mile through it, but that would be within the subdivision design. We can, you know, once we know we’re in the same ballpark with everybody we’ll come back with more detailed planting plans in that area., MR. MAGOWAN-The only thing I might ask for, and what I really like about Sweet Road is that grass up on the road and then the nice big buffer of trees, you know, that have been cleaned up nice, that’s filling in beautiful, and the houses were set back. So if you could do something, you know, and be able to get rid of like four or however you can do it. There’s something about that on Sweet Road. I hate to keep bringing it up. MR. G. CERRONE-No, no, we feel the same. MR. MAGOWAN-I might even drive through there tonight after I leave here, but I just like that concept of the grass, nice sign, and it’s kind of a nice little drive in and then you’re there. MR. CENTER-And we know what that distance is to the first lot, to that front lot. It’s probably almost say 50 to 70 feet and the smallest one to Lot One is probably 50 to 70 feet. MR. G. CERRONE-And we would leave that pretty dense. MR. CENTER-It’s over 100 on the other. MR. CERRONE-That’s actually the dimension I was looking for, that 100 foot range. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but again, that Lot One is awfully close to the road. MR. LAPPER-Even that’s 75 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-But Lots 28 and 27 have some depth. I’m just talking about what I like over there. The most interesting lot is 42. That’s almost like a perfect pie. I’d like to know who buys that lot. MR. DEEB-What do you charge over at Sweet Road, HOA fees? MR. CERRONE-HOA fees, that’s another reason why keeping this smaller lots, denser, which makes it easier for the landscapers to run through from actually house to house to house. If you look at Sweet Road, all those grass come together as one. So the fees were $185 a month. That includes your garbage, snow, fertilization, mulch, mowing. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s pretty cheap. MR. CERRONE-Yes. MR. G. CERRONE-Snow removal too. MR. CERRONE-And snow. But that’s the reason, you want to try to keep that fee as low as possible. MR. G. CERRONE-I think we allowed it from front of house line back, you could, but nothing up front. MS. WHITE-With the trees. MR. CERRONE-We’ll have fences in between properties. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2021) MR. TRAVER-So do you have questions for us, anything specific? MR. LAPPER-No. We really just wanted to not get any farther before we presented it to you, and then we’ve got to come back with the Preliminary. We’ve got to get through SEQR with you before we can get to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-So in terms of the basic concept and the layout of the road, the general number of lots and so on, does anyone have any major issues with the layout as they’ve proposed it this evening? MR. DEEB-Not with the layout. Just a couple of fewer lots. MR. VALENTINE-Just to say fewer lots just for the sake of saying hey we’ve got fewer lots. MR. DEEB-Again, I like Brad’s idea of evergreen, I mean it’s just nice. You do drive by there and it’s so pleasing to the eye. I don’t know if they can do that, as Brad said, with the lots up front. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it would be 1, 49, 20, 27, I mean, I’m just looking at a picture. MR. G. CERRONE-Yes, believe it or not, if you drive into Sweet Road, which you may on your way home tonight, the first lot on the right when you go in there is no greater of a distance away than those three, the bottom three. MR. DEEB-It looks like a distance. MR. MAGOWAN-I just look at like, 1’s wicked close, but then you have the HOA area right behind it. MR. CERRONE-We’re definitely going to have a nice entrance with nice signage and plantings. MR. G. CERRONE-The park in the middle we have a vision to just, that’s going to be amazing. MR. TRAVER-All right. So any final feedback for these gentlemen? All right. There you go. MR. LAPPER-We’ll keep continuing with our design. MR. MAGOWAN-Have you gotten any feedback from your surrounding neighbors? MR. CERRONE-I have friends. I live down on Algonquin. They’re all in favor of it. They’re pretty excited about it. MR. LAPPER-It’s like an attractive nuisance to have people just walking around. It’s not good. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that’s true. MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. MR. TRAVER-Any other business before the Board tonight? MRS. MOORE-I just want to mention to the Board that for next month’s meetings for August, at this point we’re looking at two meetings with eight items on each. So I may reduce that, but at this point I just got applications in and I just wanted to make sure that you’re aware that next month’s meetings may be logger than tonight. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there’s nothing further, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 20, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, everyone. Thank you very much. We’ll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 22