Loading...
12-14-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH DECEMBER 14, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 2-2021 James & Kim Ogden 2. ONE YEAR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 289.18-1-13 & 289.18-1-45 Site Plan No. 33-2021 Cleverdale LLC,/San Souci 3. Special Use Permit 2-2021 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 & 44 FURTHER TABLING Site Plan No. 55-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 3. Freshwater Wetlands 1-2021 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 FURTHER TABLING Re-zoning PZ 0811-2021 Luzerne Holding, Inc. 4. T.B. RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.8-1-28 CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY Subdivision 11-2021 Marc Awad 6. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 279.-1-52 Subdivision 12-2021 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 75-2021 Frank Sinatra, Jr. 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.9-1-4 Subdivision No. 13-2021 David Howard/Brennan Estates (Cont’d Pg. 21) 14. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. Road 315.10-1-35 Subdivision No. 15-2021 Daniel Mannix 15. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 296.12-1-23.1 Subdivision No. 14-2021 Paul Nasrani 19. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.15-1-47 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 12/14/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL DIXON MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th meeting for Tuesday, December 14, 2021. This is our first meeting for the month of December and our th 24 meeting thus far for 2021. You’ll notice the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency that is your way out. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it doesn’t interfere with our proceedings, we’d appreciate that. Also, if you want to have discussions, if you’re not making a presentation to the Board, and you’re chatting about something in the audience, please take your conversation to the outer lobby so it doesn’t interfere, again, with our proceedings. We have a number of administrative items this evening, but I wanted to report out to the Board because this is the month of our annual meeting, and we’re having both meetings this week due to the holidays and scheduling issues, and I wanted to start by congratulating Michael Dixon who has served us very well as an alternate for quite some time and has been moved from the alternate position to the full Planning Board. So welcome, Michael, and thank you for everything you’ve done we enjoy working with you very much. That leaves us, Michael was our only alternate at the time he moved up to the full Board. So we have two vacancies in the alternate position and we also will have, as of the first of the year, due to people separating from the Board, we’ll have two regular positions on the Board that are vacant as well, and one of the things that I found interesting, traditionally it hasn’t always been easy to get people from the community to serve on the Board as alternates, and I’m proud to say that at this point in time we have seven people from the community that have stepped forward and would like to participate in the Planning Board and I think that that’s a testament to, in some respects, to the perception of the Town, particularly the Planning office and the Planning staff, their professionalism, but also in the way that the members of this Board have conducted themselves in recent years, that people see it as something that they would like to be a part of. So we did conduct some interviews the other day, and of course the Town Board ultimately makes those appointments to the alternates and to the regular Board positions. So we’ll have some updates on that, I expect shortly, but with seven applications for four potential openings, we should have a good source of folks to fill in for those positions. As I mentioned December is an election month. That process actually starts, according to our By-laws, last month when I polled the current officers. I indicated by own willingness to serve again as Chair for 2022, and I had a conversation with Chris who has, for a number of years, been, not only an alternate, a member, Chairman and Vice Chairman, and he has explained, and he’ll speak in a minute, but he has explained that after over 20 years of service he’s going to take some time away from the Planning Board. So in that capacity, I asked him to help us do a nominating committee and try to look for individuals on the Board who might be interested in stepping up for an officer position. With the two meetings this month, again, by our By-laws, we actually have the votes for the officer positions on the last meeting of December which as it happens this year is this Thursday. So what we’re going to be doing this evening is we’ll have the report out from the nominating committee. So those names will be put in nomination and then on Thursday evening the floor will be open for additional nominations and then the Board will vote on the slate of officers. So with that, Chris, I understand you have a report for us. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to elaborate that I’m not really resigning from the Board. My term is u up. I served out my term and did not ask to be reappointed. After 21 years I thought it was time to let somebody else take over. So I would like to present the following slate of candidates. For Chair, Stephen Traver. For Vice Chair, David Deeb, and for Secretary, Michael Dixon. We will take nominations from the floor on Thursday, and Steve had asked me to present them this evening so that members would have an opportunity to consider those three officers and decide if there are any further nominations from the floor Thursday. MR. TRAVER-One last thing, and I’m going to try to remember this at the end of the evening, but please don’t forget that this Thursday we have a training on stormwater and I believe we said that we would start at 6:15 for that training, Laura. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. TRAVER-So that will be immediately prior to our regular meeting. So if you could try to be here at 6:15, we would appreciate that, and as we all know, in addition to that, we are subject to training requirements as well. So please try to be here for that. So then we will move on to the remaining administrative items, unless anyone has any questions on my report or Chris’. Okay. I guess the first item we have is approval of minutes from October 19 and October 26 of 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th October 19, 2021 th October 26, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF thth OCTOBER 19 AND OCTOBER 26, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: th Duly adopted this 14 day of December, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then the remaining administrative items, we have Site Plan 2-2021 James & Kim Ogden. Request for an extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SITE PLAN 2-2021 JAMES & KIM OGDEN REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So they were not able to construct this year due to COVID. So they’ve asked for a request for extension. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and they’re looking for a one year extension. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we have a draft motion in our material. Does anyone have any questions or concerns regarding that request? Okay. RESOLUTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 2-2021 JAMES & KIM OGDEN Applicant proposes to merge two parcels to construct a two story addition to the existing home. The existing home is 1,286 sq. ft. footprint with deck area of 336 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020 & 179- 13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved this application on January 26, 2021. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SP 2-2021 JAMES & KIM OGDEN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 14th day of December 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next we have, for Site Plan 33-2021 and Special Use Permit 2-2021 for San Souci, a request th to table to the February 15, 2022 meeting. SITE PLAN 33-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 SAN SOUCI REQUEST TO TABLE TO FEBRUARY 15, 2022 MEETING MR. TRAVER-Laura? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MRS. MOORE-So they’re putting together their applications for Planning Board review, and at this time I have more applications than I have agenda time. So I need to push them out to February. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you, and any questions regarding that from the Board? We have a draft motion, then. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 33-2021 & SUP 2-2021 SAN SOUCI MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 33-2021 AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI. 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. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the February 15, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by January 18, 2022. th Duly adopted this 14 day of December 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And lastly under Administrative Items we have Site Plan 55-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2021 for Antonio & Maria Civitella, a request for tabling to January 18, 2022 meeting. SITE PLAN 55-2021 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA REQUEST FOR TABLING TO JANUARY 8, 2022 MEETING MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant is putting together those application materials and it’s my understanding that they’ll be able to submit in December for the January meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions regarding that request? