Loading...
11-18-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 58-2021 Steve McDevitt 2. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-58 Site Plan No. 67-2021 Faden Enterprises, Inc. 4. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-49 Site Plan No. 70-2021 Francis & Erin Steinbach 9. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18 Site Plan No. 69-2021 Judith Dooley 9. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-8 Site Plan No. 73-2021 William Mason 12. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-44 Discussion Item 6-2021 FHB Main Street Apartments 14. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-24, 309-10-1-25 Discussion Item 8-2021 Foothills Builders/Jeff Meyer 17. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-79 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 11/18/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for thrd Thursday, November 18, 2021. This is our second meeting for the month of November and our 23 meeting thus far for 2021. You’ll notice that we have some illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency, that is the emergency exit. If you have a cellphone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off, we’d appreciate that, so that our meeting is not disrupted. We do have a few public hearings this evening. All but two of the projects we’ll be looking at have public hearings, and those hearings will be announced as they come up. I wanted to mention as well, we do record the minutes of the meeting, and there’s a lot of very relevant information that we receive from a number of the applicants that we have to consider, so when of the things that we’d like to appreciate is that if the members of the audience could refrain from having discussions while they’re in this room, other than during the public hearing. We understand certainly that there may be items that come up and you want to talk about things or are preparing for your presentation. All we ask is that you go out to the outer lobby for those discussions so that things can remain quiet in here aside from the recording that’s actually in the minutes. We’d appreciate that. We have one administrative item this evening, and that is the discussion about our draft 2022 calendar. Hopefully everybody’s had a chance to take a look at that. I did have one brief discussion with regarding to the December 2022 meeting. There’s an option for the second meeting th for either the 20 or the Tuesday/Thursday option that we’re exercising this year, and at least two of us thththth felt that the schedule of the 13 and the 15 would be preferable to the 13 and the 20. I don’t know how other members feel about that. That would be a Tuesday/Thursday format similar to what we’re doing this month and next month. MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds fair. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So with that, are there any other comments or suggestions for changes or issues or do members feel comfortable adopting this draft schedule? MRS. MOORE-So I think there’s one item that I have that we can amend in the future. I think it’s the primary election that may adjust the June schedule, and I want to make sure. I did a little bit of research on my phone, and I don’t want to trust my phone data. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MRS. MOORE-So you can approve it, and then if something changes we can amend that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think that we understand it’s something that’s subject to change. We also have the three potential additional meeting for what we call, we’ve come to call the growing season in the spring when we have a lot of applications to consider. March, April and May we have a potential for a third meeting scheduled, and that’s something that will be discussed as that approaches, but with that, if there’s no other comments or changes, we just need a motion, I guess, to approve the meeting date schedule, proposed meeting date schedule for 2022. MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2022 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING CALENDAR MOTION TO APPROVE CALENDAR YEAR 2022 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES. (ADJUST DECEMBER TO DECEMBER 13 AND DECEMBER 15 2022) Introduced by Michael Valentine who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 18 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Now we move to our regular agenda. The first section is tabled items, and the first item is Steve McDevitt, Site Plan 58-2021. TABLED ITEMS: 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 TWO ADDITIONS: A 320 SQ. FT. GREAT ROOM AND A 128 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND A 448 SQ. FT. SECOND ADDITION WHERE 266 SQ. FT. IS FLOOR AREA. THE ALTERATIONS INCLUDE MOVING A DOWNSTAIRS OFFICE UPSTAIRS AND CONVERTING DOWNSTAIRS SPACE TO A LAUNDRY ROOM. A CRAWL SPACE WILL BE INCLUDED UNDER THE ADDITION. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 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; STEVE MC DEVITT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is the two additions of great room on the first floor with a screened porch and then a second floor addition that acts as their office. They’re converting downstairs area into living area, moving the laundry to the main floor and in regards to last evening’s Zoning Board meeting, those variances for relief were granted. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. KEIL-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So you did receive your variances from the Zoning Board. MR. KEIL-Yes, we did. MR. TRAVER-And as a result of your conversation with them, were there any changes to your proposal as we reviewed? MR. KEIL-From the last time we did it, we eliminated the, on the advice of the concerned, we eliminated the basement, the addition. MR. TRAVER-From a full to a crawl space, right. MR. KEIL-That was the change. MR. TRAVER-And that was the extent of the change? MR. KEIL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions or comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-I have one question. On the first map it shows that the existing wastewater system which is in the northwest corner of the property will be retained. Is that functioning properly and has that been looked at or whatever? MR. KEIL-That is, yes. There’s been a certification as part of the inspection for the property. There’s no additional bedrooms. MR. SHAFER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If there are no other questions, we do have a public hearing on this application. Are there members of the audience that wanted to speak to the Planning Board about this application? I’m not seeing any takers. Are there written comments, Laura? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. This one is, “We are writing in support of the building addition planned for 32 North Lane, Lake George, NY. Steve and Ellen McDevitt are our neighbors and they have shared their plans with us. We would like to let the Planning and Zoning Board know we believe the addition will maintain the character of the neighborhood and be a complement to our adjacent properties. Sincerely, Tim and Kathy Bechard 3 North Lane” And then the second one is, “I am writing in support of the building addition planned for 32 North Lane, Lake George, NY. Steve and Ellen McDevitt are our neighbors and they have shared their plans with us and we would like to let the Planning Board and the Zoning Board know we believe the addition will maintain the character of the neighborhood and be a complement to our adjacent properties. We are Kim & Tony Cavaretta and we live at 28 North Lane, Lake George, NY 12845. