Loading...
09-21-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 33-2021 333 Cleverdale, LLC/San Souci 1. Special Use Permit 2-2021 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43, 226.12-1-44 FURTHER TABLING Petition for Zone Change – Town Board Queensbury Masonic Historical Society 2. RECOMMENDATION CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY Subdivision No. 6-2019 Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky 7. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.8-1-39 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EXTENSION Site Plan No. 35-2021 Chris Racicot 8. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60 Site Plan No. 27-2017 Seaton Property Holdings 9. DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, -61 Site Plan No. 58-2021 Steve McDevitt 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-1-58 Site Plan No. 55-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 13. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2021 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 49-2021 Lester H. Chase III 16. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2021 Tax Map No. 239.19-1-17 Site Plan No. 47-2021 Ted Arnstein/Devil Ray Watersports 18. Special Use Permit 3-2021 Tax Map No. 239.8-1-21 Site Plan No. 56-2021 Raymond & Linda Shirvell 27. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-9 Site Plan No. 57-2021 Robert Glenning 30. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-3 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 09/21/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for stth Tuesday, September 21, 2021. This is our first meeting for September and our 18 meeting thus far for 2021. If you have an electronic device, a cell phone or other device, if you would turn off the device or turn off the ringer so as not to interrupt our proceedings. Notice the red illuminated exit lights. In the event that we have an emergency, that is the way out. We have a number of administrative items this evening. thth So we’ll proceed with those first. First being approval of minutes from July 20 and July 27 of 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 20, 2021 July 27, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JULY thth 20 AND JULY 27, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption Brad Magowan: st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 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 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 33-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO OCTOBER. MR. TRAVER-Next we have a request for further tabling from Site Plan 33-2021 and Special Use Permit 2-2021 for 333 Cleverdale, LLC/San Souci. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application requested to be tabled further. It would be tabled to December. So th that would happen to be the December meeting of December 14. th MR. TRAVER-December 14. Okay. That’s the first meeting. We have a draft motion for that. Revised: Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating area of 24 seats for the restaurant but occurring on the adjacent parcel (337 Cleverdale Rd.). The restaurant (333 Cleverdale Rd.) had previous approvals for 105 seats – that is to remain with no changes. Seating location to occur on the main floor and outdoors – area on the first floor to be used for waiting area of 10 people maximum – no seating on first floor. Restaurant parcel subject to area variance for permeability (333 Cleverdale Rd.). Adjacent parcel (337 Cleverdale Rd.) subject to area variance for permeability, density and setbacks. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040, 179-4-090 & 179.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, food service in a WR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Request is made by the applicant for further tabling to October 19, 2021. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 33-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer. Tabled until the December 14, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 15, 2021. st Duly adopted this 21 day of September 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 QUEENSBURY MASONIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD AND CONSENT TO TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Next we have a Petition for Zone Change and Recommendation to the Town Board and consent to the Town Board as the Lead Agency for the Queensbury Masonic Historical Society. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to add a use to the Neighborhood Residential zone, and at this moment it’s not an allowed use in an residential zone. So this would allow it to be added to the Neighborhood Residential zone, and I identified some of the streets that it would be located on and identified some of the Code excerpts for daycare center parking requirements and the suggestion I would encourage you to pass along to the Town Board is in reference to the lot size. MR. TRAVER-That that lot size be one acre or larger. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-As any example. MRS. MOORE-As an example. They can choose any, but the thought behind that is that it’s not certain that everyone would like the daycare, have that review next to their own place of residence, and I know, if you have questions, I know Matt’s assisting with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So in addition to that, our primary function this evening is to consent to the Town Board being Lead Agency. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a question. Is this just for the Masonic Lodge? MRS. MOORE-No, it is not. It’s for the entire Neighborhood Residential zone in the Town of Queensbury, and that’s why I identified some of the streets that it’s associated with so you understood that it was pretty much the southern half of, not all properties, but there’s quite a few areas that are zoned neighborhood residential in the southern portion of the Town. MR. TRAVER-And I see the applicant is represented by counsel. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. Yes, Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell. We have been helping the Masonic Lodge with a bunch of zones and just ideas and working through this process and again a proposed tenant that would come back to you on site plan obviously, but I think the one acre idea, I hadn’t seen that in the Staff Notes, but it was on an e-mail, but that’s a good recommendation because that will, I think, create a pretty good buffer within that zone around lots. Anybody that wanted to come in under that would need an Area Variance, but to your question is would be zone wide. If it was just our property that would be spot zoning. So we kind of walked the line of all those issues. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, this is what’s confusing me. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt, but I’m just confused because we’re talking the Lodge. So, you know, we have the two churches. We have the gas station and then we have the apartments behind. So, I mean, to reach it out to all these steps, that to me it’s not a spot zoning, but I guess it’s considered a spot zoning. So I’m just confused. MR. FULLER-The gas station is Neighborhood Commercial. MRS. MOORE-So it’s a different zone. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. FULLER-And the two churches are residential, Neighborhood Residential, as are the apartments behind. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. FULLER-So we workshopped it. We had that very discussion with the Town Board. We workshopped it with the Town Board, and the reason that the Historical Society is noted is because we are the ones coming forward asking the Town Board to do it and our property is in the zone, our client’s property is in the zone, and so that’s what kind of facilitated the request. It wasn’t a Town Board driven request. It was us on behalf of the applicant making the request to the Town Board. So that’s why you see the Historical Society, and since we did make that petition to the Town Board it is an interesting scenario. You have to identify the property. That property is going to benefit from it, but it is zone wide. So it avoids that spot zone issue. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, and that’s what I’m so confused about is that you’re pushing it into these streets, more of a residential area where you’re going to, you know, it kind of stands alone all by itself with a rather large lot. MR. FULLER-Yes. We debated the Neighborhood Commercial discussion, possibly adding the two churches out front. Obviously we could all have a long history lesson, but there’s probably some history between the Masonic Society and certain religious organizations that pre-dates all of us here. So the idea was to avoid poking at that issue. We did workshop it and the Town Board recommendation, we didn’t necessarily see a big issue with allowing the Neighborhood Residential zone. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. That doesn’t make sense to me, but that’s okay. MS. WHITE-Isn’t the Methodist Church currently operating a daycare center? MR. FULLER-They are. MRS. MOORE-But they’re a licensed facility. So it’s a different type of authorization entity that handles that, versus what this potential future applicant. MR. FULLER-And there is a, this gets off into a tangent, but there’s a different evaluation for a religious use, under State Law. There’s a different standard for religious and educations uses than there are historical societies. So that ventures off into a whole other discussion. MR. DIXON-I do have a question. So for Neighborhood Residential, I understand that neighborhood, but there’s other Neighborhood Residentials that, if I recall the map, it follows pretty much the Northway corridor down. Do you know what the average lot sizes are of those? Because it sounds like the discussion is primarily where the Masonic temple is right now, which very few properties around there have an acre. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. DIXON-But we’re still talking Neighborhood Residential.. MR. FULLER-Yes. I don’t know the data. I didn’t look it up. That suggestion came from Staff. Again, I don’t necessarily think we have an issue with that. To your point, it probably does exclude a lot of the parcels in that zone. I don’t know. I couldn’t give you the data offhand how many exactly it is. MR. DEEB-Well maybe we should discuss the minimum size, then. It could go a little larger. I mean that would certainly eliminate some of the problem. MR. DIXON-But what is your size lot? MR. FULLER-I didn’t even bring my file with me. Five acres. MR. DEEB-I know it’s a big lot, but I don’t know if the Board wants to consider that or not. MR. HUNSINGER-You mean five acres? MR. DEEB-No, I wasn’t, not grandiose. MR. MAGOWAN-How about 4.99999? MR. TRAVER-Well, the suggestion was one. So perhaps two? MR. DEEB-I think that might help a lot. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. How do Board members feel about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well I think no matter what number we pick, we’re sort of picking tonight. It’s not very scientific. MR. DEEB-It’s a guess, but two gives a little more. MR. MAGOWAN-Let’s say two and a half. Let’s split it. MR. DEEB-I don’t want to go too large. I think that two would be fine. MR. MAGOWAN-You don’t want daycare showing up in the middle of someone that happens to have a large lot in the middle of a residential neighborhood. MR. DEEB-It’s going to have to be larger than two acres. MR. FULLER-Or they would need an Area Variance. That option is always on the table. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not up to us anyway. It’s up to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s only a suggestion. MR. FULLER-To re-state it, the acreage side is really buffered. Obviously the acreage you’re talking, not to pick out specific projects because that’s not what we’re doing here, we would meet it in our instance, but somebody else that wanted to that didn’t have two acres, they would need an Area Variance, your recommendation site plan and that’s a tall task. An acreage issue with a use like that is a bigger ask on an Area Variance. MR. DEEB-Which softens the re-zoning. MR. DIXON-I guess I was just thinking I would be concerned that we’d end up with primarily a business in a residential area if it’s not worded correctly, because it’s changing the entire zoning structure. It’s not just asking for a variance for that particular area. MR. FULLER-And that was the discussion and evaluation we went through with the Town Board, to be very honest with you. We had NC versus the NR zone in that area or add it to the NR. MR. TRAVER-Well the first consideration is does anyone have any objection to consenting to the Town Board being Lead Agency? It doesn’t sound like it, but I wanted to ask the question. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then the second item is, with regard to acreage, would it be sufficient to recommend, along with our acceptance of the Town Board as Lead Agency, that the acreage be greater than one acre? MR. DIXON-I would think it should be greater than two. MR. TRAVER-Greater than two? MR. DEEB-Yes, I was thinking a minimum of two acres. MR. TRAVER-A minimum of two. Okay. How do Board members feel about that? MR. SHAFER- I guess, Mr. Chairman, if the issue is Lead Agency by the Town Board, will they even need to get into this question of acreage? MR. TRAVER-It’s part of our recommendation. MR. SHAFER-But the Town Board could do that on their own. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. It’s just an opportunity for us to provide some input into their discussion. MR. FULLER-I wouldn’t say it’s uniform, but probably the majority of towns would refer it to the zoning/Planning Board just for recommendation. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. TRAVER-So ultimately as Lead Agency it would be up to them for the most part, but it could be additional information regarding the discussions that we’ve had for them to consider. So I’m hearing at least two acres is the recommendation along with consent? MR. DEEB-I think that works. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and how do Board members feel about that? Does that sound all right? MR. HUNSINGER-I was okay with one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-I’m okay with one. MR. TRAVER-With one. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I like 2.5. MR. TRAVER-2.5. I think we’re only dealing with whole numbers here. So all right. So we have kind of a split here. We have some in favor of at least one and some want at least two. MRS. MOORE-You could also just put in there that between one and two acres I mean really all you’re doing is giving that recommendation to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think in the beginning someone said something about the recommendation be greater than one acre. I don’t remember who that was. MR. HUNSINGER-Two’s greater than one. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll go as low as two. My vote. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m glad the Town’s addressing this because daycare is a serious issue right now, and I don’t think many people realize how serious it is. MR. FULLER-That actually was a topic of discussion we had at the workshop. The apartments are there, the school’s there. Traffic, you know, you’re right near Aviation, and again, we’re dealing with a site on this discussion, but I think this just checks all the boxes. MR. DEEB-It works well there. MR. DIXON-I think it’s a very important issue. I’m very familiar with that area and my concern, whenever we make a change now, it’s going to be long term. So if daycare does take off and it becomes a commercial operation and you have people buying two lots, putting a daycare every, in every block, you know, then we start to dabble on, does it really become more commercial. MR. HUNSINGER-The question is, though, is that a bad thing? If you have a neighborhood that’s full of young families that needs daycare, there’s a daycare center right there. That’s a benefit. That’s not a detriment to me. MR. DIXON-Not necessarily. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean it could go either way. MR. TRAVER-That would still be subject to review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. DIXON-Well, if that’s true, I mean, it would go in front of us for a site plan review. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So the whole issue of context would come into play at that point. So how about if we consent to Town Board as Lead Agency and we make a recommendation that the acreage be greater than one acre. It’s going to be up to them as well anyway. Everyone has agreed to one acre. Some wanted more. So if we say one acre minimum as a recommendation. Let them decide ultimately what they want to do. Would that be acceptable? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-Why can’t we say two? MR. TRAVER-Well ultimately it’s up to them. We have a split Board. We have some that want two and some that want one. So if we say, since it’s ultimately not up to us anyway, if we make a recommendation that it be greater than one, they will ultimately decide in any case. Why don’t we try that? Let’s do a motion on greater than one acre and see if it flies. Is that all right? MR. DEEB-I’m not sure I’m happy with that. Maybe we could poll the Board. MR. TRAVER-So you want to go with two? MR. DEEB-I like two. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let’s see if it passes. Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-You could poll the Board if you want to do a straw poll. MR. TRAVER-Well we kind of have, and I think we have a majority, but we have at least a couple of Board members that would prefer one. MR. HUNSINGER-I just don’t’ feel as though we have any evidence in front of us to make a valid decision. So absent that, it’s a little restrictive. It’s up to the Town Board anyway. So I mean that’s really where I’m at. MS. WHITE-I think what we’re saying is that we are recommending that the research be done, that this be looked at, that there be an acreage. MR. DEEB-We could deal with either one or two. It’s still the same question. The research is being done. If the Town Board decides that two is too many, they can go with one. Right? MR. MAGOWAN-If a daycare comes in and what you’re going to have is drop off and pick up and once you put a building and something and then you’re going to have a drive thru, drop off, pick up. You’re going to have how many employee parking lots? You’re going to be crunching it down on one acre. So, you know, think of it that way. In the scheme of things, you’re going to have a huge driveway. There’s going to be a line. It’s going to be just like the school. That time in the morning when the kids get dropped off and the kids get picked up. Then you’re going to have the employee parking lot and then you’re going to have volunteers that are probably going to want to come. So one acre and a building and a parking lot and a drive thru, what are you going to have, any trees or shrubs? MR. TRAVER-How about if we enlarge our recommendation to state that there was a great deal of discussion about the appropriateness of lot size? We feel that it should be at least one acre but we would be more comfortable with more research being done. MR. DEEB-Again, I have to repeat. Even if we put one size, the Town Board is going to make the ultimate decision. If they feel that wo is too much, they’ll go down to one, but if we just leave one figure in there, say minimum of two acre, and let them make the final decision. I think we’re adding too much if we put all that in the motion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-And I’ll listen to, anything else? MR. TRAVER-So you have a draft motion for two, right? So why don’t you try. MR. SHAFER-It just seems to me here we’re flying blind. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree. MR. SHAFER-We might as well throw darts. We’re picking numbers out of the air. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s enough for them to understand we’ve have considerable discussion about the lot size, and that will certainly be evident. So if we don’t want to include all that in the recommendation and so state, then we can start with two and again as you say everybody’s agreed that they’re going to figure it out anyway. MR. DEEB-Ultimately it’s not up to us. RESOLUTION TO CONSENT TO TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY QUEENSBURY MASONIC 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) Whereas the Queensbury Masonic Historical Society (QMHS) submitted a zoning change application to the Queensbury Town Clerk’s office on or about July 30, 2021 to allow for the addition of day-care center as an allowable use by Site Plan review in the Neighborhood Residential Zoning District, MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR THE QUEENSBURY MASONIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; st Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we were voting on the recommendation for adding a use to a zone, not specific. MRS. MOORE-You’re not. So the applicant, so the applicant is the Masonic Historic Society. It’s not a specific project. MR. DEEB-All right. So for change of zone, it’s not for the Masonic Historical Society. MRS. MOORE-They’re the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a draft motion. MRS. MOORE-You can amend it, but I’m not, the question came up whether it was specific to the Masonic Lodge. They’re the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’re bringing the petition forward,, but it’s a change of zoning. MRS. MOORE-I thought it was acceptable, but Chris made it sound like you’re. MR. HUNSINGER-I misunderstood the motion. It’s fine. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: QUEENSBURY MASONIC MOTION TO PROVIDE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR THE QUEENSBURY MASONIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; With the condition of a minimum lot size of two acres. st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Hunsinger, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MRS. MOORE-Just so you know, it would have moved forward with your vote anyway. The Town Board would see the recommendation that had the following vote associated with it. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 LASHINSKY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EXTENSION TO SEPTEMBER 2022 MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next administrative item on our agenda is Subdivision Modification 6-2019, Lashinsky, request for additional extension to September of next year. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Since the applicant has identified that they need this extension, it’s definitely due to COVID. They had some additional issues with getting adjustments on approvals for I think it was with the stormwater and so at this point they need another year to satisfy all those things. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So we have the draft resolution for that, draft motion. MR. DEEB-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION TO SEPT. 2022 LASHINSKY A subdivision application has been made to modify an existing subdivision “Imperial Acres” (April 1990). The application has been revised to show 8 lots where seven lots are residential and one lot is for stormwater management. The stormwater management has been updated in regards to grading and adding basins. The project has been further revised to address lot line adjustment with adjoining properties. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Subdivision Modification 6-2019 Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky on November 26, 2019. One year extension was granted on 9/22/2020. Applicant requests an additional one year extension to 9/21/2022 MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: st Duly adopted this 21 day of September 2021 by the following vote: MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, my Staff Notes say 6-2019. Is that right? MR. TRAVER-It’s 6-2019 was the original subdivision modification. They’re asking for a further extension for another year to September of next year. MR. SHAFER-Does the number change from 2019 to 2020? MR. TRAVER-No. The number of the original application would be retained. It’s just a tabling. MRS. MOORE-I see. There’s two numbers here. There’s one that says 6-2019 and then one that says 6- 2020. I believe it’s 6-2019. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine SITE PLAN 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO MEET TOWN BOARD & WATER DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS MR. TRAVER-Next we have Site Plan 35-2021 Chris Racicot, request for further tabling to meet Town Board and Water Department requirements. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant still has further information that needs to be provided to the Town Board, wastewater requirements. So instead of doing a specific date, because there’s still ongoing discussions with the Water and Wastewater Department because they’re doing an entire district extension, so this project unfortunately falls within that. So they sort of need to wait until the entre district extension is completed. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but don’t we need to have a specific date for tabling anyway? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have a specific date. I just want to make sure that it’s on the record that it has to be tabled due to its ongoing review with the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think this is the first time we’ve ever tabled something without a specific date. MRS. MOORE-Because it’s unusual circumstances. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. MRS. MOORE-I don’t have a specific date for the extension to be completed.. So I can’t give you a specific date to table to. MR. TRAVER-I know that there have been occasions where we weren’t certain when somebody was going to be coming back, and then we would give them a date, and if they didn’t make that date then we would just table it again, but if it’s okay with you that we just. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MRS. MOORE-You could table it to January of 2022. I mean if that works. MR. TRAVER-Okay. How do Board members feel? Are we comfortable with an open ended tabling or do we want to table to a specific date? MR. HUNSINGER-It just means that the project would have to be re-noticed in the paper. MRS. MOORE-Yes, but in this case it’ll probably be re-noticed anyway due to the extent of time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I’m not hearing any objection to an open ended tabling. So why don’t we just do it that way then. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of 14 units consisting of three buildings where two buildings will have six units and one building will have two units. The buildings are to be two-story with garage and exterior patios. Project includes sewer connection agreement and construction. Project site work includes lighting, landscaping and stormwater controls. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board and other department reviews. Applicant requests tabling to future Planning Board meeting to allow time to satisfy Town Board and Water/Wastewater requirements. 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 a future Planning Board meeting. st Duly adopted this 21 day of September 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 SITE PLAN 27-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE MR. TRAVER-Next under Administrative Items we have Site Plan No. 27-2017, Seaton Property Holdings deny without prejudice. Which means in the future at some point it can be returned as opposed to with prejudice when it cannot. Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant hasn’t responded to requests, and I know that they were doing additional research on noise and I don’t have any new information from this applicant and I just caught this as the motion in bold states a 2021 number. So it should be 2017. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So do we have a draft motion for that? MR. DEEB-So Site Plan 27-2017? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. RESOLUTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SP # 27-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16- 1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive and current use of expanded material storage area. Project includes maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, light manufacturing – wood products, logging company, and Special Use Permit for wood product facility shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. On September 18, 2018 the Planning Board tabled the application to a November 13, 2018 meeting date. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) No new information was submitted by the November 13, 2018 deadline, nor after several requests for response has any communication been received from the applicant or agent. On August 23, 2021 the Town Board denied without prejudice Seaton Property Holdings petition for change of zone application. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: st Duly adopted this 21 day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Well that concludes the Administrative Items. Now we move to our regular agenda, and the first section of that agenda is Planning Board recommendations. The first item under Recommendations is Steve McDevitt, Site Plan 58-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 58-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEVE MC DEVITT. AGENT(S): CHRIS KEIL, EDP. OWNER(S) 32 NORTH LANE, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 32 NORTH LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1 ½ STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE ADDITION IS TO BE 320 SQ. FT. BEDROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH A 128 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK. THE ADDITION INCLUDES A 448 SQ. FT. BASEMENT AREA AND A 224 SQ. FT. BEDROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,721 SQ. FT. AND THE PROPOSED IS 3,755 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 95595- 4509 SQ. FT. HOME, 97199-5755 DECK; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .26 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010. CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a one and a half story addition to an existing home. The addition is to be a 320 square foot great room on the first floor with a 128 square foot open deck. The addition includes a 448 square foot basement area and a 224 square foot office. The existing floor area is 2,721 square feet and the proposed is 3,755 square feet. The relief that’s being requested is in reference to setbacks as well as permeability and floor area. MR. TRAVER-And also expansion of a non-conforming structure? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KEIL-Good evening. Chris Keil with EDP, here on behalf of the applicant, Steve McDevitt. We’re asking for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Laura’s summary kind of covered most of the things. I mean quite frankly it’s simply because of the location of the existing structure on this lot, just shy of that quarter acre. It’s quite common for the applicant to want to expand their house, to expand the existing structure. MR. TRAVER-Have you considered reducing the size of the project to eliminate some of the variances? MR. KEIL-Well, because it’s a pre-existing, non-conforming, the proposed setback, well all of the setback, permeability and FAR, we couldn’t scale that, but the addition’s actually pretty modest, in my view. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MS. WHITE-Basically this is a non-conforming and they’re requesting to make it even more non- conforming. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-I have issues with that. MR. TRAVER-Do you have recommendations, suggestions for the applicant? MS. WHITE-A smaller house. MR. TRAVER-Smaller? Okay. MS. WHITE-It’s a quarter of an acre. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. WHITE-And it’s waterfront. MR. TRAVER-Yes, small lots are an issue. Other comments, questions? MR. MAGOWAN-I have to agree with Jamie. I’m the last one to sit there and tell people what they can and cannot do with their property, but I have stated this before and I’ve put my opinion out. When you start pushing a building on a small lot it’s not fair. The stress it does to the surrounding areas. A lot of times we say well it’s just that lot, but then the next neighbor and the next neighbor and the next neighbor and what happens you start taking away your evaporation areas and start putting a concentration of water back into the ground right around your house, all it does is raise the water up all around and I’ve seen that with some developments where they just develop up and out. When it rains the brooks rise and run across the road. Now what do we do? So it’s just, it’s awfully big for such a small lot. This is a camp now? MR. KEIL-No, it’s just one story cottage, three bedrooms. It’s actually the bedrooms, the people who are, this is their retirement home. They’d just like a little bit more space, create a nicer kitchen, bring their laundry from the basement. They’d like to have a space on that first floor so they don’t have to go downstairs. So it’s just something that they’d like to make some improvements to the house and just kind of reconfigure some of that space. I mean, one thing, I totally understand where you’re coming from, but there’s a large undeveloped parcel to the north. The addition is along the north side of the house. So there’s no real frontage, from North Lane particularly, all that will be in the back. So we feel it wouldn’t be as prominent as it might be in some other instances. MR. MAGOWAN-Would they be willing to buy the lot next door? MR. KEIL-The one to the north? I don’t know the details of that. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s just my concern. It’s just you’re asking for quite a bit of relief for such a small lot, and I hate to crush their retirement dreams, but for me I just, I’d go along with Jamie. I feel this way. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. DIXON-I have a question. It’s not really on site plan review, but. So the wastewater, the septic system. I see you were adding another bedroom. Were you planning on upgrading the septic? MR. KEIL-There’s no additional bedrooms. It’s currently a three bedroom and it will remain as such. One of the points of confusion is currently one of the rooms has a use as a bedroom, but by Code there’s a closet so it might count as a bedroom, but in the renovation that would be eliminated. So it would be truly just three bedrooms and an office. So it’s actually going to be shifted to meet the letter of the law, a three bedroom house. MR. DIXON-And I think the size is still an issue. MR. MAGOWAN-And the office. You’re retiring and you need an office. Just putting it out there. It doesn’t sit comfortable with me. Every time I see an office and it’s not a bedroom. MR. KEIL-And I understand how some applicants, people might push that, but in this case they’re sincere and plan on using those spaces. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. DEEB-So two of these setbacks are saying that they’re non-conforming, and you want to change the rear yard five feet, permeability by 1.33% and then the floor area ratio. So you’re looking for three really out of the five, I mean three out of the four that you have. MR. KEIL-Right. MR. DEEB-Which isn’t too bad, but it is a small lot. When we have these regulations in place, it’s really hard on us and people keep coming in and hammering us. Let’s change things. MR. KEIL-Understood. If you’d like me to speak to those. For the rear, it’s a corner lot. So we have two rear setbacks. One of them, there’s no dimensional change. The one to the north is that deck, which is that pre-existing, non-conforming. So we’re actually going out another four feet beyond what that deck is, and then I think one thing to consider with the FAR is a lot of that total square footage is in the basement area, which in my view the intent of an FAR regulation is to, you know, keep the density mass under control and in this case it’s something you’d never even see from the street. It’s underground. So it would look the same whether or not, that’s just my opinion. MR. DEEB-But on paper. We have no control over the regulation. MR. TRAVER-So for our discussion this evening we’re looking at making a recommendation to the ZBA who will next hear this application and my impression are there are at least three Board members that have concerns with the size increase on an existing small lot. Is that what I’m hearing from folks? So I guess that is our referral. MR. SHAFER-I haven’t spoken but I would agree with the FAR problem. It already exceeds the allowable. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-And they want to add 1,000 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. MR. DEEB-So do you want to list that as a concern? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-So are we ready? MR. TRAVER-I guess so. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 67-2021 STEVE MC DEVITT The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 1½ story addition to an existing home. The addition is to be a 320 sq. ft. great room on the first floor with a 128 sq. ft. open deck. The addition includes a 448 sq. ft. basement area and a 224 sq. ft. office on the second floor. The existing floor area is 2,721 sq. ft. and the proposed is 3,755 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179- 13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance new floor area is a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability, floor area and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2021 STEVE MCDEVITT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Size of the increase on a small lot. st Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 21 day of September 2021 by the following vote: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. KEIL-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also for Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board, is Antonio and Maria Civitella. This is for Site Plan 55-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2021 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 104 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TEAR-DOWN OF AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,924 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 5,465 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A PATIO AREA ON THE LAKE SIDE, NEW DRIVEWAY AREA OF PERMEABLE PATIO PRODUCT, NEW STEPS TO FUTURE SUNDECK AND DOCK, RETAINING WALLS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY, NEW SEPTIC, NEW WELL, NEW SITE PLANTINGS AND NEW SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, SHORELINE VEGETATION REM OVAL, STEEP SLOPES WITHIN 50 FT. AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, PERMEABILITY AND INFILTRATION PRACTICE SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62=2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. JON LAPPER & KIRSTEN CATELLIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to start off with the problem with this application at the moment is that the public hearing notices for next week’s meeting didn’t go to the correct people within 500 feet. So at this meeting you are continuing with the Planning Board recommendation, but tomorrow night’s Zoning Board will have to table their application because it has to be re-noticed and you’re meeting the follow week will have to be re-noticed. So this application will, as far as I know, will be heard again in October. So that’s the upfront information. This project involves removal of an existing home and to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,924 square feet and a floor area of 5,465 square feet. The project includes installation of patio areas on the lake side, new driveway area of permeable patio product, new steps to future sundeck and dock, retaining walls for patio and driveway, new septic, new well, new site plantings and new shoreline plantings, and the variance relief is sought for setbacks, floor area, permeability and infiltration practice setback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier from Studio A. As Laura said, this is a teardown of a pre-existing lot that’s about four tenths of an acre on Knox Road. This lot is very similar in size to neighboring lots, all subdivided at the same time, and what’s proposed is not a small house, but it’s similar in character and size to what’s built near them. While what we’re requesting to start with sounds like a lot, at 32.5% FAR, if it didn’t have any basement it would be 27 and a half percent. So it’s another situation where a lot of the extra is just for storage space. It’s not finished space. There’s no walkout basement or anything that would be finished in the future. It’s a real basement, but we also have, depending on what the ZBA says, we have the ability to reduce the basement to just the absolute minimum necessary for mechanicals and then it would be an FAR of 28.5% which is pretty typical of what the Zoning Board’s been granting on smaller lake lots. The percentage just goes up when you’re dealing with a small piece of property. To offset that what we’re doing here, besides tearing down a horrible old home with a shed that actually goes over the property line, this has completely conforming stormwater, substantial buffering, landscaping, as Kirsten will show you, conforming brand new septic system and the permeability is about nine percent over is all, which of course we took into account, but it’s all sorts of permeable pavers for everything on the site. So we think it’s very well designed. The setback from the lake is being met. Everything that’s important is being met and if we had to knock it down to get to 28.5% and just have a minimum placement, which is what they really need for mechanicals 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) without any storage. So we’re not trying to push it. We’re just trying to do something good for the good of the lot. So Kirsten, with that, can you take them through the details? MS. CATELLIER-Yes. As you look at the site plan, as you enter into the driveway, you can see the almost the full driveway is proposed to be permeable pavers coming up to the residence. Along the driveway we’re proposing a strip of lawn where the wastewater treatment system is going to go, but as you access you’ll notice on our plans that both property lines north and south are heavily buffered with evergreens, ornamental trees and shrubs. MR. LAPPER-Is that what’s in front? MS. CATELLIER-Yes. Once you get to the residence we’re proposing a small four foot wide walk just for access along the lakeside of the house with a permeable paver patio as well out front. Down on the lakeside of the residence we have a lawn area and then we’re also fulfilling the planting requirement, the setback from the water with an on grade permeable paver fire pit proposed just outside the front of the residence. Also too the landscaping extends down to the waterfront and you’ll see buffer on the north and south property lines. All lighting is proposed to be dark sky compliant and like Jon said we’re handling stormwater with swales and permeable pavers as well. MR. TRAVER-There was a question about the infiltration practice setback. Can you talk about that? MS. CATELLIER-That’s also one criteria that we’re not meeting. We’re proposing it at 35 feet but it’s supposed to be 100 for the Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-That 35 feet is the Lake George Park Commission code which we expect at some point Queensbury will adopt with respect to that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MS. WHITE-I have the same concern as I had on the last project. MR. TRAVER-Which is size? MS. WHITE-Size. MR. TRAVER-Overall size in relation to the lot? MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Can you be more specific? Just general FAR? MS. WHITE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think on this one more than any other project that we’ve seen, you know, and again it’s up to the Zoning Board. They’re the ones that are going to have to decide but you look at the variance on the northern property line and it’s not just the encroachment. It’s the length of the variance required, and we don’t really measure that or really talk about that. We always talk about the closest point, but here you have really the whole length of the house in the variance area. So I mean that was something that just jumped right out at me when I first saw the set of plans. MR. TRAVER-And that’s related to house size as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-On top of that, 21 trees to be removed. MR. TRAVER-Other comments, questions? MR. MAGOWAN-What about the, because that’s a lot of permeable pavement. Is there, what is the plan to maintain that and make sure that, you know, it stays permeable? Because if you don’t do anything with it, all that silt and stuff and the pollen clogs up and you might as well just have macadam. MR. LAPPER-There’ll be a maintenance plan to go with this. MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean 21 trees for the length of the property. MR. LAPPER-They’re being replaced with extensive landscaping on this site and at the lake. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-Twenty-one mature trees, mature. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. SHAFER-I have severe reservations about the size of the house. Here’s an instance where the original house is going to be torn down. So you have a clean slate, and I would think in developing the design criteria would be one of the first things that would be looked at would be the Town Code, and while you could rationalize because of the basement and the percentages and so on, this lot is so unusually shaped you could rationalize the other way, and that is that that tip of the triangle really has no bearing on the issue of the FAR. If you just look at this property, the house is so big, and given its location in the southern zone of Lake George, I just think it’s a terrible imposition on that lot. MR. LAPPER-So this is what the client/property owner wanted, and we did talk to them about, you know, the likelihood of needing to compromise on this. MR. SHAFER-Everybody that comes up here wants this 5,000 or 6,000 square foot house. At some point it’s not appropriate. MR. LAPPER-We’ll see what we can do to make this better. MR. DEEB-I think that’s probably a good idea. You see the tenor of the Board tonight with the last applicant. So you knew you were going to have an uphill climb. MR. LAPPER-So since they can’t act on it because of the notice issue, we’d ask to table this instead of a recommendation so we have time to come back before we actually have the Zoning Board meeting next month. So if we can table it we’ll talk to the applicant and see what we can come back with. MRS. MOORE-So for the process, the concept behind this is that they would come back for a recommendation at the first meeting in October and then just follow the regular process. MR. TRAVER-So should we table to a specific date in October? MRS. MOORE-You can table it to the first meeting in October. That’s fine. thth MR. TRAVER-The 19 did you say? The 19 is what I have for our first meeting. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. How do Board members feel about that? That sounds like giving them an opportunity to re-look at the application. All right. MRS. MOORE-I guess the only other question I have is what’s the timeframe to get new information back th to us so that it can be on the October agenda, since the September 15 deadline has past? I sort of need an idea. MR. DEEB-Unless we go to the second meeting. th MR. TRAVER-Well they don’t have to get the information to you until September 15, right? MR. DEEB-Do you want to go to the second meeting? Would that work? MR. TRAVER-Well that wouldn’t change the due date. MRS. MOORE-The due date has past, officially, for October’s agenda. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So since the application’s being tabled at this point we can give them some leeway on that. Some idea would be helpful so that I can prepare, I need to finalize the agenda by next week. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would defer to the agents, but it sounds like there’s a discussion with the owner followed by a re-design. So, realistically, you want to maybe try for November? MR. LAPPER-No, I think if you give us a week and a half we’d be okay. MR. TRAVER-Really? Okay. All right. A week and a half, Laura? st MR. DEEB-That’s October 1. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-Is that fair to Laura and her crew? MR. DEEB-You give us a date, Laura. st MRS. MOORE-October 1 is fine. I’m sure I’ll be communicating with them shortly about it. So I can maneuver numbers. th MR. TRAVER-So we can stick with that tabling date of October 19 . MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. RESOLUTION TABLING RECOMMENDATION FOR CIVITELLA The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a tear-down of an existing home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,924 sq. ft. and a floor area of 5,465 sq. ft. The project includes installation of a patio area on the lake side, new driveway area of permeable patio product, new steps to future sundeck and dock, retaining walls for patio and driveway, new septic, new well, new site plantings and new shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, shoreline vegetation removal, steep slopes within 50 ft. and work within 100 ft. of wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area, permeability and infiltration practice setback. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; thst Tabled to the October 19, 2021 Planning Board meeting with submissions by October 1, 2021. st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 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-See you next month. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item under Recommendations to the Zoning Board is Lester H. Chase the third, Site Plan 49-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2021 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LESTER H. CHASE III. AGENT(S): MATTHEW F. FULLER. ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING RR-5A. LOCATION: 3219 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES RO CONSTRUCT A 1,650 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AS A REPLACEMENT GARAGE OF 1,596 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,582 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,582 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME, AND 378 SQ. FT. SHED AND BOTH ARE TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-060 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 5O FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, SIZE AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 130-2016 ADD., BOTH 384-2015, AV 54-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 2.0 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-060, CHAPTER 94. MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the application is to construct a 1,650 square foot detached garage. It’s a replacement garage of a 1,596 square foot garage. Relief is required for setbacks to the property line, setbacks to the wetlands, it’s size and number of garages, and if you remember, it was tabled at the Zoning Board because 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) we identified that additional relief. It’s back before this Planning Board because that relief request needs to be part of your recommendation. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller for the applicant who is here with me tonight. You probably remember at last month’s meeting, actually it was Planning Board member Hunsinger that asked about the setback to the wetlands. It’s actually two properties away. We did, I think Laura did measure it off and we thought it was going to fall further than 500 feet. We left the meeting talking about it and we had to go out and measure it. So I went out today with a ruler in the rain, I can remember it, and it was too close for comfort. So we quickly had EDP, wetlands biologist for EDP, go out and flag it and then we had Kristen Darrah go back out and actually survey the flags, and I ball-parked it about 65 feet and it turned out to be within. So good catch. It went completely under our radar and certainly there was no intent to mislead anybody. If you walk out there and eyeball it, it’s pretty darn close. So that added variances. It had to be tabled last month. We got the application materials updated, the maps updated and we are back. We’re trying to preserve the footprint that’s there. The addition on the sides is really the squaring off of the building. If you look right now that one corner that doesn’t pose any setback issue or anything like that, it kind of jogs in about seven and a half feet in each direction. The current cinderblock garage has exceeded its useful and maintainable life. We are in an area just to the back of the garage with some bedrock and slopes. So in terms of actually moving the garage in any sort of direction it just isn’t feasible without removing bedrock and things like that. So the hope is to gain approval to replace that garage that’s out there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-You don’t want to build a smaller garage? MR. FULLER-That is a topic for debate for sure, but I think he’s hoping to preserve the value of what’s on the lot. MR. DEEB-Well it’s not that much bigger than the one you have now. MR. FULLER-No. Again, it’s just that square. MR. TRAVER-Fifty-four feet. MR. DEEB-Yes, and you just want to square it off. MR. FULLER-Correct. It fits back there in terms of trees, the buffer and things like that. It’s behind the house. You can’t really see it from the road. And the closest property, to the eastern side of the property, it’s quite a distance away. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments, concerns for our referral? MS. WHITE-As always we’re back to we have a restriction for garages. There is an existing garage and there are two neighbors. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the other garage is this 378 square foot shed and it’s probably called a garage due to the type of door that it has. LESTER CHASE, III MR. CHASE-It is. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. MAGOWAN-That’s not being removed? MR. FULLER-No. That one they just refurbished when they bought the house three years ago. That one’s in very good shape. The door triggers it. MR. CHASE-And I have support from all of the surrounding neighbors as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anything specific that Board members feel we need to mention in our referral specifically? Okay. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 54-2021 LESTER CHASE III 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq. ft. The site has an existing 1,582 sq. ft. (footprint) home, and 378 sq. ft. shed and both are to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-060 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and work within 100 ft. of wetlands, shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, size and number of garages. 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. 54-2021 LESTER H. CHASE III 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. st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-We move to the next section of our agenda which is New Business. The first application under New Business is Ted Arnstein, Devil Ray Watersports, Site Plan 47-2021 and Special Use Permit 3- 2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 47-2021 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TED ARNSTEIN/DEVIL RAY WATERSPORTS. AGENT(S): JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 52 BOATHOUSE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLASS A MARINA FOR THE OFFERING OF INSTRUCTION FOR A FEE OF A PADDLE- BOARD TYPE WATERCRAFT ON LAKE GEORGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE REUSE OF A 792 SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE EXISTING HOME - 432 SQ. FT. GARAGE WILL BE CONVERTED TO STORAGE FOR SALES ITEM AND 360 SQ. FT. ADDITION CONVERTED TO AN OFFICE AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES USE OF THE U-SHAPED DOCK FOR TRAINING AND INSTRUCTION FOR USE OF THE DEVICE.. OPERATIONS WILL BE SEASONAL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, RUSE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND ESTABLISHING A CLASS A MARINA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 99-457 SEPTIC ALT., PERMIT 8409-1984, AV 886-1983 ADDITION. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-21 SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-10 JON LAPPER & JEFF ANTHONY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is a proposal of a Class A Marina for the offering of instruction for paddleboard type water craft on Lake George. The project includes the re-use of the existing 792 square foot portion of the home. This includes a 432 square foot garage that will be converted to storage for sales items and 360 square feet of that is converted to an office area. The project includes use of a portion of the U shaped dock for training and instruction for these devices. The operations will be seasonal and I apologize, it sounds like the Staff Notes did not come out clearly enough when they were printed. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper with Aiden Switzer who operates the business, Ted Arnstein whose family has owned the property for 107 years and Jeff Anthony from Studio A. So this is an interesting project because nothing is proposed to be done on the site. It does need a marina permit, a Special Use Permit and technically a Site Plan. Aiden will give you the details of his product, but it’s a personal watercraft that is battery operated and plugged in. So there’s no pollution at all. No noise at all, very different than a jet ski and this facility, of course, is in between Takundewide and an existing marina and we just want to use this to be able to train people and to sell these boards. You see them on t.v., people standing up on them but very environmentally friendly. So we think that this application is environmentally friendly because they’re not planning to do anything on this site. They’ll use the existing bathroom, which Dave Hatin approved the existing septic system for this use. They’ll have four parking spaces, two for the home, small home, and two for the business. So we’re really not doing anything other than the use, which would just be to make an appointment and have someone come and get a lesson on the lake to use the existing dock. So pretty minimal and a positive use on the lake because it’s quiet and non- polluting. Let me turn it over to Jeff next to walk you through the site plan. MR. ANTHONY-Thanks, Jon. Like Jon said, we’re proposing no new construction on this site. There is an access road or an access driveway coming off the main road, which is near the marina and the existing marina. There’s ample parking right near the building near the house. You can park three cars right there, four cars, and there’s an existing parking right near Boathouse Road that’s owned by the applicant, which is available if need be. The house, like was said, has no construction or renovations planned for it. There’s a small addition on the north side of the house which is a mother-in-law apartment, and the mother-in- law apartment will be converted into the office which would be an education space that would be used for training and teaching and providing information about the E Foils that they want to sell. The garage and building which is right adjacent to it will only be used for available E Foils that will be for sale. There’s no maintenance required, no construction of any kind of facilities for maintenance, no oil spillage, no fuel storage, no nothing like that for servicing these things. The garage would be used simply for storing equipment that is for sale or for demonstration. The access to the water would be by way of an existing U Shaped dock which was permitted by the Lake George Park Commission and when they want to train, teach somebody how to use one of these E Foils, they carry it down to the dock with the water and carry it back to shore then use the dock as a training facility starting point. Aiden is here who is going to operate this facility and is the instructor. I’m not totally familiar with the E Foils. I’ve seen them. I’ve seen them on the lake. There’s a couple that I know that operate one, but maybe can give you some idea about the safety benefits of these, the environmental benefits of them. I live up on Northwest Bay, and somebody’s operating one right in front of my house, and quite frankly I don’t even know it’s there. It’s out in the morning and I see it around the lake, no noise, no nothing. It just goes back and forth with no wake, no nothing and I don’t even know it’s there. I have a cup of coffee in the morning, look out and I don’t even know it’s there. Aiden, would you like to speak. AIDEN SWITZER MR. SWITZER-Thank you. Good evening. So Teddy, Teddy’s family, again, has owned the property for over 100 years. Pretty cool history there, but talking about the E Foils. So we’re affiliated with Lyft, the company that patented this idea. It’s a hydrofoil with an electric motor on it so that allows the rider to ride the board up and out of the water. It gives the sensation of flying. Very cool. That’s the best kind of description I can give. A comparable product would be the air chair that was around, you know, in the 70’s, 80’s, water sports era. Still around, and a picture there just kind of showing. That’s typically the distance off of the water that we typically ride. So again it doesn’t produce any noticeable wake. As soon as you get started and get the board up and out of the water, virtually no wake. Sound very minimal. Just the sound of an electric motor. That’s also dampened as it’s underwater and it’s nice and green. Powered by a lithium ion battery, completely self-contained. The battery itself and all the electrical components, you know, there’s no worry about leakage or anything like that. It’s waterproof. Warrantied for at least two years and the life of the board. MRS. MOORE-Can you describe the instruction process? MR. SWITZER-Of course. Yes. So at the property we typically do about 20 to 30 minutes of ground instruction. That includes safety briefs. Our applicants wear helmets and life jackets, but you also have to know about the navigational rules out on the water, so buoys and things like that. So we run through safety briefs. We typically run through how the board operates, the parts of the board and from laying down, controlling the board on your stomach, all the way up to standing, you know, there’s a process for standing on the board just like surfing or waterskiing. How to get up is a big learning curve. So we do that on the ground, using the board bags. We typically leave the boards on the dock and then put the batteries in, put the boards in the water and off we go. The Park Commission, you know, this is a new use or new recreational use on the lake. So the Park Commission is aware that these are here, and people are buying them on their own, but I think another great thing about this product is as opposed to say a jet ski or a boat, people come to us before they buy or after they buy to learn how to use the product safely, which I think is big plus for the area. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. TRAVER-The safety is one of the things that I wanted to ask about. Do these things have acquisition lights? Are they used at night? MR. SWITZER-No. So another thing with the Park Commission, so they are going to classify it as a PWC. So operation from sunrise to sunset. So there’s no lights on it. In terms of visibility. I know at least for Lake George, paddleboards, kayaks, things like that, there’s an issue with visibility. For this, I mean I’d be open to other safety issues, as an instructor or affiliate salesman, we typically deal with the safety of the lesson, making sure that boats are keeping their distance, that other boaters are following the rules of the road out in the water. MR. LAPPER-But compared to a kayak, people are standing up, so it’s much more visible. MR. SWITZER-Exactly. Yes. So people are standing up. It would be more comparable to like a paddleboard. MR. TRAVER-Well, I can tell you, as someone who is very active on the lake, I’m a past commander of the Lake George Power Squadron, and I have heard a lot of reports, especially this summer, that these things are extremely dangerous, not so much I guess to the rider but they travel very quickly, and because of the balancing nature, and I know this is a side, I guess, from the Planning Board issue, but because of the focus that the pilot, the passenger needs to maintain control of the board, I’ve received numerous reports of them just shooting out in front of a powerboat with no apparent awareness of traffic, and not following the rules of the road. Now I understand these are not people trained by you, but you should be aware, for future business planning, that this is an issue that is growing, and I’m not aware of any fatalities or any serious accidents, but I’ve had a number of reports, including from park rangers that these things are being operated oblivious to their surroundings and at high speed and they do pose a hazard to navigation. MR. LAPPER-So that’s actually a justification for this. Because Aiden’s going to be doing the training that doesn’t exist right now. People buy it in the mail and just start it on their own. MR. SWITZER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-My comment, and I agree I think that obviously the training is needed and is lacking with some of the pilots. The issues that are sometimes faced, and this happened with PWC’s as well over the years and still does to some extent is that these devices and their pilots tend to be lumped together, whether they’re trained by you or not and so the issue, and presumably as hobbyists and sales go up you’re going to have a colony or a group of enthusiasts on the lake that will grow and be using these things, and this is something you should be made aware of because it is a growing real concern and I have spent a number of years, including with the introduction of PWC’s, that I’ve not heard a ground swell of alarm about these things and the way they’re being operated. MR. SWITZER-I think, you know, because it is new, there’s going to be growing pains in terms of safety. You guys have all been out on the lake or boating. It’s everybody’s job to be safe. With that being said, again, this sport poses a unique issue. It’s like a PWC. It’s like a jet ski where you’re kind of driving around, but it’s also akin to wakeboarding, wake surfing and waterskiing where if there’s other boaters in the area they also have to be aware that somebody’s being towed. So in this case somebody’s performing a sport or balancing on this board and there is the danger for them to fall off. So it’s a very unique situation. We’re going to have to hopefully work with whatever regulation we need to. MR. DEEB-Well, I mean there’s danger in all water sports. You can’t isolate it to just this. I mean it’s out there. So there’s nothing you can do, except education, training, etc.. I have a few questions that I’d like to ask if possible. How many students at a time do you think you’ll have there at one lesson? MR. SWITZER-For just one instructor I think two is a good number to keep things safe. So for right now I’d say two. MR. DEEB-Well I’m concerned, and I think, let’s say you get say, run into four, five, six and whatever, I’m more concerned about parking and congestion that’s going to be there so I don’t know if you should limit the number of students you have. MR. SWITZER-Yes. So at this point obviously we’d only be able to have two students. MR. DEEB-All right. Now are you going to sell the boards right there on site? MR. SWITZER-That is the plan, yes. So, yes, so right now it’s complicated for a number of reasons, but hopefully, yes, we’d like to have a stock of boards. MR. DEEB-So you’re going to store the boards there. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. LAPPER-In that office. MR. DEEB-So it’s going to be a sales office. MR. TRAVER-Part of the proposed use is storage. MR. DEEB-All right. So what if you have people that come in that don’t want lessons but want to buy one of your Foils? Have you considered that? MR. TRAVER-As far as parking? MR. DEEB-As far as parking, number of people. You’re going to have a retail spot. MR. SWITZER-Right. So I would say, so we’re not going to really operate it as like a showroom. So the electronic contra foils are very expensive. They retail for about $12,000. So I don’t expect a lot of foot traffic. So typically what we see is people see them, see us riding them around, Instagram, Facebook, social media. MR. DEEB-So I guess it might be by appointment only. MR. SWITZER-Right. Yes. So usually they’ll say, hey, I want to buy one, or I just want a lesson, and then, you know, we’ll set something up with them. MR. DEEB-How much does one weigh? MR. MAGOWAN-That was my question. These guys in the picture that have got them under their arm, they aren’t straining. MR. SWITZER-Yes, so they’re made out of carbon fiber. So without the battery in them I’d say they’re, depending on the size of it, they’re about 40, maybe 50 pounds. The battery itself weighs about 30 to 40 pounds. MR. DEEB-So with the battery in it, it would be almost 300 pounds. MR. SWITZER-No, no, maybe like 60, 70 pounds. MR. DEEB-I’m sorry. I must have misread that. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s the maximum weight supported. MR. SWITZER-The boards themselves, again, I would say with the battery out, they’d be about 40, 50 pounds, easy to lift, and then the battery, because it’s lithium ion, it’s quite heavy. That’s like I would say maybe half of the total board weight once it’s in. TED ARNSTEIN MR. ARNSTEIN-Our typical demographic, people that we’ve done lessons to, are families, typically doctors, dentists, oral surgeons, 45 to maybe 55 years old. So it isn’t the adrenaline seeking young people. MR. DEEB-Not at that price. MR. SWITZER-These are professional type people. MR. DEEB-My main concern was the congestion of people. Because it is a small residential area. That was my main concern. MR. HUNSINGER-I had similar questions, also hours of operation. MR. SWITZER-So typically, Teddy mentioned it, we don’t like to operate in the middle of the day because it’s congested, boat wakes and things like that. So we typically, I like to do lessons in the morning. So any time after sunrise. I’m a morning person, but not that much of a morning person. So I would say 7 to 10 in the morning we do most of our lessons, and then later in the afternoon, once the day picnic crew has kind of settled back into their respective homes we’ll go out again. MR. DEEB-What is the time span between ground instruction and getting into the water? MR. SWITZER-So it really depends. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it depends on the student. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. SWITZER-It depends on the student. So I would say it’s probably close to 30 minutes actually, again pointing out those safety and navigational issues in Harris Bay right there, but it’s the battery, plus depending on rider size, the board conditions can last 90 minutes to 2 hours plus. So you could be out in the water for a great length of time. MR. ARNSTEIN-The other thing is, too, as his instruction, he shepherds the people out in the water. They’re not just going out on their own. MR. SWITZER-Yes. MR. ARNSTEIN-He’s right next to them. MR. SWITZER-Yes, that’s a good point. I’m out there demonstrating, but I’m also acting as a safety observer. MR. DEEB-So it would be difficult to have more than two students out there. You can’t keep an eye on four or five. MR. SWITZER-Exactly. Yes. So that’s kind of the natural. MS. WHITE-You’d be renting them afterwards then. People could just come and rent, or not? MR. SWITZER-No, so for insurance right now we don’t do rentals. MS. WHITE-And that was my other question. You have insurance. You’ve been able to acquire the insurance? MR. SWITZER-Yes. So we’re part of, through Lyft, we’re part of the E Foil Safety Association and they help all businesses like us get insurance. So we have a million dollars liability coverage. MR. DIXON-How many instructors are there going to be, or is it just going to be you? MR. SWITZER-Just me, yes. MR. DIXON-And I know you couldn’t really define how long you were going to be out on the water with the customers, but you’re going to have some sort of turnover. MR. SWITZER-So, yes, I book lessons for about two hours. MR. DEEB-So maybe you have two sessions a day. MR. SWITZER-Yes, and again, by appointment two hours. So I think we’ve done. MR. TRAVER-And the batteries must take time to re-charge. MR. SWITZER-Yes, so about two hours for the batteries to charge. So two hours ride time, two hours to charge. MR. SHAFER-How fast will these go? MR. SWITZER-So they’re rated up to 30 miles an hour. MR. SHAFER-Thirty? MR. DEEB-That’s pretty fast. MR. SWITZER-Which is very fast. I would consider myself a pretty expert rider. I do not go anywhere near 30 miles an hour. MR. HUNSINGER-So how do you actually control them? How do you make it go faster or slower? MR. SWITZER-So the boards operate with a hand remote, and then it’s all just weight distribution and balance. So Mr. Lapper just mentioned it’s going 30 miles an hour, but requires a significant amount of balance. MR. DEEB-Do they purchase the product before they get the lessons, or do they get the lessons and then they purchase the product? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. SWITZER-So Lyft operate worldwide. I am aware of people who do that all the time. I know people with money burning a hole in their pocket like that, but again typically we’ve seen people who wanted to do our flat program. MS. WHITE-Over and over and over again. MR. SWITZER-Typically just once because it is that fun, and if people are interested in buying, they know they like it, and so there’s a range of boards. So that kind of helps them choose what size they want. We advise them on that. MR. DEEB-I notice that that tickler at the bottom says it comes in different sizes. There’s a 48, 45. MR. SWITZER-So the board comes in different sizes. The wings, the hydrofoil wings, also come in different sizes, different characteristics. MR. DEEB-So what happens? The larger the wing, easier to balance? MR. SWITZER-Yes, larger the wing, easier to balance is the basics. MR. MAGOWAN-But the slower it goes. MR. SWITZER-The slower it goes. You can kind of get into some aerodynamics. It’s like a plane. So the bigger the wings, more stable, kind of less maneuverable. Smaller wings, a little bit faster. MR. DEEB-That’s kind of interesting. It’s kind of an interesting concept for a business. MR. MAGOWAN-Phenomenal. It’s just amazing. MR. SHAFER-Have you been approved by the Park Commission? MR. DEEB-You go there next, right? MR. SWITZER-Yes, so next week there’s a Park Commission meeting about this. We have been in contact with the Park Commission about them, to hopefully get at some of the safety issues that we have been seeing. We have sold a couple of the boards, but there’s also been people who have bought them who haven’t gone through it. So hopefully we can kind of limit that to keep them safe. MR. MAGOWAN-I feel what’s going to happen is the same thing with the personal watercraft, you know, the waver runners and this and that, that eventually there’s going to be so many there that they’re going to say you need a certification. They have