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kim Cavaretta” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. With that, then, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And if there are no other questions from members of the Board, we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 58-2021 STEVE MC DEVITT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes two additions: a 320 sq. ft. great room and a 128 sq. ft. screen porch on the first floor and a 448 sq. ft. second addition where 266 sq. ft. is floor area. The alterations include moving a downstairs office upstairs and converting downstairs space to a laundry room. A crawl space will be included under the addition. Site work includes stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 21, 2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on November 17, 2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on September 28, 2021 and continued the public hearing to November 18, 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 November 18, 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 58-2021 STEVE MCDEVITT; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; items g. site lighting, h. signage, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are reasonable to request as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant provided information about the project j. stormwater k. topography and p floor plans. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 18 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Thank you. You’re all set. The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Faden Enterprises, Inc., Site Plan Modification 67-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 67-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. OWNER(S): CLM EMPIRE LLC. ZONING CM. LOCATION: 894 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SITE PLAN TO MAINTAIN WALL PACK LIGHTS ON THE BUILDING THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN APPROVED. THE WALL MOUNTS ARE LOCATED IN THE DESIGN PEAKS OF THE BUILDING. THE EXISTING 11,793 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND SITE WORK WILL REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-020, 179-9-120, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 34- 2018, SP 36-2018 DEMO & REBUILD, SP 27-2019 MODIFICATION. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. LOT SIZE: 1.22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-49. SECTION 179-6-020, 179-9-120. PAUL LUBERA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan to maintain the wall pack lights on the building that are different than approved. The current wall fixtures are non-compliant with the Code and the previous approvals. The wall mounts are located in the design peaks of the building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LUBERA-Good evening. My name’s Paul Lubera from Lansing Engineering representing the client. As stated the wrong wall packs were installed by the contractor. The lighting company sent the wrong ones. We did a photometric analysis showing that there are very small changes from the approved plan as a result of that, and we’re asking to keep the ones we have. MR. TRAVER-The contractor would have looked at the site plan before doing the work. Correct? MR. LUBERA-I would assume so. Yes. MR. TRAVER-So if they installed the unapproved and non-Code compliant lighting, would they not be responsible to make it correct? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. LUBERA-I believe so but I’m not quite sure of the agreement between the contractor and the client. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Presumably there would be a contract including compliance with the site plan. All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from other members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well the lights were supposed to be downcast and they’re half downcast. Because what you’re doing is you’re getting light coming out from the building, and that’s spilling out onto Route 9. It’s minimal. I saw the numbers. I mean they dropped to, what, two tenths of a point maybe from the new to the old, but really what it is, what concerns me more is the shining that you see looking at them from across the street, especially with all the traffic that comes out of Wal-Mart. That light is not cut off. Even though it’s not spilling out, it’s still that bright LED white light that is, something with the LED”s, they’re just more intense. You can see it in the cars. There’s a big difference between the ones that have the white lights and the ones that have the little yellow ones, and they throw off great light, but for you and I, you know, especially I shouldn’t be saying this as I get older, I think my eyes are becoming more sensitive, and that would be my only concern. I mean I can understand, you know, lighting not being on the shelfs. They had to substitute it because they couldn’t get it in time from the manufacturer., I understand that, but I just, it’s not a downcast, complete downcast that will come down and spill out lower. It does have that half lens that actually protrudes out, too. So that’s, I think what we try to do in Queensbury in all our buildings. MR. DEEB-Can I ask you what the problem is with putting the correct lights in there? MR. LUBERA-I cannot speak to that. The client has not determined why, we’d rather keep them than have to have somebody back in and re-install them, but that’s why we’re asking. MR. DEEB-Well, I mean, I don’t understand. If the contractor’s responsible, he’s responsible for putting the right lights in. I mean the site plan was specific. I think you really have to follow the site plan. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on the Faden Enterprises site plan modification application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-How do Board members feel? MR. SHAFER-Just to clarify. The lights that are there, are there because he couldn’t get the ones cited on the site plan? MR. LUBERA-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Any idea what the timeframe might have been to wait for those? MR. LUBERA-I can look into that for you, but I do not know offhand. No. MR. SHAFER-It would have delayed the opening, though. MR. LUBERA-Yes. MR. DEEB-I’m just not comfortable. I really feel that they can wait and get the new lights. MR. VALENTINE-Or they could have come to the Town and said, hey, guys, I can’t get it to work. I can’t get what I need for what we have on the plans. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I suspect that there are more options for Code compliant lights than what the particular contractor may have had on the shelf. I mean there’s not just one type of light that can be used I’m sure. Okay. Well, I’m not hearing a lot of support for approving this non-compliant lighting. So if that is the, well let me poll the Board. How do members feel? Do we want to allow this or do we want to deny it? MR. VALENTINE-I’d call the motion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. DEEB-Well unless he wants to table. MR. SHAFER-Just a quick question. I didn’t get a chance to look at it at night. Is there a light that actually spills out onto 9? MR. TRAVER-The lights are not fully downcast and they’re not Code compliant, and they’re not what is approved. So there’s three different negative items, not approved, not Code compliant and not fully downcast. MR. SHAFER-Yes, but do they spill light out onto Route 9? MR. TRAVER-Well they’re not fully downcast. So they spill light where they shouldn’t. MR. DEEB-Well, according to Brad. Brad saw them. Brad, do they spill out onto Route 9? MR. MAGOWAN-No, it’s not that it spills out, you know, but it’s like the north star. You look around it’s the brightest star and you always see the darn thing, right. Especially when you’re sitting across from Wal-Mart, or coming down the road, you know, it’s that bright light. So that’s what we’re trying to get away from in the Town is those lights shining out. It makes a big difference on the eyes. MR. TRAVER-It does. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean if everybody were bright your eyes would be adjusted to that, but the problem is you’re coming down and everybody’s Code compliant and you’ve got this one building that isn’t and it blinds you. MR. VALENTINE-And that takes the next person that comes in with an application and gets the certain specs for his lights and says well gee we had it on 149 before, that was his excuse, right across the street. MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s really not trying to bust Mr. Faden. He did a beautiful job on the building, but my opinion, it would be up to the electrical contractor that didn’t, and I understand if there’s a time delay, you couldn’t get what you needed, you know, due to the Pandemic. MR. TRAVER-He couldn’t get what he wanted. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t get something that was Code compliant. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So you can potentially call your vote, but just so the applicant understands, if you wish to table it, you can table it. It wouldn’t be on until a future meeting date, and if you understand the poll of the Board at this time, you could always, if you are able to get a Code compliant light in, you could withdraw your application. So is that all right to explain that? MR. TRAVER-I understand that option. My only concern is that if it’s tabled it may remain unresolved longer than if it’s denied. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So we do have a draft motion. Why don’t we see where that goes. MR. DEEB-Why don’t we table it for three months? MR. TRAVER-And then we’re going to have the lighting issue for three months. MR. MAGOWAN-Not really. I think he’ll do it pretty quick. I mean he’s a pretty fair guy. If he can get the lights. MR. DEEB-I’ll do the motion. Do you want me to do the motion? MR. TRAVER-Yes, please. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP MOD. # 67-2021 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan to maintain wall pack lights on the building that are different than approved. The wall mounts are located in the design peaks of the building. The existing 11,793 sq. ft. building and site work will remain with no changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-020, 179-1-020, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 16, 2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on November 17, 2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on November 18, 2021 and continued the public hearing to November 18, 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 November 18, 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 MODIFICATION 67-2021 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC.; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: 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) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Seconded by ______Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Maria, can you call the vote for us, please. MR. DEEB-We’ve got to get a second. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. We didn’t get a second. So did we get a second? MR. VALENTINE-It dies. MR. TRAVER-All right. So then we need a motion to deny. Right? MR. MAGOWAN-Or can we modify the motion? I mean why are we voting on a yes, because of the year? MR. TRAVER-It’s the draft resolution that was provided. So we are not acting on the approval. So the next step, my understanding would be the next step would be to have a motion to deny and see if that gets a second. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-What about tabling it for two months and hopefully by that time they’ll have new lights up. MR. TRAVER-Well that would be a third option if we still can’t get a second for a denial motion. Then the only option left would be a tabling. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I hate to deny it and see him have to fill out another application and come back. MR. TRAVER-No, he just has to come into compliance. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Whatever’s simplest. I mean I hate to put a business owner in a pinch like that. MR. DEEB-Well it’s up to you if you want to table it. You can ask to table it. MR. MAGOWAN-I know in the field sometimes how things go. You needed a CO with the lights on. MR. LUBERA-We’d like to table it if all possible and we’ll talk about it. We want to comply. I’m not telling you that we’re actively trying to circumvent the rules or anything. Mr. Faden wants to keep doing business in the Town. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. Well how do Board members feel about tabling it, then and then this goes unresolved. MRS. MOORE-If you’re going to table it, then table it to a January meeting. MR. TRAVER-January? Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m happy with that. I think that’s a fair process. MR. TRAVER-All right. Information would be needed by December 15, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-What meeting in January? th MRS. MOORE-January 18. th MR. DEEB-And information by December 17? th MRS. MOORE-Correct. It ends up being, no, December 15. MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP MOD 67-2021 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan to maintain wall pack lights on the building that are different than approved. The wall mounts are located in the design peaks of the building. The existing 11,793 sq. ft. building and site work will remain with no changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-020, 179-1-020, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 67-2021 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the January 18, 2022 Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting with information to be th submitted by December 15, 2021. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-And for purposes of tabling, you’re going to re-open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. TRAVER-Yes, very good. Yes. We will do that. We have closed the public hearing. However, since we are tabling it we will re-open the public hearing, we will leave it open until the applicant returns in January. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and the first item is Francis & Erin Steinbach. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 211 ASSEMBLY POINT DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE AN EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. HOME FOOTPRINT TO INSTALL A FULL BASEMENT WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,550 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REMOVAL OF A 444 SQ. FT. REAR DOCK TO CONSTRUCT A 356 SQ. FT. DECK; SITE HAS PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR 154 SQ. FT. ADDITION. THE FRONT DECK OF 22 SQ. FT. IS TO BE REMOVED TO CONSTRUCT A 458 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 1,949 SQ. FT. INCREASED TO 2,786 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38- 1995 ADDITION, SEP-0657-2019, SP 15-2020, AV 74-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-18. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-And I understand, Laura, that as a result of their conversation with the ZBA, this item is to be tabled to January? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. They are anticipating a change in their plans. However, we will open the public hearing, because we are tabling this, and we will leave the public hearing open until they return in January, and I believe we have a draft resolution. MR. DEEB-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SP MOD 70-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH. , Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. home footprint to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft.. The project includes a removal of a 444 sq. ft. rear dock to construct a 356 sq. ft. deck; site has previous approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The front deck of 220 sq. ft. is to be removed to construct a 458 sq. ft. deck. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. increased to 2,786 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA 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. Tabled until the January 25, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by December 15, 2021. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-The next item is Judith Dooley, Site Plan 69-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 69-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JUDITH DOOLEY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2964 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW DECK CONFIGURATION FOR THE UPPER, MAIN LEVEL LANDING AREA FACING THE SHORE. THE PREVIOUS DECK SYSTEM IS 305 SQ. FT. MAIN FLOOR, 156 SQ. FT. LANDING/DECK, AND 15 SQ. FT. STAIRS FOR A TOTAL OF 476 SQ. FT. PROPOSED DECKING IS 60 SQ. FT. UPPER DECK, 300 SQ. FT. MAIN FLOOR, 24.5 SQ. FT. LANDING AND 38 SQ. FT. STAIRS FOR A TOTAL OF 422.5 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING HOME’S FOOTPRINT OF 1,141 SQ. FT. REMAINS, ONLY DECK CONSTRUCTION CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AST 355-2019 BOATHOUSE & SUNDECK, AV 73-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .16 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-8. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010. JUDITH DOOLEY, PRESENT 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a re-configuration of the decking system, actually replacing it with, there’s an upper level deck to be replaced, a main level deck and a landing area, and the applicant did receive their setback variances at the Zoning Board of Appeals last night. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MS. DOOLEY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So as a result of your conversation with the ZBA, were there any changes to your plan from what we reviewed? MS. DOOLEY-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any follow up questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I would like to just make one comment. When you were removing the existing walk from the boathouse there, I would just caution you be as careful as you can. Try to keep everything out of the lake. MS. DOOLEY-Absolutely. MR. DIXON-Other than that. MR. TRAVER-Are you planning on having a contractor perform the work? MS. DOOLEY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good point. Okay. Thank you. Well, if there’s nothing else, then we’ll entertain a motion. MRS. MOORE-You need to open the public hearing. I do have one comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks, Laura. So we’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Planning Board on the Judith Dooley, Site Plan 69-2021? I’m not seeing anyone. You have written comment, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Yes. This is, “My name is Joe Didio. I reside year-round at 2966 State Route 9L, Lake George in Dunham Bay. I am writing in regards to the Ordinance Reference – 179-3-040, 179-13-010, application by Judith Dooley of 2964 State Route 9L, Lake George. I live year-round in the home directly to the south of the proposed project. We have no objection – in fact endorse the project proposed by Judith Dooley. The deck proposed is actually smaller in size and safer than the existing deck. We believe it will also be more attractive and improve the appearance of their residence from all vantage points. Respectfully, Joseph J. Didio 2966 State Route 9L, Lake George, NY 12845” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. With that we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And if there are no other questions or comments from members of the Board, we are ready for entertaining a motion. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP # 69-2021 JUDITH DOOLEY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a new deck configuration for the upper, main level landing area facing the shore. The previous deck system is 305 sq. ft. main floor, 156 sq. ft. landing/deck, and 15 sq. ft. stairs for a total of 476 sq. ft.. Proposed decking is 60 sq. ft. upper deck, 300 sq. ft. main floor, 24.5 sq. ft. landing, and 38 sq. ft. stairs for a total of 422.5 sq. ft.. The existing home’s footprint of 1,151 sq. ft. remains, only deck construction changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 16, 2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on November 17, 2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on November 18, 2021 and continued the public hearing to November 18, 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 November 18, 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 69-2021 JUDITH DOOLEY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted ; g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are reasonable to request as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MS. DOOLEY-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is William Mason, Site Plan 73-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 73-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM MASON. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15 TUSCARORA DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 768 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. ONE STORY HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 16 SQ. FT. NEW PORCH LANDING ENTRY AND A SMALLER ACCESS LANDING TO THE EXISTING PORCH. THE HOME HAS AN EXISTING ONE BEDROOM AND THE SECOND FLOOR WILL ADD THREE MORE BEDROOMS.. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONNECTION TO THE TAKUNDEWIDE COMMUNITY SEPTIC AND WATER SUPPLY FROM THE LAKE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010, SITE PLAN FOR AN EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING AND A NEW FLOOR IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: TAKUNDEWIDE MOU, AV 75-2021 WARREN CO. PLANNING: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, L G P C, CEA. LOT SIZE: .05 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-44. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010. WILLIAM MASON, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is for an existing 768 square foot addition which is for a second story to the existing 768 square foot home, and again, this has an entry porch of 16 square feet on one side and then the smaller access landing on the other side and it’s also part of the Takundewide community septic and the water supply and they received their variances at last night’s meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. MASON-Thank you. William Mason representing the owner. MR. TRAVER-You did receive your variances. Were there any changes to you plans as a result of your discussion with the ZBA? MR. MASON-No changes at all. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No, we’ve seen at least the second one if not the third one of these. You’ve got it down, Mr. Mason. MR. MASON-I’ve done a few of them. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on William Mason, 73-2021? I’m not seeing any. Are there written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No, there are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If there are no other questions from members of the Board, then we’ll entertain that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 73-2021 WILLIAM MASON The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 768 sq. ft. one story home. The project includes a 16 sq. ft. new porch landing entry and a smaller access landing to the existing porch. The home has an existing one bedroom and the second floor will add three more bedrooms. The project includes connection to the Takundewide community septic and water supply from the lake. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010, site plan for an expansion of non-conforming and a new floor 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; 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 16, 2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on November 17, 2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on November 18, 2021 and continued the public hearing to November 18, 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 November 18, 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 73-2021 WILLIAM MASON; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; Planning staff has reviewed the applicants request for waivers that include items g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are reasonable to request as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 18 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. MASON-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Discussion Items. There are two this evening. The first is FHB Main Street Apartments. This is Discussion Item 6-2021. DISCUSSION ITEMS: DISCUSSION ITEM 6-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FHB MAIN STREET APARTMENTS. OWNER(S): RONALD NEWELL, DELWYN MULDER. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 78-80 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT REQUESTS A DISCUSSION/SKETCH PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AT 78-80 MAIN STREET. THE PROJECT INVOLVES TEAR DOWN NEW BUILD OF A 3 STORY BUILDING. THE BUILDING WILL CONTAIN 22 APARTMENTS AND OFFICE/MIXED USE ON THE MAIN LEVEL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-7-070 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE BUILDING FOR RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE UNDER MAIN STREET ZONING GUIDELINES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: TAKUNDEWIDE MOU WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR DISCUSSION. LOT SIZE: .31 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-1.24, 309.10-1-25. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-7-070. MATT HUNTINGTON & JOE LEUCI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a sketch plan information for new development of property at 78- 80 Main Street. The project involves tearing down the existing buildings and constructing a complex of 22 apartments on the upper floor and an office, mixed use on the main floor. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening. Matt Huntington with Studio A, here with Joe Leuci of Foothills Builders. Like Laura said, this is on 78 to 80 Main Street and right now there’s currently an existing single family residence there and what we’re here for right now is to get some informal feedback from the Board before we proceed with putting a full site plan application in with all the engineering controls and landscape buffering. So what we have here is a preliminary plan kind of depicting the proposed development. In accordance with the Main Street standards, we put all the parking in the rear of the building and there’s an existing curb cut on the left of the screen up there. It’s currently approximately about 12 feet wide or so. So that’ll be widened to 22 to 24 feet to allow two way traffic in and out. Currently the required parking, in accordance with the Town standards with the mixed use and the 22 apartments, is 46 spaces. We’re showing 41 currently. In accordance with the Town Code we understand that the Board has the ability to waive up to 50% of the parking requirements for a multiple use property, and what we’re looking at here, we may lose an additional four to five parking spaces, because what is shown on the plan right now, what will be is most likely in the lower right hand corner we’ll have a refuse area and snow storage. So that will be one thing we’ll be looking for, based on the parking relief. The reason being is it’s a relatively tight lot and additionally with 22 apartments we’d still be providing the minimum 36 spaces, even with the snow storage and the refuse area and to get the bottom floor is about 8600 square feet that’ll be commercial space. So there’s a fair amount of parking for that as is. That interior area, that courtyard area, will be designed and landscaped as we progress here with various site amenities. Also in addition we’re pretty well in compliance with everything on the Main Street standards site wise. There’s 60% of the lot width requirement for a building. We take up at least about 60% of the lot right now. We’re at approximately 78 and on the right side of the screen we’ve provided a five foot setback from the property, simply because it’s adjacent to a residential use. So we thought it would be a good idea possibly to put some buffering or fence there, and then we can actually access that side of the building. That’s really the project in a nutshell. We’ll open it up if the Board has any feedback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’ll open it up for discussion with the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think we can get stormwater on the site? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, I apologize. I overlooked that. So we’re in the process of scheduling test pits on the property. In the past we’ve done some development over the years on Garner Street, which is kind of behind there. Most of that area is very sandy soil with pretty deep depth to groundwater. So our intention here is underneath the parking lot what we’re going to be proposing is installation of infiltrators. They’ll be sized in accordance with the Town Code for the 50 year storm. We’re disturbing less than an acre of land. So there’s really no EZ requirements for it, just meeting that 50 year design storm for the Town, you know, in our experience with stormwater design, there’s certainly ample space under that parking lot to be able to provide enough infiltrators for that. So everything from the building is going to be routed into that area. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the concern, looking at your initial plan, is there’s not a lot of green space there. So that’s the first thing that comes to mind is where is the stormwater going to go. You talked about snow storage. Those are the issues that I anticipate, but I mean I think it’s a great concept, and it really, in my mind, well, I don’t want to say it’s the first, well it is one of the first buildings to embrace the Main Street design standards. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s what I saw. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a good project. MR. DIXON-I find it a very interesting project. A couple of concerns that, as you move forward through, would be, again, you have a residential area next to you. I’d be aware of that when you’re planning it out, whether it’s a fence, lighting. That’s going to be very important. The Main Street elevation when I look at it, even at this point, do you have an idea of what you’re going to have for roofing? If it’s a metal roof I’d be concerned with snow coming down because you’re going to be very close to the sidewalk on Main Street and some of us have probably experienced snow coming off a metal roof. So just things to think about as you progress. MR. HUNTINGTON-Certainly. I don’t think, the roofing material we’ve been told the siding yet. One thing there is about 10 feet between the building and the sidewalk that would be there, and that’s going to be vegetated as well. So I mean there is some room there before it lands on the sidewalk. MR. VALENTINE-How’s your roof peaking on that five foot side? MR. HUNTINGTON-There are elevations here. MR. VALENTINE-So everything is going to pitch, going to come to the front sidewalk? MR. HUNTINGTON-The front and back. There’s kind of a gable down the center of the building. There’s a slight gable, but again right now a lot of this is preliminary. I mean, that’s the general look of the building, but obviously that needs to be advanced to show that it complies with all the architectural standards. So roofing pitches is certainly something that we look at. MR. TRAVER-I like the courtyard concept. That’s kind of neat. MR. SHAFER-Have you thought about colors at all yet? MR. HUNTINGTON-I have not. That’s more of an architectural question. MR. LEUCI-It’s still pretty early on that. We’re hoping to have an architectural view. MR. TRAVER-Did you want to suggest a color scheme? Did you want to suggest, give them some guidance on what you think would be a good color scheme? MR. SHAFER-The Board likes earth tones. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you look across the street, you know, at Fowlers Square, one of the things the at makes those buildings so attractive is the multiple textures of the siding. So this would be a good project to think about, you know, not exactly what they’ve done, but. MR. LEUCI-We can look at that. MR. DEEB-How did you come up with the 22 units? MR. HUNTINGTON-We kind of worked backwards into the size of the building, based on what we calculated the need for parking and based on the width of the lots, the full size of the parking to see what would fit. We didn’t want tiny apartments and we didn’t want them to be oversized and cumbersome. So we just kind of picked a size we wanted them to be. MR. DEEB-The apartments are going to be about 800 square feet? MR. LEUCI-6 to 800 on the smaller end, and a little larger for the two bedrooms. Two bedrooms we were able to incorporate a little bathroom space, too. MR. DEEB-It’s a unique concept. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. DIXON-You bring an interesting item here. As we start to see more development on Main Street and we’ve got residential area, where do people come out and have green space. Maybe we can encourage some County officials to open up the wallet and put a pocket park in down in that area. MR. DEEB-Any idea, and I know it’s early yet, but you’ve got commercial on the first floor, any idea what you’re looking for, for commercial space? MR. LEUCI-We haven’t really started searching yet. We’re kind of waiting to see where the meeting went. We’ve had some success with more boutique commercial, being able to split that up little bit into smaller stores. MR. DEEB-Which will be nice for the tenants and people living there, something they can walk to. MR. VALENTINE-How do you find, have you talked to anybody about financing? Because in other places that I’ve seen mixed use, is that financing, they’re okay with the residential aspect, and then they start to balk with any retail or commercial. MR. LEUCI-We’ve had preliminary conversations. A lot of times, you know, they’ll give you credit in advance for the residential, but they want to see leases in places of commercial. MR. DIXON-I was just checking with Laura to see if we allow on-site parking on Main Street. So that gets to be a little tricky, too. If you’re looking at professional office space on that first floor, where would you expect people to park, unless you remember to cut the curbs back and get creative there. MR. VALENTINE-One of the aspects, when you start to get into, you know, shared use, that type of stuff, is that you’re looking at offsets of time, and if you’ve got residential units there, they’re not going to be home with their vehicle at the same time that somebody’s going to be coming to a commercial establishment, depending on who you lease to. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point. MR. VALENTINE-But that may be something for us to look at, as you start looking at parking standards. I don’t know how it was developed in Main Street Code. MR. TRAVER-Well, in a lot of respects that’s left up to us by individual projects. Do you have any questions for us? MR. HUNTINGTON-No, nothing in particular. We just wanted to talk to you and get a little feedback like I said before as we progress. That way we can kind of head off some things that we know you’re looking for in the next plan. MR. DEEB-So you will have no variances. MR. HUNTINGTON-Right now no variances. The only thing we’d be looking for relief from would be the parking requirements and in accordance with the Town Code it’s the Planning Board that can offer that relief. MR. VALENTINE-Can you do me a favor? On that can you pinpoint where those residential structures are that you’re going to have? Where are we at? And what’s around it? MRS. MOORE-So these two lots. MR. HUNTINGTON-Laura’s on the lot right now. So the existing house will be removed, and then that lot to the right of it right now really only has a driveway on it. That’s the residential construction, the residential structure that the house or the new building will be closest to, that five foot side yard setback. So that’s the area, that’s the reason we left some setback there because there’s actually a zero setback allowed in the Main Street district. MR. VALENTINE-What’s that larger structure across the street? MR. HUNTINGTON-That is a Subway shop. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. That’s what I thought. Adirondack Trust. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-The Adirondack Trust with the confusing entrance arrows. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-It would be nice to see it develop and see the Comprehensive Plan come through. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that’s not an updated photo, because now there’s a bank on the corner. MRS. MOORE-There’s a bank right here. MR. MAGOWAN-He was just in here, the Faden project. He did that one and the one on Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well if there’s nothing else, then it sounds like you’re headed in the right direction for sure. MR. HUNTINGTON-Great. We appreciate it. MR. MAGOWAN-If push came to shove, you know, on parking size and all that and figuring it all out, to me I’d rather go with what you feel that, you know, within reason, and, you know, if not you’d have to go with some car lifts, the ones you can drive in and park under. I mean you have some other properties. That whole area is growing. So, you know, who knows, if it turns out to be successful. I like the design, and the first thing I said was there’s the first really application that came from the Main Street corridor and that Chris and the team worked so hard to pull that all together. So I was excited to see that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thanks very much. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-So the next item on our agenda is also a discussion item, Foothills Builders, Jeff Meyer. This is Discussion Item 8-2021. DISCUSSION ITEM 8-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/JEFF MEYER. OWNER(S): MEAD’S NURSERY, INC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 361 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS A DISCUSSION FOR A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP AN 11 ACRE SITE WITH 77 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS; 19 BUILDINGS WITH 4 UNITS PER BUILDING. THE PROJECT WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH A PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE FOR THE EXISTING PARCEL TO BE CHANGED FROM CI TO MDR ZONING. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS CODE LANGUAGE TO BE ADDED TO THE USE TABLE. TH PROJECT WOULD BE THEN SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING PROJECT IN THE MDR ZONE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION ITEMS CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 26-1990 GREENHOUSE CONSTRUCTION. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR DISCUSSION. LOT SIZE: 10.99 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-79. SECTION: 179-9-040. JEFF MEYER, MATT HUNTINGTON & JOSEPH LEUCI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this project is to re-develop an 11 acre site with 77 multi-family units. This includes 19 buildings with four units per building. There’s an associated petition for zone change to go along with this. Change from CI to MDR zoning, and the applicant wanted to come to this Board to get some feedback before they proceeded with their materials for the petition for re-zone. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MEYER-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Meyer. I’m an attorney with Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell in Queensbury. This is Joe Leuci with Foothills Builders. So we are here to just kind of start getting feedback. We’ve been to the Town Board a few times, had multiple meetings, as to the potential re-development of what everyone knows as Mead’s. The current zoning for the site is Commercial Intensive, in part because it had been a nursery for the past 50 years, and it’s adjacent to the road frontage on Quaker. So the zoning district was extended to include Mead’s, and after Mead’s it turns into Moderate Density Residential. What we are hoping to do, looking to do, is to pick up the adjoining zone and re- zone this lot as Moderate Density Residential, and part of that, what we’re also hoping to do, is change the density requirements for what is essentially this type of project, and the best example of this type of project is Turnberry. So everybody presumably knows Turnberry. It’s on Bay Road, and it’s kind of a small townhome kind of a community, and shortly after that was approved, the zoning changed. So you can no longer design or building anything like that really in the Town of Queensbury. The closest you can come is in the Office district and if you’re so many hundred feet away from Bay. So what we are looking to do is in certain conditions allow this type of development in the MDR zone. The conversation that the Town Board is trying to grapple with is, is that universal or is that more specific relative to this project, but that’s their concern. What we’re here to go through and see is, One, whether you’re open to this type of 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) development, and, Two, whether you have strong concerns about the density. What we are proposing is eight dwelling units per acre, which is actually a medium density for Queensbury, outside of the one and two acre lots. It is, it would enable more units than are shown on this plan, and it’s only really going to come into play under certain conditions. So those conditions are water and sewer, which obviously make the whole project work, and ingress and egress on arterial roads and collector roads. It takes it off your main roads, you know, you’re Quaker, your Bay, and it also keeps it out of neighborhoods. The third factor is you have to have at least five acres. So if you’re going to do kind of this larger development project, you need to have enough land to build in the green space, the amenities, the community. So that is kind of roughly what we’re planning to do. What is shown I believe is 77 units. They’re labeled as townhouses. Some of our earlier discussions with the town we were calling them townhouses and they liked it, some didn’t like it. Some though multi-family residential, condominium. There’s three different words for similar structures, similar ownership in Queensbury’s Code. So in order to limit, minimize the number of variances that may be needed, we are calling them multi-family residential, but the use and the theme is the same. They’re row houses, single family dwelling row houses. MR. MAGOWAN-Geez, I would have liked village villas. MR. MEYER-There you go. MR. MAGOWAN-Or city village, you know. MR. MEYER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-So this concept, do these residences all have garages? I’m not seeing a lot of parking. MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-You mentioned water and sewer. Is it available there, municipal water and sewer? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Does the City have the capacity? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s the concern with the sewer particularly. MR. MEYER-We haven’t been told otherwise. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that would be one thing I would look into. I guess the sewage is coming to be like gold. I know the line comes right down Ridge, and also the big line that comes across Meadowbrook there from the pump station. Actually the concept, you know, I looked at it. I really liked the fact that you kept the pond in there. Some really good rich soils in there from so many years of the nursery. It’s a nice fit and I actually, I like the design of the building. They’re kind of low and it tucks right in there, but I guess a couple of things I would look into is, one, you know, sewer capacity, and, two, the school. What school is that you’d be going to, besides Glens Falls and Middle School. The elementary school. I know Jackson Heights is over there. MR. MEYER-Jackson Heights isn’t far. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that’s the closest one, but I don’t know. I’d feel it out with the school. A lot of times it’s, not that it’s a burden, but just to make sure that might be something that the school says we’re full, at capacity. I don’t know, but I like the design and placement, I think it would fit in there nice, and I like the access points on Meadowbrook and Ridge. Joe, you’ve got two good ones tonight. MR. VALENTINE-What do you have, is your water connection on Ridge? It’s on the other side of the street, right? I believe. It’s on the east side of Ridge, the water, which would need a push, because that just got paved and everything. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, I believe there’s actually water on both Meadowbrook and Ridge. So if you come off. MRS. MOORE-The lot, if you can see it, I can turn off this. Those are the water lines. MR. VALENTINE-Well, in that case, if it was on both, then you’d loop through, most likely, with the connection. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. Most of the site actually slopes towards Meadowbrook. So we would probably just go in that direction. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. VALENTINE-The number of units, the question that I would ask, is knowing that those are not great commercial uses on Quaker in that area, does it make any sense at all to pull something in? Is there availability of that? I know that you’re, my concern is, having gone to Mead’s for years, and then just living right around the corner, is I’m just used to, this is an anecdotal decision, the entrance is close to the intersection. So DOT’s going to play into your plans as far as review. I don’t know if there’s a need for a turn lane in there or not on there. That’s something that, Brad’s saying, hey, you want to go out and check on the school district. Well you may want to talk to DOT and see if they’ve got any plans for anything, or will you need it if it comes up in a traffic study, but I was just thinking if there’s nothing there on some of those frontages. NAPA’s there and some of those other places. I don’t know if you’ve got access that you could get onto Quaker through any of those, if you need it. I was just thinking about that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well there is the old diner/whatever there, but I personally, I don’t have a problem with the Ridge and that, having the access to that and Meadowbrook. I mean, you have the option to go, if y you went with a little wider opening there coming off of Ridge so you have that option for a left turn and a right turn lane exiting, but it’s no problem stacking them up and coming out of there. MR. VALENTINE-You’re not going to be in the lane. MR. MEYER-I would think, honestly, that people would just make rights. Use Meadowbrook, if you’re going to go into the City, use Ridge. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but you may take a left out of there, too, and still be using Ridge. MR. MEYER-No, but in terms of internal circulation, I would think that that. MR. MAGOWAN-People will take the easiest flow. They’ll figure it out. MR. DEEB-It was a nursery, and I’m sure you’ve done your homework, about environmental problems on this property. MR. LEUCI-We’ve done a Phase I. Nothing really came up. MR. DEEB-Typically with nurseries they have some problems. MR. TRAVER-Sometimes, yes. Do you have any questions for us? MR. MEYER-No specifically, it was really just to make sure that we were headed down the right path, because this is a project and the rules of the Town require essentially a full blown engineering and site plan to formally proceed with the zoning amendment. We certainly didn’t want to, have as few surprises as possible. MR. DEEB-Well, I think it’s a good project for that side of Town. MR. TRAVER-It’s been for sale forever. MR. DEEB-Yes, and I think it would fit in well. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a good transition from the Commercial Intensive on Quaker Road. MR. VALENTINE-From that to the residential lots. MR. DEEB-I’m just wondering when all these buildings for rent, they’re going to hit a cap. I think you’ve got so many going through now. That’s just a hypothetical question. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Are these rental units, or are they for sale? MR. MEYER-It’s undetermined at this time. Off the top of my head I don’t remember. One of them you can and one of them you can’t. MRS. MOORE-So right now it’s a rental. If they were going to a private ownership it would turn it into a townhouse which would need individual lots. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, then you get into all kinds of setback restrictions. MRS. MOORE-Absolutely. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) MR. MEYER-Until your Comp Plan re-does the Code in a couple of years and you can re-visit that issue at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s interesting this kind of a project isn’t allowed anywhere. I’m sure that was just an oversight by the Town. MR. MEYER-Yes, the density, the way it’s set up is when they changed that, that MDR is a one acre density. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MEYER-And there’s no way, the biggest reason we’re here is there’s, short of this density, you can’t afford the infrastructure. So it really is a cost conscious proposal because really the only way we can work is to have these townhomes, and having been in and around the area, the stuff in Turnberry never comes up for sale, and sells instantly. So there is a high demand. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well thank you very much for your information. MR. MEYER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Before we adjourn for the evening tonight, I wanted to mention to the Board just a kind of reminder if you will. We’re approaching the end of the year. The by-laws call for us to begin to be thinking about next year and officers and so on. I know one specific requirement is that I, as Chair, by the second meeting in November, announce whether or not I’m willing to serve another year, and so I would like to say, if the Board will have me, I would like to serve another year as Chair, and we have a organizational meeting next month where we’ll be having a slate of officers and elections and so on and I know, from speaking with Chris, that he wanted to take a minute and speak to the Board. So, Chris, if you’d like to go ahead and do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. When I spoke with Steve, we talked about the election of officers, and during the course of that discussion, I offered to head up a committee to make recommendations and part of that is because at the end of this year my term is up and I have elected not to request an extension. MR. DEEB-Really? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’ve been on the Board 21 years. And I just decided it was time and there’s good leadership here and Mike’s a good valuable member that can be a full time member. It just feels like the time is right. MR. TRAVER-So I had spoken to Chris earlier in the year and he did remind me that his term, not only his long service, but his term was coming up, and when we chatted the other day, one of the things I said was, if you think the Town is going to let you go, you’re crazy. You may be off the Planning Board, but you’ll be on some special committee or some function I’m sure with that much experience and knowledge. It’s certainly been my experience when I served with Chris when he was Chair, that I learned a tremendous amount and I know this Board has certainly benefitted amazingly from his experience and his insight into a lot of the, especially the more difficult projects we’ve had and so on. So we will certainly be sorry to see him go, but to whatever new function he gets involved in I’m sure he will help us in one way or another. So in any case, next month we do have some time to think about other officer positions, and maybe all of them. Like I say, I don’t know. We’ll have to talk about that, but that’s I guess all I have to say. If anybody else has any other comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just to circle back to the nominating committee. If you want to talk to me about it between now and the next meeting, give me a holler. I will be in touch with some of you and see what your interest is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I did mention, when we spoke, again, as Chris mentioned earlier, I did ask him to get involved in helping us come up with, since he’s leaving as Vice Chair, obviously we need someone to do that as well, and he readily agreed to do that. So, absolutely, Chris, we will be in touch. MR. MAGOWAN-You don’t want to open it up to any, since we’re all here, tonight. MR. VALENTINE-We’re not all here. MR. TRAVER-We’re not all here, although I would say anyone who’s interested in serving to either reach out to Chris or myself and we’re certainly open to that, and I would just also remind members of the Board that when we did revise the By-laws back in 2017, I think it was the year after I became Chair, there is also a provision that, regardless of a nominating committee, or this Board, coming up with a slate of officers, there is nominations also from the floor at the two occasions, I believe . So it’s not restricted to strictly whatever the nominating committee would come up with. So we tried to keep it as open as we could. I 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/2021) know that was a concern prior to my appointment. So when I re-did the Bylaws I made it with several different layers. MR. DEEB-I will say this, guys, if anybody else is interested in being Secretary, don’t be afraid to say so. MR. VALENTINE-I’m asking if you’re staying because I want to make sure that seat’s filled now going forward into January, February, March, April, May with the same person. That’s my thought. MR. DEEB-Well, I have no intention of resigning from the Board. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there’s nothing else, then we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. MAGOWAN-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER TH 18, 2021, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Before I forget, I just want to wish everybody a Happy Thanksgiving. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. JANA DE CAMILLA MS. DE CAMILLA-I just wanted to introduce myself, gentlemen. I am Jana DeCamilla. I just started with the Post Star this week. MR. VALENTINE-What is your name? MS. DE CAMILLA-Jana DeCamilla. I just started at the Post Star this week in Queensbury. So I just wanted to give a name to a face here and introduce myself. MR. TRAVER-Well, welcome aboard. MR. DEEB-Thank you. I thought you were one of the students. Well thank you for doing that. We appreciate that. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 22