that. Like you just can’t get on a wave runner or whatever they call them now. You have to be certified, and that would be to your benefit. MR. DIXON-Is there any special storage, because they’re lithium ion batteries, and we’ve heard some of the horror stories, if they get punctured they’re very explosive. Any special storage? MR. SWITZER-No special storage, other than, here out in the northeast in the winter we don’t want to store them in direct sunlight for too long, high temperatures or low temperatures, and then other than that just shock issues. So somebody drops it, could compromise some of the internal, again, they’re self- contained. So just typical kind of battery storage, not too hot, not too cold, be careful don’t drop it. They are pretty durable. MR. TRAVER-The main a hazard with lithium ion technology is the charging. So when they’re being charged it’s very important, you know, I deal with model aircraft that use lithium ion batteries, and that’s the main worry. They’re actually the smaller, these batteries are too large, but the radio control airplane batteries, you actually put them in a special fireproof container when they’re under charge, even when they’re attended and they’re being charged, because that’s really when the hazard comes. Shock can cause short-circuits. They’re a series of cells together, and if they get, and there’s chemical components to each one. If they get compromised by dropping or being abused or something it can cause some internal problems. But really the charging process is what really needs to be carefully controlled and monitored. That’s when the fire hazard typically happens and so on. MR. SWITZER-And these batteries besides, the company has a charging unit for it. So it cools it, runs diagnostics. MR. ARNSTEIN-The batteries are $3500 if purchased separately. MR. MAGOWAN-How do you ship those? Because I know you can’t do it through the postal service. MR. TRAVER-They have to go by ground. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. ARNSTEIN-FedEx does ship. MR. SWITZER-Yes, in a special box. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they can’t travel by air. They come by like UPS Ground. MR. DIXON-I do have one more question. I think it’ll just be one. So the single story addition where you’re going to operate out of. It sounds like there’s already an existing bathroom that has been looked at and approved. The changing rooms, are you planning on selling any food, vending machines anything at all of that nature? MR. SWITZER-No. MR. DEEB-How many will you store on the property, the premises? MR. SWITZER-How many can we store, like right now? MR. DEEB-How many are you planning on storing? MR. SWITZER-I mean at least three, two and then one for an instructor. So right now the supply is an issue and the cost. I can’t see having more than, I mean 10 would be kind of a big inventory. MR. TRAVER-You would hope to have 10, right? MR. SWITZER-Yes. MR. DIXON-I do apologize. I do have one last one. Would any signage be associated with this that you’re planning on putting up? MR. SWITZER-Any signage? Not right now. I mean again because it’s kind of very niche, high value or luxury. MR. TRAVER-And for the same reason you may not want the location to be well known. MR. SWITZER-Yes. People kind of know where we operate out of. MR. TRAVER-If they don’t, they certainly will. MR. SWITZER-Yes. MR. ARNSTEIN-And that property is on the point there. MR. TRAVER-Okay, any other questions, comments? Are Board members comfortable moving forward on this application? All right. MRS. MOORE-And just so you know, I don’t think it’s in the draft resolution in reference to, because it’s a special use permit, we have that temporary, permanent. So that is a question for the Board if they wish to make this a permanent special use permit. MR. DEEB-I think we should start temporary and see how it goes. They can always come back and get it. MR. TRAVER-We have to think about term. MR. LAPPER-It is subject to a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. We need to think about term if we’re going to do a limited special use permit. MR. DEEB-Well, to get them off the ground I think at least two years. They’ve got next summer and the summer after that. Then find out where he is. MR. DIXON-Then to our secretary’s point, I wonder if we should look at three, only because if we look at, issue it today, unless you’ve got people in wetsuits and they like the cold. MR. DEEB-I’m fine with three. MR. TRAVER-So a three year. Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any takers. Written comments, Laura? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no public comments on this. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I think we’re ready for our resolution. MRS. MOORE-Before you read that. I just wanted to make sure that I had remembered this correctly. That renewable, we have a permanent, temporary. The temporary only allows it to continue to the specified date. Whereas the renewable would come back. MR. TRAVER-I think, if I read the Board correctly, the intent is renewable, a three year renewable, but, yes, thank you for clarifying that. MR. HUNSINGER-So do we need to specify hours of operation or anything like that? You didn’t talk about that. MR. TRAVER-Well, they’re limited to daylight anyway because of the Park Commission regulations, and they may have additional regulations as well, depending on how they pursue, but that was a question why I wanted to know if they had acquisition lights because theoretically they could be operated at night. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-That would be a real problem, but evidently that’s not the plan. If I remember the regulations correctly, and I think I do, I think it’s a half an hour before sunset they have to be off the water. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to limit the number of customers, the number of cars? MR. TRAVER-Well, in the application it states they have parking for two customers. So that’s two vehicles. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And if anything changes, we have to come back. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but it’s good to clarify that because that did come up before is how many people. I think if you could get two customers at a time you’d be happy. Right? So all right. MR. DEEB-Are you okay with no time limits, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it sounds like it’s pretty self-regulated, and it’s really by appointment anyway. MR. TRAVER-Yes, right. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t know if any of that needed to be clarified. It’s worth having the conversation. MR. ARNSTEIN-Absolutely. MR. DEEB-I think in the three year term we’ll find out what is necessary and they’ll have to come back to us in three years. MR. TRAVER-Yes, a three year renewable. MR. DEEB-So we’ll know at that time. At that time they’ll probably want to get a warehouse. MR. SWITZER-Yes, wishful thinking. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 47-2021 SUP 3-2021 TED ARNSTEIN/DEVIL RAY WATERSPORTS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a Class A marina for the offering of instruction for a fee of a paddle-board type watercraft on Lake George. The project includes the reuse of a 792 sq. ft. portion of the existing home – 432 sq. ft. garage will be converted to storage for sales item and 360 sq. ft. addition converted to an office area. The project also includes use of 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) the u-shape dock for training and instruction for use of the device. Operations will be seasonal. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, reuse of an existing building and establishing a Class A marina 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 09/21/2021 and continued the public hearing to 09/21/2021, 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 09/21/2021; 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 47-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2021 TED ARNSTEIN/DEVIL RAY WATERSPORTS; 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 items are appropriate for waiver requests as there are no site changes being 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. h) Approval of a three year renewable term for the Special Use Permit. st Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 21 day of September 2021 by the following vote: MR. SHAFER-Question. Are we actually approving a Class A Marina? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. TRAVER-Isn’t that the Park Commission? MRS. MOORE-That’s the Special Use Permit. MR. DEEB-That’s the special use. MRS. MOORE-This Board is approving the Class A Marina as a Special Use Permit. MR. TRAVER-I see. MR. SHAFER-So even though it’s not mentioned, the Special Use Permit. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MRS. MOORE-Is the Class A Marina. MR. SHAFER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck to you. I commend you. MR. SWITZER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we have Raymond & Linda Shirvell, Site Plan 56-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. RAYMOND & LINDA SHIRVELL. AGENT(S): PEACEFUL LIVING HOMES, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 31 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY, 1,067 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CLEARING THE LOT, INSTALLING WELL, SEPTIC HOLDING TANKS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRIVEWAY AREA. AN EXISTING 100 SQ. FT. SHED IS TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 67- 2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .23 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-9. SECTION: 179-6-065. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to construct a one story, 1,067 square foot residential home. The project includes clearing the lot and installing a well, septic holding tanks, stormwater management, and driveway area. An existing 100 square foot shed is to remain. And it’s before the Board because of the requirement to have site plan review for new floor area in the Waterfront Residential zone. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, representing Raymond and Linda Shirvell on this application for review for property at 31 Assembly Point Road. This lies between Assembly Point Road and Old Assembly Point Road. It’s an interior lot. There’s no lake frontage. The size, a little over 10,500 square feet, and Raymond would like to put a small single family, single story residence on the property. He’s asked us to look at the stormwater design for that which we’ve done and incorporated into the site plan application that’s before you. As Laura indicated, there’s been holding tank approvals granted by the Board of Health for wastewater disposal. There is a new well that has been installed on the property, and then the stormwater is part of this application. The house is relatively modest for a small lot. MS. WHITE-Which is appreciated. MR. TRAVER-And there’s already a shed on the property? How did that come about? MR. MAC ELROY-It’s a remnant from, there was, historically, and Ray has owned the property for many years, since. RAY SHIRVELL MR. SHIRVELL-1966. MR. MAC ELROY-At one point there was another structure on the property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHIRVELL-On the property was a mobile home. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. SHIRVELL-We bought the property in ’66, and the mobile home was on the property, and of course over the years, okay, we had a slight water problem. So in 1974, my wife passed away, and because we had a water problem, I filled in the property. So it’s been vacant for 40 years. So in my extreme young age of 90, I asked the children, should we try and put a residence up after all these years. So they agreed, and I said, well, you can agree, but remember you have to pay taxes. So Dennis was kind enough to draw up the stormwater management program and we thought at one time that that was the last obstacle to getting a st building permit. This hit us on July the 1. We got the variance for the holding tanks which is part of the st residence and we figured we would get the building permit, and we were notified on July the 1 we’ve got to have a stormwater management drawn up, and I’m under the impression now that another hurdle was put in, because we have to have another engineer hired to draw up plans for the foundation. MR. MAC ELROY-As part of the building permit process. MR. SHIRVELL-As part of the building permit, but I wasn’t aware of that. So communication. MR. MAC ELROY-We hope to get it before Ray turns 91. MR. SHIRVELL-I hope to get it before the winter. The house is on order. It’s a modular. MR. MAGOWAN-You must be pretty persuasive. You pulled Dennis out of retirement. MR. SHIRVELL-I’ve been up here since 1962. Last year was the only year we didn’t get up here. So we hope to move this along. So please be helpful. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-It is a modest house. After what we’ve been through, it’s nice to see something like this. You didn’t ask for 10,000 square feet. MR. MAGOWAN-You did a really nice job of placing it and keeping it a good size. That’s a great feat to do that and to keep the footprint down and the holding tanks, for environmental reasons it’s a little bit more of a pain in the neck, but they’re much safer, especially for the lake, and I’m so pleased you were able to get Dennis out of retirement to do this because he is well respected by this Board. MR. SHIRVELL-With the property we have an easement to the lake and we have a dock out there. There are four properties, but only three has, one property has the easement for one person and then two other people have the docks, and that’s what sold me on the property. Believe it or not you couldn’t touch it today. Do you know what I paid for that property? $7,500. MR. DEEB-That’s less than that E Foil. I admire your passion at 91 to continue to do this. MR. DIXON-I’ve got to ask you a quick question. On the plan it shows an existing well. Is it a functioning well? Just your distance to your holding tanks. You’re about 60 feet already. As long as you don’t get any closer. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That’s a new well, recently. MR. SHIRVELL-That was put up in July. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing also on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? How about written comments, Laura? Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Yes, there’s written comments from Chris Navitsky. He couldn’t be here this evening. So I’ll just read through this. This is addressed to Mr. Traver. “The above referenced Site Plan Review application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper does not support the installation of holding tanks to enable new site development on properties that are unsuitable to mitigate impacts from development but recognize this is not a Planning Board decision. The Waterkeeper recommends the following to improve mitigation measures from the proposed site development: The Planning Board should require the installation of perennial vegetation and shrubs in the stormwater management basins to increase stormwater uptake. The percolation rate is very slow on the site and the installation of substantial vegetation would increase infiltration through deeper roots and increase uptake to improve management and treatment. The application should include clearing limits and define trees to remain as it appears the entire site will be cleared. The applicant should clarify if the site will be completely cleared. The applicant should be required to prepare a revegetation plan that will reduce runoff and make the project more harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood and with the Adirondacks. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. MR. SHAFER-Who was that from? MRS. MOORE-Chris Navitsky, the Waterkeeper. MR. TRAVER-So the comment sounded like they were looking for a vegetative swale almost. MRS. MOORE-Additional plantings in the basins. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Do you have any comment on that? MR. MAC ELROY-A shallow grass depression is certainly a suitable stormwater device, with the Park Commission’s regulations. Obviously we’ve talked with Raymond about it. The recommendation, suggestion I should say is that we do plantings within the shallow, instead of grass. You might add some plantings. MR. SHIRVELL-The landscaper would do that. MR. MAC ELROY-It would be in the areas of the shallow depressions. MR. TRAVER-So you do have plans to do some additional landscaping. MR. SHIRVELL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? Are we comfortable moving forward? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We have a resolution. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-I thought I did. If not, I will now close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DEEB-And the holding tanks were approved already. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 56-2021 RAYMOND & LINDA SHIRVELL The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a one story, 1,067 sq. ft. residential home. The project includes clearing the lot, installing well, septic holding tanks, stormwater management and driveway area. An existing 100 sq. ft. shed is to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/21/2021 and continued the public hearing to 09/21/2021, 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 09/21/2021; 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) 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 56-2021 RAYMOND & LINDA SHIRVELL; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: h. signage, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The items are appropriate for waiver requests 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. h) Addition of plantings to be placed in the swale. st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of September 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. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Raymond, it was a pleasure having you here. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Robert Glenning, Site Plan 57-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT GLENNING. AGENT(S): BRIAN TABER, SCHRADER & COMPANY CONSTRUCTION. OWNER(S): ROBERT GLENNING. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 5 DUNCAN COVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A RENOVATION ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR REMOVAL OF TWO DORMERS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE DORMER OF ABOUT 78 SQ. FT., NEW FLOOR AREA ADDED IS 45 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,676 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 6-1990, SP 19-1990, SP 25-1991, AV 22-1991, AV 37-1991. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .42 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-3. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. BRIAN TABER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The application proposes to complete the renovation of the second floor for removal of two dormers to construct a single dormer of about 78 square feet. The new floor area added is about 45 square feet. The existing home is 2,676 square feet and that’s the footprint to remain with no changes. Again, this is before the Board because site plan review is required for new floor area in the Waterfront zone in a CEA. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. TABER-My name is Brian Taber. I’m the Director of Planning of Schrader and Company, here representing Robert Glenning. This pales in comparison to the Foil presentation. It’s a couple of dormers coming off and one dormer being replaced. We’re actually going to create about 78 square feet of new space within the footprint. MR. TRAVER-And was that the purpose of changing the dormer? MR. TABER-Well I think I submitted a photo, two photos of the wall that’s right in the way. So if you lay in bed that’s what you see right now. So you’d have this same reaction. If you walked into the bedroom you’d say why the heck did they put this wall. We talked about this project a couple of years ago. MR. TRAVER-Okay. It’s fairly straightforward I would say. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-This is easily the most straightforward project of the evening. MR. TRAVER-Yes. There is a public hearing on this application. However, I see no one in the audience, but I will ask if there’s any written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Yes. So again we do have one from Chris Navitsky. He again couldn’t be here. So I’ll read this into the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-“The above referenced site plan review application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper is not opposed to the proposed application and encourages the Planning Board to take the opportunity to bring the property in compliance with environmental protection measures implemented in the Town Code. The Waterkeeper recommends the following to improve mitigation measures from the proposed site development: The Planning Board should require the applicant to install stormwater management for the collection and treatment for runoff from existing impervious surfaces to the greatest extent practicable. This can be accomplished through Low Impact Development measures by directing runoff into rain gardens and shallow depressed vegetated areas promoting infiltration and not require any structural measures. The Planning Board should require compliance with §179-8-040 to restore shoreline buffers for water quality protection as intended by the Town Board. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. MR. TABER-May I ask who is this person and what is a Waterkeeper? MR. TRAVER-Yes, you may ask. The Waterkeeper works for a non-profit organization and is basically an advocate for environmental protections of the lake, and in addition has professional qualifications and quite often will evaluation applications that are in the CEA or in the immediate and often reminds us of the need to try to increase the protections for the lake, as apparently he’s advocating in this instance. So the concern seemed to be about stormwater management. Can you comment on that? MR. TABER-I can’t really because we’re not really changing too much there. We still have the same roof plate. We still have the same dormer. So what’s there seems enough, but below our project there is an existing rain gutter and it directs it towards the north, away from the lake. So we’re not impacting the site whatsoever. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it, as often is the case when we have pre-existing applications that come before us, especially if they’re in the CEA, we do try to take advantage of the opportunity, if it’s appropriate and we can, to improve the environmental controls. MR. TABER-Mr. Glenning wants to follow the rules. MR. TRAVER-The issue, an increasing issue for us is stormwater runoff into the lake. Shoreline buffering and such. So I suspect, although obviously we don’t have the information in front of us, that there are stormwater controls to some degree in place. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) MR. TABER-I would assume so. I don’t know. Mr. Glenning bought this house I think three years ago now. The original home was built in ’91. MR. TRAVER-If we could advocate that the owner take a look at that issue. Because for example of the things that we have that’s a potential for an increasing hazard is toxic algae blooms in the lake, and one of the things that contributes to their creation is stormwater runoff. So it’s actually in the property owner’s interest, in addition to all of us around the lake, that stormwater mitigation be added where it’s needed, and it’s cheap insurance. Anyone have any other questions, comments? Do we have a resolution? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And for the record we’ll close the public hearing. I don’t believe that I remembered to do that before we made the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 57-2021 ROBERT GLENNING The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a renovation on the second floor for removal of two dormers to construct a single dormer of about 78 sq. ft., new floor area added is 45 sq. ft. The existing home is 2,676 sq. ft. (footprint) and to remain with no changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/21/2021 and continued the public hearing to 09/21/2021 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 09/21/2021; 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 57-2021 ROBERT GLENNING; 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 items are appropriate for waiver requests for these items as the project is not changing the site or footprint of the building – the construction is replacing a two dorm construction with a single dorm. 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. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/21/2021) st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of September 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. TABER-Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? If not, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 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, everyone. Thank you, and we’ll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 34