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 55-2021 & FWW 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 55-2021 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. 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. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the January 18, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by December 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 14 day of December 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and, let’s see, we have Luzerne Holding, Inc. This is a recommendation for a re-zoning, PZ 0811-2021. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) RECOMMENDATION (REZONING) PZ 0811-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I (TOWN BOARD). LUZERNE HOLDINGS, INC. AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER. ZONING: SPLIT CI/CLI. LOCATION: 115 EVERTS AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE A PORTION OF CURRENT PARCEL ZONING COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE TO COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AS EXISTING PORTION OF PROPERTY IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. THE EXISTING 3,600 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR HVAC SERVICE COMPANY TO REMAIN. NO PHYSICAL CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO THE PROPERTY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-15-040, THE TOWN BOARD MAY REFER PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.12 ACRES SPLIT. TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-28. JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this property has a split zone. A portion of it is Moderate Density Residential, sorry, Commercial Intensive, and the main portion is Commercial Light Industrial. The property that surrounds it includes Moderate Density Residential, Commercial Intensive and Commercial Light Industrial. The idea here is to convert the larger portion of the property into Commercial Light Industrial. There’s an existing building on here that is currently operating an HVAC service company and needs to have the zoning changed so that they can proceed through Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Matt Steves. Like usual we have a bit of a historical story about this one. Matt and his partner Larry Clute who own Luzerne Holding purchased it in 2016 and quickly leased it to Cerrone Plumbing and Heating, a long term plumbing contractor in Town, but this building was originally built in the late 60’s for a contractor. In 1990 it was Harron Cable which then became Time Warner Cable, and so they used it as their operating center for construction, you know, tucked behind Minogues and the houses, kind of remote. They had it until 2011. Then it was purchased by Jack Minogue and he leased it to Prime Link which was doing cable and Larry bought it in 2016 and leased it. So it started out, and most of it was for contractor work for construction which is what the use is now, but technically in a split zone, and rather than try to fight for a Use Variance, it just seemed the easier way was to go to the Town Board for a legislative change to make it all one zone, and we went to the Town and they’re very supportive of it. So they referred us to you for a recommendation and we hope to get this cleaned up next month at the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it looks as though we first need to consent to the Town Board becoming Lead Agency and then they’re asking for our recommendation. Is that correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Does anyone have any objection to consenting to Town Board as Lead Agency? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-It certainly seems appropriate, commonsense. So why don’t we have a motion and then we’ll discuss the recommendation. RESOLUTION TO CONSENT TO TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENT LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. Whereas the applicant proposes to change a portion of current parcel zoning Commercial Intensive to Commercial Light Industrial as existing portion of property is already Commercial Light Industrial. The existing 3,600 sq. ft. building for HVAC service company to remain. No physical changes will be made to the property. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-040, the Town Board may refer proposed zoning amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation. MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR PZ 0811-2021 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14 day of December 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and they’re asking, that is the Town Board, is asking for our input regarding this legislative change. Questions, comments for the applicant from members of the Board? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-Makes great sense to me. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Currently you own the building and operate, again, I just got lost in all the transactions. It operates as what now? MR. STEVES-We lease it to Cerrone Plumbing and Heating. There’s four overhead door bays, you know, when Harron Cable, Time Warner Cable used to store their trucks and stuff inside and then their trucks outside and they used it for the big cable wheels, and then there’s about 20 feet wide on the east side and the whole length of the building is office space. A few months after we bought it we were storing all my of my equipment for Van Dusen and Steves there, boats we use on the river, you know, our skid steer and all that stuff down there, and Tony did some work there for me and he said, hey, can we lease it. So I think I owned it two and a half months and then I rehabbed the office and he moved in, and running the heating business and ventilation company out of there. They don’t do manufacturing there. They run their trucks, their employees come in. They load up material that they store within their warehouse and they go over and install your furnace, you know, heat, home construction for plumbing and heating, HVAC systems, and so he’s been renting it from me since 2017. I purchased it in October of 2016 and I think it was January he moved in. MR. VALENTINE-Jon, you said rather than seeking a Use Variance. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So Craig determined that the grandfather had lapsed because of all of the different uses over time, and we didn’t really argue that. We just said we’ll get it fixed. MR. VALENTINE-I was just trying to think of what you had in mind or what may be upcoming here. MR. STEVES-There’s no change in use from what’s currently there. The property is divided, depth wise, from north to south, by the zone line. MR. VALENTINE-When you were looking at the properties, Matt, I wonder, did you look at, I love sitting back sometimes, and I apologize. After so many years you get looking at you say okay, it’s like playing detective almost, what the heck’s going on in this guy’s mind. Did you look at the list of CLI and CI? MR. LAPPER-Yes. What’s really interesting there is like Lowe’s and Home Depot are in Commercial Intensive. So they’re going to sell plumbing supplies. You can go in there and get a contractor who’ll come and install a sink, which is very similar to this, but what the Code says if you’re a contractor and a contractor office, then that should be a commercial light industrial. MR. STEVES-Unless you have a sales store there, but they do sell their product. Like if you hire Cerrone and you say I want a furnace, they’ll sell it to you and put it in, but they’re not running a retail. If they ran a retail store we would have been compliant. You don’t want to run a retail store that’s sitting back behind where you can’t see it. MR. VALENTINE-CLI obviously appeals. You had mentioned about tucked behind Minogue’s and I went back and looked at the road layout and stuff in there and there’s a lot of interconnections that aren’t on any map. Obviously you don’t see something like that on a tax map. MR. LAPPER-Tire Warehouse, the liquor store. MR. VALENTINE-Is there any way through Minogue’s? MR. STEVES-There is a right of way that, the property has frontage on Homer Avenue, and it has a deeded right of way out to Everts Avenue, and then there’s also, we have rights to go through Minogue’s property. We just don’t do it when there’s customers. We don’t want to interfere with that, and what limited traffic comes in here, we have that right of way that’s deeded to us all the way out to Everts in the back. MR. VALENTINE-I just wondered, Minogue’s, if there was something there, if it was usable, that would give you the best access out there, unless you’re going to go to church or something like that. That and 20 foot stands as, is that access off of a municipal road, that can be maintained, that could be contingent. Okay. MR. STEVES-As a permanent deeded right of way, we share the maintenance of that. Larry and I ripped up all the potholes ourselves and paved it ourselves a couple of years ago just to clean it up, because of all the other uses. MR. TRAVER-And there’s a comment in the Staff Notes as well that the existing business is non- compliant and will be subject to site plan as a result of changes. Okay. All right. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. VALENTINE-Whoever did this, this is helpful. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s Matt. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Well, it was helpful. MR. TRAVER-So the Town Board is asking for our input. Does anyone have any concerns with this request that we would like to communicate, or can we be, can we make a positive referral? MR. MAGOWAN-No, I think it makes sense. With all the surrounding buildings, and it backs up to Dr. Cottrell’s, and you’ve got the accountant and the Tire Warehouse and Minogue’s and it’s nice to see the trucks back in there. Back in the day the Time Warner trucks were all back in there. You wouldn’t even know it’s back there. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we have a motion in our materials to make a positive recommendation. We’ll go ahead and hear that. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: PZ 0811-2021 MOTION TO PROVIDE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR PZ 0811-2021 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 14 day of December 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 off to the Town Board. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first application is Marc Awad. Subdivision Preliminary Stage 11-2021 and Final Stage 12-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 11-2021 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 12-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MARC AWAD. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 936 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 6.72 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS TO BE 2.04 ACRES AND THE SECOND LOT OF 4.68 ACRES IS TO BE SOLD. THERE IS NO SITE WORK PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT WIDTH AND ROAD FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 76-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: 6.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-52. SECTION: CHAPTER 183 MARC AWAD MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a two lot subdivision of a 6.72 acre parcel. One lot with the existing residence is to be 2.04 acres and the second lot is 4.68 acres and is to be sold. In regards to the variances being requested, average lot width and the road frontage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. AWAD-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So tell us about your request. MR. MAGOWAN-Your name first. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. AWAD-Marc Awad. I don’t know how much history of the property you want or my ownership. My cousin and I bought it as a foreclosure in 2019. It actually was in her name. I borrowed the money from her. I rehabbed the house to the point where it was habitable and I could get a VA mortgage for myself, which I did last March. Whether I, if approved, whether I decide to sell or not, I don’t know, but I realize that there’s a lot of traffic on that road and I’m a couple of years from retirement and I just left a job in New York because I’m tired of the noise. So I would like to have the option to sell it or maybe build in the back. You can see off to the far left what the vacant lot would look like. So I guess the surveyor calls it a flag lot. So there would be a driveway between my property and my neighbor’s. We’d come back and we’ve already done the perc tests and potentially would build in the back, if I do it or if I sell. MR. TRAVER-Okay. No site work proposed at this time. So it’s really just a pure subdivision. MR. AWAD-Can I interrupt you just for one second, just for a quick history of the property? MR. TRAVER-Sure. Yes. MR. AWAD-So from what I understood, the two properties, mine and my neighbor’s next door, Tristan and I, I can’t remember his last name. There were two sisters that were given this property, which was almost 16 acres. They split them in half. These two sisters married two brothers, and they built houses next to each other. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. AWAD-So my neighbor next door, Tristan, is the grandson of, the grandparents of one of the sisters. MR. MAGOWAN-When I first looked at it, the print there, the one that Mike’s looking at, and I’m saying, boy, Lot Two is only, and it only, you know, straight back. I didn’t realize and then I looked over here. MR. AWAD-Actually the final number of the total acreage for both I don’t think it quite accurate, because when we bought it, it was supposed to be 6.98 acres or 7 acres, but as you can see, look at where the house is, there’s a line that goes right through where the trees are. So I guess it was, the State took part of the land. So I think the final numbers will be slightly different. MR. MAGOWAN-When they re-did 149. MR. AWAD-And it was never updated with the County when I went to look at the County records. So eventually when this gets done, they didn’t want to bother to update it now. They said just wait until after your process is done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. AWAD-So in my estimation it’s 6.48 acres total. MR. TRAVER-As opposed to the 6.72. MR. AWAD-I believe that’s, but I don’t think that’s too relevant now. We’ll get it all straightened out with the surveyors if this is approved and it will be accurate. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So tonight we’re looking at the variance and that’s for lot width and road frontage. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Laura, where’s lot width measured, right of way, setback, building line? MRS. MOORE-So lot width is average. MR. VALENTINE-So you take the 50 foot in the front and the total width in the back? MRS. MOORE-You can take as many lot width averages as you wish to. There’s not a set number. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. I’ve got a question, because you reference this. You’re going to submit for Area Variance, but we will see you back for Subdivision and I’m wondering if the subdivision map should not reference the gravel driveway that’s referred to in the paperwork and also show the cross connection that you’re talking about, too. You’re referencing that you’re not going to go to DOT for a curb cut permit at this time. You’re going to use the existing driveway for access for the flag lot. So I’m just thinking the subdivision map should show that. MR. AWAD-Can you clarify that? So my intention is to have eventually, if I was to build, the driveway would be entering on, in the 50 foot area, and you would drive back. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. VALENTINE-Well, that would make sense, but the paperwork doesn’t say that. MR. AWAD-Well, we corrected that. MRS. MOORE-So the paperwork still says that you’re going to enter from the existing driveway and then skootch over to this lot. MR. AWAD-That’s not my intention. MRS. MOORE-Good. MR. AWAD-And I thought we discussed that. MRS. MOORE-We did. MR. AWAD-My surveyor I think like most surveyors right now or, you know, they’re overwhelmed, but I can remember having that discussion with him and I told him that’s not what I want. MR. VALENTINE-No, it makes more sense to go for the curb cut on the 50 footer, but recognize that you’re going to have to go to DOT at some point to get a curb cut permit, but I don’t think it necessarily has to be shown on there now. MRS. MOORE-Right. One less variance. What happens with the, since there’s no information provided in this drawing as to what’s going to happen next or in the future, the Board in the past sometimes can place a condition on it that does have site plan review to ensure that you can truly meet the, put the driveway in where you say you’re going to put the driveway in, and then in reference to clearing, that they’re not going to do more than an acre. I think like that. So that’s common. As I said there’s not a lot of information on this particular drawing to say what’s going to happen in the future. A drawing for a subdivision typically has all those elements. We talked about going through, that’s why you have waivers that you’ve had, and then the only thing that’s not official is that you did those test pits so that we knew that you could potentially put the septic system in. So that was very beneficial. MR. VALENTINE-Page Two of the Full EAF should note also DOT as a State agency, for a future plan. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-For what it’s worth, I had the same question, where was the driveway going to go. Because it mentions a shared driveway. MR. AWAD-I didn’t realize it hadn’t been changed. We had the discussion. I had the discussion with my surveyor. The question was posed. I said that’s not what I want. I don’t think anybody would want that. And you’re talking about shared responsibilities. MR. TRAVER-So that can be clarified in the next revision. So we probably want to include mention of that in our referral. MR. AWAD-So from where the golf course is on the other side, where the driving range is, there’s a residential driveway that goes back to a home that’s back in the woods, and then there’s the West’s house which is noted there. So that’s another driveway. There’s my driveway, there would be that driveway, and then my neighbor Tristan’s driveway, and then that farm to market store on the corner. It’s not we’re trying to put in something that isn’t already there, you know, to disrupt traffic. MR. VALENTINE-I don’t think there’s a problem with the driveway at all. MR. AWAD-You approach the light. You’re slowing down ideally. MR. VALENTINE-I didn’t mean to bring the questions up to make you worry about putting a driveway in. MR. AWAD-No, I actually love this whole experience. It’s the first time I ever have done it. It’s a great learning experience. I hopefully will see you here again. MR. MAGOWAN-Welcome to the North Country. MR. VALENTINE-You don’t have to go to Albany County for a surveyor. MR. AWAD-Well, I’m a disabled vet and he’s a disabled vet and, you know, it’s always nice to do business with people who are in the Town where you’re at, but again this is my first venue. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. VALENTINE-How long have you been here? MR. AWAD-I used to take the Adirondack Trailways up here with my mother when I was a kid, and we used to stay at the same place off of Canada Street. She’d always give me a one week vacation up here, and then as I got older and I could drive, I started bringing my children up and I started bringing my golden retriever up and we’d go swimming every Saturday, you know, at the dog’s beach, and I just have always wanted to be here. This is my foothold here, when I need to go someplace quiet. MR. DEEB-It’s a pretty busy road. MR. AWAD-Especially when they throw the Jake brake. I have a heart attack. I’m 59, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-I live right off 149. So I know. MR. AWAD-They rattle the house. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. AWAD-I’d like to propose a motion no Jake brakes between the golf course and Stewart’s. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the Town Board. MR. AWAD-I can have my back to the road and I can tell, that’s got to be a new truck, a Volvo or something, that’s an old one, that’s an old logging truck. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else from the Board, again, on the variances, lot width and road frontage? MR. DEEB-You’ve got here, Laura wrote down Planning Board should consider waivers, discussion of waivers. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that’s what I meant in regards to doing possibly a condition if it comes back to the Planning Board, about having site plan review in the future. So you don’t necessarily, you can discuss them, but you don’t necessarily have to decide on them. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We’ll have to do SEQR, too, when it comes back. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-So we should put that in the. MRS. MOORE-You don’t necessarily have to put that in the recommendation to the Zoning Board, unless you feel it’s a concern. I’m not certain that you feel it’s a concern at this point to give to the Zoning Board. MR. DEEB-I don’t feel it is. All right. So we’re ready? MR. TRAVER-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 76-2021 MARC AWAD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.72 acre parcel. One lot with the existing residence is to be 2.04 acres and the second lot of 4.68 acres is to be sold. There is no site work proposed at this time. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot width. 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. 76-2021 MARC AWAD, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 14 day of December 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. AWAD-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda, also under Recommendations, is Frank Sinatra, Jr., Site Plan 75-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 75-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRANK SINATRA, JR. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 105 ROCKHURST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 1,562 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 1,553 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,338 SQ. FT. THE NEW HOME HAS 3 LEVELS: FOUNDATION AREA, FIRST FLOOR, AND SECOND FLOOR. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040, 179-4-080, 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50FEET OF THE SHORELINE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 79- 2021, BOH 55-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-4. SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-4-080, 179-6-060. CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,562 square foot footprint home to construct a 1,553 square foot footprint home with a floor area of 2,338. We did receive revised information which is in your packet, in reference to the parcel size. So in reference to the variance that they requested, they’re going for setback to the shoreline and then floor area is proposed at 25% where 22% is required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KEIL-Good evening. Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership. Just a little bit about this property. An elderly couple, Frank and Laura Sinatra, own this property and they’re seeking to turn it into a kind of multi-generational summer retreat for grandkids. They wanted to do some improvements and looked into improving the existing house, realized that just wasn’t going to work for them. So they’re deciding the house, which is a lawful non-conforming structure. As it stands, it would require three variances, one for side yard, front yard and permeability, and taking and demolishing the house and building a new structure is more centered within this sort of envelope of setback, putting in a new wastewater treatment system, which is an enhanced treatment system, much better than the existing seepage pits which again wouldn’t pass muster per requirements, and adding stormwater improvements. Currently there’s none on the site right now, but in doing so we know we’re asking for relaxation on FAR and a two foot shoreline setback. That’s kind of the main points. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think that’s two feet on the shoreline. MR. KEIL-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We did receive the updated info, and that’s also reflected in the Staff Notes. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, to me the most obvious question is, you’re knocking down the existing building and you’re building a new one within two feet. It requires a little explanation. MR. KEIL-Sure. Understandably so, because it’s something that we talked about, too, the two feet, but if you look, that deck right there is very tight in that pinch point right where that center column of 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) windows are. Yes. So, you know, I mean, it just becomes a point where that two feet really matters, you know, in this sort of condition, and it’s something that to get by, you know, maybe put a small table there, things like that. We’re hoping to get that with the deck. MR. HUNSINGER-And you couldn’t move the whole house back? MR. KEIL-Because it’s right against the front yard setback. MR. HUNSINGER-So either way you’re asking for a setback. MR. KEIL-Exactly. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the faults of your drawings, and I’ve been noticing this a lot lately, and it’s not just you. Laura, I don’t know if you’ve picked up on this, but the existing site you have very clearly shown all the setback requirements, but on the proposed site we didn’t see any, and t here’s another project, I think, this evening that’s the same way, and it just seems like more and more of our applications don’t have the setbacks labeled on the site plan. MR. KEIL-Apologies, but if you see we show the setback dashed line on the site. I mean I think what we tried to do is it’s so busy at the scale. So Sheet Four of the variance plan shows all of those setback dimensions, just to kind of, you know, Sheet Three you’re kind of getting a little dense. MR. HUNSINGER-You know what, so. MRS. MOORE-So the Planning Board doesn’t get Sheet Four, because you only included it in the variance paperwork. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I don’t have Sheet Four. MR. KEIL-My apologies. That would clear it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Well that makes me feel a lot better that it wasn’t missed. It was just not there to look at. MR. KEIL-That was an oversight. I apologize. MR. TRAVER-Can you review for us the shoreline buffering? That has an impact also on the variance request. MR. KEIL-Yes. So that’s something we’ve actually taken quite a bit of time in studying and talked through with the client. It’s a very steep site as it exists, which is why that sort of architecture, having that walkout, is sort of necessary almost because you’re making up so much grade across that section of the building. Currently there’s this very narrow asphalt path. I mean, just to kind of go down to the shoreline. So what we looked at kind of doing was creating a little bit of a terrace. We were very careful to make sure that a base area of the retaining wall meets the requirements for a structure within the shoreline buffer, built some stairs down to enable the owners to get down there, and they’ve had a real challenge is having people know this slope is almost like an existing two to one slope, really steep. So what we decided to do is a lot of that steep area has been planted pretty heavily within kind of a mix of native adaptive shrubs up there, but also keeping a little bit of a lawn space down in that lower terrace there where their fire pit is. All the existing trees on their property on the shoreline will remain as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments? MR. SHAFER-Just a quick question. I didn’t see on the plan where the pump will be for the wastewater system. Will that be in the basement? MR. KEIL-That’s a good question. We have a, there’s a pump tank, so I believe it’s gravity out to that pump tank. MR. SHAFER-I didn’t see the pump tank. Where is the pump tank? MR. KEIL-It’s on Sheet Three on the site plan. MR. MAGOWAN-1,000 gallon pump tank, right next to the Clares fusion 450 BTU. MR. KEIL-And then it goes back up. So it’s a really tight spot. So it goes kind of up to that upper flat area there. MR. SHAFER-I see. It’s in front of the house? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. KEIL-See it. MR. VALENTINE-On the side of the deck. MR. KEIL-Yes, exactly. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DIXON-Are you on well water? MR. KEIL-No, it’s lake. And I believe the adjacent properties are as well. MR. DEEB-In reference to the FAR, we’ve had previous discussion about granting variances for floor area ratio on a non-conforming lot. This is 2.14 acres, this lot, if I’m not mistaken, and I’m just wondering, couldn’t get you that house within the floor area ratio so you wouldn’t need that variance? MR. KEIL-Yes. I know. So I think one thing that’s sort of useful to think about that, I mean, the floor area, the FAR ask is at 280 square feet. So to your point, right, can’t you just shrink it down to hit that. The way that the lot is shaped, you have to sort of do a walkout on that basement level because of the just the grade sloping across there. So to us it feels like, well you’re building that to that height already, to sort of shorten that up, because we’ve seen other projects turn that into their crawl space, it’s, you’re not saving any money, and it’s sort of like, you’re building this mass, and artificially reducing it when it is already kind of daylighted across that whole elevation towards the lake. What we’ve already done is on the foundation sheet there’s a crawl space mechanical area which we have cut that out and leave that a crawl space, and the footprint is really not that larger, though. It gets a little bit tough to find additional space, but point taken. I mean it’s so close. MR. DEEB-So you increased the crawl space height. Am I correct in assuming that? MR. KEIL-Yes, exactly. The crawl space is four feet, eleven inches, with a five foot threshold. So you would be, from that family room, you know, you’d be at that door, three feet off the floor. That’s where the mechanicals would be in there. That wouldn’t count toward FAR. MR. DEEB-All right. So you’re saying it’s 280 feet. MR. KEIL-Yes, is the ask we’re looking for. MR. DEEB-We have a bit of a concern recently with a lot of site plans they’re asking for this. I think we have to be consistent in how we act. MR. VALENTINE-Chris, the Chairman said something before we received a letter about updated nd information for the site plan, and Nick out of your office sent a letter December 2 and the last sentence of the first paragraph says the correct parcel area is, and he says on the order of. Now to me on the order of is like an estimation of whatever. So when I read that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and it’s right to the foot. MR. VALENTINE-Exactly. So I went on to the next paragraph, first sentence, Floor Area Ratio is on the order of, and then down below it says again, floor area ratio parcel area is on the order of. So my message is to him, when you go back to the office tomorrow, ask him if he wants to go to his mailbox some day and get a letter from the IRS from Baltimore that says that the $4100 was paid for federal taxes last year is on the order of $4100 too short or something. I just put it out there because you’re starting to read this stuff and then you start to second guess and you start looking, all right, what’s right and what’s not. MR. KEIL-That’s a good point. That is a good language catch. I don’t know if he was hedging a little bit or what, but, yes, on the order of, and then you have a decimal. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, when I saw that, I picked up on that, too, and when I saw how accurate the numbers are, I thought, well maybe that’s just a device he’s using. He doesn’t really mean on the order of. It’s just a device, but, yes, it would be good to point out. When your living depends on verbiage sometimes. Okay. So, recommendation to the ZBA for setbacks and floor area. What do we feel? We’ve already had discussion about FAR. Do you want to express a specific concern on the floor area ratio. MR. DEEB-How does the rest of the Board feel? MR. TRAVER-It’s, what, two percent? MR. DEEB-Three percent. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. KEIL-Three percent. Yes, it’s 25. So that area is a mass of 280 square feet. MR. DEEB-We can put it in the hands of the Zoning Board and see what they say. MR. MAGOWAN-How many bedrooms are in the existing house now? MR. KEIL-I believe it’s four. I believe it’s four, but I would have to double check that. MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s not a big house. Four bedrooms, it’s more bedrooms than anything else. MR. VALENTINE-Well it is Frank Sinatra. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess they’re hoping for good weather all the time. I mean I believe you did a nice job trying to design it and really conforming with the needs. The four bedroom caught my eye. The more I looked into it and the planning and the way you wanted to do your stepping down, the planting and the walls and the upgraded system. There was a note that the detail was too close to the driveway for the pavers. One of the things I’d like to remind everybody, especially Rockhurst, you drive down that road and it kind of reminds me of New York City. How do those skyscrapers stay up there? It’s just a peninsula. Do you know what I’m saying? So it sits on a rock bed. That’s a concentrated area of people. Like I said, even though you have a, you know, you’ve upgraded your seepage pits, but is there any tree treatment you can do, with the UV’s and that, to take that down. We’ve really got to start protecting the lake. And we’re really trying, it doesn’t help the lake by putting the biggest house you possibly can on every single lot. That’s my concerns. MR. TRAVER-But you would agree that floor area ratio is an issue? MR. MAGOWAN-Two percent. MR. TRAVER-Three. MR. MAGOWAN-Three percent, I mean it’s pushing it, but it’s a small, that’s why I asked how many bedrooms are there now, you know, they’re tearing down what sounds like a larger house and putting up a little smaller. I really think they’re trying. So I would like to see probably a little bit more of a pre- treatment for pumping up. We’re starting to see more of them. Like I said, you can pump it up into a field, but you’re only going down so many feet before you hit rock, and then once you hit rock, you know where it’s going. MR. KEIL-I can get some more information on that from our wastewater designers. Test pits were performed, and you know these advanced treatment systems are pretty State of the Art for these smaller sites. So I’ll have to get more information. MR. TRAVER-Other comments, concerns for the referral to the ZBA from members of the Board? Okay. I guess we’re ready for a draft resolution. With regard to FAR, I would say that, or maybe note that at the very least that we had some discussion about it. I don’t know. I’m not hearing an overwhelming concern, but certainly it was a topic of some discussion. I’m sure they’ll review it as well. MR. MAGOWAN-I like the fact that he did try by putting the canopies in a higher, you can always eliminate one of the bedrooms and do it on the other side, but like I said, I feel you made a true effort to get as close as you can and I like that. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I know the Zoning Board may struggle with the floor area ratio. They have over the past few applications. So I think you’re on track, even if you include something then, they have struggled recently. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well that seems to be the main, I mean the shoreline setback is there, but it’s offset somewhat by the buffering and the stormwater, but the FAR remains an issue. I’m not sure how to phrase that. MR. MAGOWAN-Raise concerns. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I’m not hearing anything else. So why don’t we go ahead and entertain that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 79-2021 FRANK SINATRA, JR. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,562 sq. ft. footprint home to construct a 1,553 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,338 sq. ft. The new home has 3 levels: foundation area, first floor, and second floor. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) 179-4-080, 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, site plan review for a new floor area in a CEA, new hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline, and construction of new building within 50 feet of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, and floor area. Planning Board shall make 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. 79-2021 FRANK SINATRA, JR., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following area of concern: 1) The FAR variance of three percent. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14 day of December 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. VALENTINE-If we’re talking three percent and we went backwards on that, what would that equate to as far as square footage? MR. TRAVER-Like a little less than 300 square feet. I don’t remember specifically, but it seemed like it was 280. MR. KEIL-284, yes. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is David Howard/Brennan Estates, Subdivision Modification 13-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 13-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED (REAFFIRM). DAVID HOWARD/BRENNAN ESTATES. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 23 ELSIES WAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF THE BOULEVARD ENTRANCE AND A REVISION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE NUMBER OR ARRANGEMENT OF THE LOTS. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION REQUIRED FOR THE UPDATE TO THE SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE ROADWAY AND STORMWATER PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SEQR REVIEW FOR THE UPDATED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 13-2006. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. LOT SIZE: 22.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. ROAD 315.10-1-35. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to modify a 16 lot subdivision to include removal of the boulevard and revision of the stormwater management plan. There’s no change to the number or arrangement of the lots. Subdivision modification required for the update to the subdivision entrance and roadway as well as the stormwater plan, and today the applicant, I was forwarded this, they received a Stop Work Order and they have some items to identify with the Building and Codes Department. So that won’t alter or change what you’re doing this evening, but as part of a condition, if you move forward with this, you would identify a condition that the applicant comply with Building and Codes requirements per the Stop Work Order. In addition the Board members received Chazen’s letter this evening, I just got it. The applicant has not seen this letter yet. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Is there someone here representing the applicant? Okay. Well, what we can do is we have a couple of discussion items. Is the Board comfortable with setting this aside for a moment and deal with the discussion items and then if the applicant appears we can come back. If not, we can take some other action. So let’s move on to discussions items. The first item is Daniel Mannix. This is a Subdivision Sketch Plan 15-2021. DISCUSSION ITEMS: SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 15-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. DANIEL MANNIX. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: 210. LOCATION: 552 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH LOT 1 TO BE 1.1 ACRES AND LOT 2 TO BE 1.3 ACRES, BOTH FOR FUTURE OFFICE USE. LOT 3 TO BE 4.5 ACRES WITH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE AND BUILDINGS TO REMAIN; FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW. LOTS WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO BAY ROAD AND BAYBERRY DRIVE. SITE HAS EXISTING WETLANDS WITH SOME PROJECT WORK FOR PARKING AREA TO OCCUR. PROJECT ACTIVITIES MAY BE SUBJECT TO FUTURE REVIEW FOR SITE PLAN, FRESHWATER WETLANDS, AND VARIANCES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183-11, SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 48-2006. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR DISCUSSION. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 7.49 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-23.1. SECTION: 183-11. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-For Mr. Mannix it was a three lot subdivision proposal with Lot One to be 1.1 acre, Lot Two to be 1.3 acres and Lot 3 is to be 4.5 acres which would be for maintaining the residential use of the buildings. Lot One and Two would be used for an office or future office uses in that zone. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett from Jarrett Engineers. I’m representing Dan Mannix. He owns a seven and a half acre parcel on Bay Road, just south of ACC, and he wishes to take advantage of the frontage which is, the parcel’s in the Office zone. He wishes to take advantage of the front and create two commercial lots in the front along Bay Road which is the intent of the zoning that the Town has created there. It is constrained by wetlands. So we are complying with the front setback with the sketch we’ve given you, but we are not able to get setback to the wetland. And you’ll see we’ve had the wetlands professionally delineated. We’ve actually completed fieldwork, too, and so the soils are conducive to stormwater management on that parcel. We would be connecting to the Town’s wastewater and water supply systems. So we would not need those services on the lot. The access, one of the variances we would need is access. The northernmost lot we propose access from Bayberry Drive which is a Town road. The southernmost lot we would propose to access from the private driveway with an easement, access for Lots Two and Three off that existing driveway. That would eliminate the need for a curb cut for a new driveway on Bay Road, but we need to have access through the frontage by Town Code. So we would potentially need a variance for that. We cannot meet setback from the wetlands as I mentioned. Other than that, I think it’s reasonably straightforward, but those are issues that I wanted to discuss with you. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. JARRETT-Laura, did I leave anything out? MRS. MOORE-I just want to make sure the Board understands that there’s additional variances that are going to pop up because of this proposal. So whatever, there’s somewhat of a concern that you’re going to identify additional variances that will have to come before the Board. I don’t think there’s any way to adjust these lots. Tom and I had a brief discussion about that, simply because of the wetlands that are present on this lot, and the requirement of the Bay Road setback. So it’s triggered either way. There’s really no way out of that. MR. JARRETT-We need a variance one way or the other, yes. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So it makes it a little bit more difficult for this particular lot to move forward. Either that or it’s left the way it is forever and he’s in the middle of a split zone. MR. JARRETT-This is in the Office zone and the Town does encourage office/commercial development in this zone, but we need variances to be able to make it work. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there a proposal to do something with this property once before? I seem to remember having conversations about the wetlands. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Dan was in front of the Board six or seven years ago, I believe, and there were discussions. I’m not privy to all the details. So, you’re right. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t remember the details, either. I just remember we went back and forth. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought it was further back. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. MR. JARRETT-Not based on what Dan told me. It would be subject to the record. You’d have to look it up. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it was at least a sketch plan to talk about that Bay Road frontage. Maybe it was a zone change consideration or something like that. MR. VALENTINE-When I first looked at this, and if I didn’t look for the wetlands that’s shown there, it would look like you could take this southern lot and go the other way, and as you’re saying go back to Lot Three. MR. JARRETT-Could you say that again? MR. VALENTINE-Well what I was thinking, no, I’m looking, you’re not going to be able to do it now. I was looking at it from the other map that didn’t have wetlands shown on it, and my first thought was, okay, why do you have all that lot, all the frontage of that building on Bay, why not turn it perpendicular to Bay, but then you open up the other and you see the wetlands, you know. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, with regard to the wetlands, having the municipal water and sewer helps a little bit there, and I think, you know, if you think about real world, I think having commercial versus residential helps there, too. MR. JARRETT-We would raise the footprint of the parking area of the building some to get a little closer to the Bay Road elevation which would be a little bit more fitting with that corridor, which gives us soil depth to be able to treat stormwater before we get to the groundwater elevations. MR. TRAVER-And the soils there, that’s all a moraine, isn’t it? MR. JARRETT-Actually it’s a very, very fine defined sand. We just tested it today, as a matter of fact. We took advantage of the weather. It’s a very uniform, very fine defined sand. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. JARRETT-Yes, very interesting. MR. VALENTINE-You’re not talking about needing fill when you’re saying raising the grade? MR. JARRETT-We would need fill, but we probably would use a lot of, from the foundations of the building we would use that and then whatever else additional we need to raise the platform of the elevation of the development. MR. TRAVER-So I guess one way, and one of the things we try to avoid is having it become our project, but I mean one way to sort of look at this is to kind of reverse engineer it and think, you know, what else could you do with this. If you were going to seek to develop it, what could you do on this property. MR. JARRETT-Well, even going to one lot, one additional lot, Dan will have my head, but even having one additional lot, you’d still have the setback issues. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-And that Lot Three is fairly large. Any discussion of future plans for that? MR. JARRETT-I do know Dan is debating that with his wife, from what they want to do. The house is bigger than what they need. So they don’t have any rigid plans at the moment. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. SHAFER-They live in that house? MR. JARRETT-Yes, they do. He doesn’t have any plans that he’s solidified to me anyway. They may just sell it eventually and downsize. MR. TRAVER-I mean in my mind if I look at this sort of selfishly, it seems like the onus is going to be on you to come back with resolutions to all of these issues that we know going into it and you have known going into it are there. MR. JARRETT-When you say resolutions, I can’t resolve the setback issues. MR. TRAVER-Well, no, I understand that, but I mean coming up with a variance request in terms of, you know, mitigating the stormwater that you’ve already described to some degree, the wetlands issue. Again, my thought is sort of reverse engineering the whole thing. What can you do. MR. JARRETT-Even putting a very, very small building on there, which would not be necessarily commercially viable, wouldn’t solve the problem. MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly. MR. VALENTINE-And it’s nice your building’s sort of to the front and the parking is in the rear. That’s nice. Your buildings, the parking is enveloped around the buildings and it’s not bad, but the wetlands have clobbered it. The wetlands have clobbered the plan. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Now you will see there is a stream corridor through there, which you can see the dark gray shading through the wetland. When you get beyond the stream corridor, those are not open wetlands. They’re just shallow groundwater. They’re very valuable, don’t get me wrong, but they’re not open wetlands. And the finger is up, going towards Bay Road on both sides, both lots, are lawn. If you drive by Bay Road you won’t see wetlands there. You won’t see open water. That’s just shallow groundwater. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there surface water in that? MR. JARRETT-Only the stream. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. JARRETT-Only the stream which is through the center of the corridor. MR. VALENTINE-Is it intermittent? MR. JARRETT-No, no. It flows. I’m sure it flows all year. It’s flowing very hard right now of course. MR. TRAVER-Does it flow into Halfway Brook? MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s a tributary of Halfway Brook as I recall. And what my thought is that we would put a berm up, either the existing very fine sand or even slower permeable soils between the parking lot and the wetlands. Manage stormwater on the uphill side away from the wetlands, but use the berm to protect the wetlands and the stream corridor. MR. TRAVER-And again you can do that more effectively with commercial versus residential. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-To bad you didn’t have enough here to pay for re-locating on this site. MR. JARRETT-Re-locating the wetlands? MR. HUNSINGER-Move the stream? MR. JARRETT-Well, we’re going to need a permit anyway because we’ve got a finger on the southern lot that we’ve got to disturb. So we will need a permit, but getting into more than a tenth of an acre gets into mitigation which is very expensive and time-consuming. I don’t think we have to get into that right now. MR. SHAFER-And, Tom, that back lot, the concept of creating additional wetlands to mitigate what impact you might have on the existing ones, is that possible? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. JARRETT-Yes, it is, and I don’t think Dan has an objection to that if that makes sense. From the Corps of Engineers’ perspective, this is not a DEC wetland, by the way. It’s an Army Corps of Engineers, and from a Town perspective that certainly would be amenable to them. By the way, he would be here except he has COVID. MR. DEEB-Well we know Queensbury has been pushing commercial on Bay Road for a while, and we’ve had such resistance to it because commercial property is not desirable at this time, and it’s interesting to see that now somebody wants to come back and do what the Town of Queensbury planned to do. MR. JARRETT-Yes. I hope. Hopefully the Town will support it. The starting point is this Board. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. JARRETT-So obviously there are concerns and questions. Do you have any major concerns or major, do you feel it’s a dead end, we should not pursue it? MR. DEEB-That’s a tough one. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you just have to show the mitigation. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s the thing. MR. JARRETT-Proceed through it and see how it goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other than that, I think it’s a good design, myself. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I mean it seems like the best approach to a bad situation. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean it’s consistent with the other buildings on that side of Bay Road. So it’s consistent with the neighbors. You have the facades facing the street like we want to see on Bay Road. You have the parking behind the building. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If it weren’t for the wetlands. MR. DEEB-The wetlands have put a stop to it, Everything else I think is good. MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, the new college name is SUNY Adirondack. MR. JARRETT-Sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s okay. I say it, too, for so long. MR. JARRETT-Do you have any concerns about the access off of a private driveway for the second lot? MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Because the house has its other access, too. MR. JARRETT-Yes, the house has a second access anyway. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. VALENTINE-That picture on there which is saying your view to the east, that’s that road, or is that the driveway? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the driveway. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. JARRETT-I don’t have the pictures right in front of me, but I think Bayberry Drive is in that photo, isn’t it? MR. VALENTINE-Yes, at the very top of it. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and then in between the lot you’ve got the big, long driveway. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. JARRETT-Okay, and the photo to the, the left hand photo, the top left is from the driveway looking north. So Bayberry Drive is in the background, and then the next photo to the right is panning to the right and you see the wetland corridor, and you notice everything up to the stream corridor is actually lawn, even though there’s wetlands through there. And then the bottom picture is of the driveway. MR. VALENTINE-All right. MR. JARRETT-And then the Schermerhorn office building is in the background of the photo to the right. MR. DIXON-I was going to make a comment on the private drive. The only thing that I could see potentially being a problem is you’d almost have to be able to prevent traffic from going that way otherwise you may have to look at the culvert and make sure everything can sustain regular traffic. MR. JARRETT-Say that again? I’m not sure I understood you. MR. DIXON-So the private drive, there’s nothing that would prevent. MR. JARRETT-People from driving through Dan’s lot? MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Good point. MR. DIXON-If they’re going to do that, then the culvert that is currently in place would have to be able to handle that level of traffic. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Well I think Dan would have to be acceptable to, I don’t think we’d want to see that. MR. DIXON-It would almost be better to remove that stretch of driveway. MR. VALENTINE-Put a hammerhead at the end of his. MR. JARRETT-We’ve got to widen that driveway anyway and upgrade the septic to the commercial portion. So I’ll talk to Dan about that. Good point. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments? Do you have any questions for us? MR. JARRETT-No. I’ve asked the questions. I wanted to see how much concern there was with our problem, and I don’t think the access is a concern. The wetlands are more of a concern, but we’ll see what we can do. MR. TRAVER-It is what it is. MR. JARRETT-So we’ll proceed and see how far we get. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thanks very much. So the next item is Subdivision Sketch Plan 14-2021 for Paul Nasrani. SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 14-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. PAUL NASRANI. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: 210. LOCATION: 790 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH LOT 1 TO BE 2 ACRES WITH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE AND BUILDINGS TO REMAIN. LOT 2 WILL BE 2.05 ACRES AND LOT 3 WILL BE 2.23 ACRES, BOTH FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE; FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW. LOT 1 WOULD MAINTAIN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO BAY ROAD AND BOTH OF THE OTHER 2 LOTS WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO AN EXISTING SEPARATE DRIVEWAY WITH IMPROVEMENTS ON BAY ROAD. SITE DRAWINGS INDICATE EXISTING WETLANDS IN LOTS 2 AND 3 WHERE SOME WORK WILL OCCUR WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE WETLANDS. PROJECT ACTIVITIES MAY BE SUBJECT TO FUTURE REVIEW FOR FRESHWATER WETLANDS WITH SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183-11, SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 179-1968. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR DISCUSSION. LOT SIZE: 6.29 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-47. SECTION: 183-11 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is also for a three lot subdivision with Lot One to be two acres with the existing residential use of the buildings to remain. Lot Two will be 2.05 and Lot Three will be 2.23. Both 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) lots for future residential use. And again, there’s some wetlands on here, and due to the lot requirements, there’s possibly some other variances that may be required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-For the record, I’m Tom Jarrett from Jarrett Engineers representing Paul Nasrani. He owns a six acre parcel, just over six acres, on Bay Road, just north of the Town Hall here. It’s within throwing distance. He has an existing residence on Bay Road, but he wishes to build a couple of family houses in the back, and again, there are some problems with this site. Access, right now there’s about 200 feet of frontage. We don’t have frontage for three lots. I’m still shaking out with Laura what variances we might need for that access, and it’s a little unclear to me, still, Laura, what we might need, but there is an access issue. We are providing a common driveway for the rear two lots, but it is, they are flag lots there. So that’s an issue. The wetland issue should go away. The formal wetland delineation was done after we plotted these houses on there. So we’ll move the houses away from the wetlands and we’ll do away with that issue. So really it’s the flag lots and the frontage, the access on Bay Road, that needs to be vetted with this Board. Again, we did fieldwork today and there’s good soils on this site, too. MR. TRAVER-The same or similar soils? MR. JARRETT-Slightly different. A little bit courser than on Bay Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Slightly courser. This would be municipal water supply, but onsite wastewater and stormwater. MR. TRAVER-You think you could do that far enough from the wetlands so that wouldn’t be. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’ll be able to move that far enough from the wetlands I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-So I know the Town Code discourages flag lots as you pointed out. I kind of see this as being a pretty unique situation. I think there’s enough space behind the existing homes on Bay Road so that it wouldn’t cause any issues, and a lot of the lot is woods. So particularly the northernmost houses you probably wouldn’t even know were there. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-Southern ones, potentially, too, if they decided to set them back into the woods. We haven’t gone to that extent yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and it’s, you know, the lot that fronts Bay Road on there is the owner’s lot. So it’s kind of his hardship. MR. JARRETT-Correct. I didn’t give you any pictures from the back, but you can see on the left picture, you can look through the carport there and you can see the lawn in the back, the woodlands way in the back. By the way, that is an existing driveway as it is, but they use it as access to the rear lot. MR. HUNSINGER-I was wondering where that went. MR. JARRETT-So we would propose to use that driveway, as crude as it is, and probably unofficial, we would propose to use that. MR. SHAFER-Tom, does he own the big parcel behind that that has a narrow right of way out to Bay as well? MR. JARRETT-The big parcel? MR. SHAFER-On the first page it shows a big parcel with white boundaries behind his. MR. JARRETT-No, he does not own that. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-No, and if you go far enough to the east, it continues to go down, topographically you go down and it gets very wet. There’s a big wetland corridor back there. There’s DEC wetlands back there. When the Highway garage was built, Tom had to delineate wetlands, and there’s a lot of DEC wetlands, but then move north up into that parcel you’re talking about. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s like Chris pointed out. I mean technically it’s a flag lot, but it sure doesn’t look like a flag lot in a lot of respects. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, there’s nothing really square at all. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s more like a tomahawk lot. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought it was a unique layout. MR. JARRETT-Well part of it’s driven by Zoning Code where we have to have two acres per lot, and still I have to get the survey done on this, and it’s 6.02 right now on the tax map. So I’m dancing on the head of a pin trying to get three lots in two acres. MR. HUNSINGER-You better hope the right of way didn’t move into your language. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. DIXON-I mean it certainly looks doable. I think you definitely have to work with the Fire Marshal with that long driveway, just make sure that you get consent up there. MR. JARRETT-We need turnarounds, hammerheads and a proper width, yes. Do you have any particular concern with the frontage and the way the driveway is configured? MR. HUNSINGER-The one issue that I could anticipate, and I don’t know how bad it is right in that exact spot. When you turn off Bay Road into the site, it does go downhill, so I don’t know what the site is like. MR. JARRETT-You can see from the picture, the left picture, that actually there’s about 50 feet of relatively level ground. So a car would be able to level off and see properly in both directions, and we can make sure that happens with that driveway. So sight distance is not a problem either way and we can make sure that the driver has visibility. MR. TRAVER-So do members of the Board have any extreme concern with this sketch plan? MR. SHAFER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Okay. I appreciate it. We’ll go do the rest of our homework and be back in front of you at the appropriate time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. MR. JARRETT-Thank you for your input. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. JARRETT-And just one last thought, not to be overlooking any members of the Board who may be stepping down, but I wanted to thank you, Chris, for your service to the Town for many, many years. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Tom. MR. JARRETT-Your professionalism and your open-mindedness is very much appreciated. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-That’s not a slight on anybody else. SUBDIV. MODIFICATION 13-2021 DAVID HOWARD/BRENNAN ESTATES (CONT’D) MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, with the modification, do we want to table that? It doesn’t sound like February is a good month. MRS. MOORE-No, so you could potentially table it to Thursday’s meeting, but I don’t have, right now I sent some information to them via e-mail, both David and Tom Center who is his representative, and I haven’t heard back from either one of them, which I find unusual. So I don’t know what’s going on. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well my thought was, because you mentioned they were doing some additional work on the preparation of the application, so I thought maybe they’re just not really ready to present yet. MRS. MOORE-So it’s not that. It’s that they started work without review process. So they have to, they demo’d a barn without a demo permit. So they need to address that with Building and Codes. So they don’t have any equipment on site at this time. MR. TRAVER-Do you want to just bump it to Thursday and see what happens then? MRS. MOORE-We can bump it to Thursday, and if I get in touch with them and they feel like they can do that into March, I would think that would work for us, but I would like to hear from them. So Thursday would be preferred. MR. TRAVER-Okay. IS the Board comfortable with tabling this Subdivision Modification 13-2021 that didn’t show up tonight and we’ll see if they come to the Thursday night meeting? MR. VALENTINE-Can I just ask a question for you guys that have been involved with this before, and I haven’t, this plan shows a driveway with no boulevard. Why was it designed with a boulevard the first time through? MR. HUNSINGER-So I’ll go first. There might be other comments as well, but one of the concerns was on the length of the dead end road. MR. VALENTINE-And then it comes up the number of lots on a public road. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and so one of the mitigation factors was to put in boulevards so if there was an accident or whatever you would still have the other side to use. So that was part of the discussion. MR. VALENTINE-That was my main thought. MR. HUNSINGER-At least that was my concern. MR. VALENTINE-Without, County DPW does not review subdivisions, and this would have been a case where they would have had some kind of input, maybe. I’m not trying to open Pandora’s Box. I’m just saying that because of this, and I’ve just seen it before where the County DPW does have input. MRS. MOORE-County DPW would be different than the County Planning Office. The County Planning Office doesn’t necessarily have communication with the County DPW. I don’t have a problem reaching out to the County DPW and asking that question, if they would have comment on such a project. I don’t think I’m going to get anything from them, but I don’t mind asking, and I can go from there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-It’s just funny, okay, it was designed that way, approved that way, and now it comes back later saying. MRS. MOORE-It’s a different owner now. So it’s not the same owner. It’s just a different developer that’s picked it up. MR. VALENTINE-All right. How about the concern for why a road is designed with a boulevard, and that’s safety, fire, you know, you’re not blocking off a main entrance all together if there is something going on, ambulance, fire. MRS. MOORE-Sometimes the boulevard is an interference, also, only for snowplowing purposes and emergency. So it’s sort of like a double-edged sword. MR. VALENTINE-Well I noticed, I looked at the driveway for Lot 16 up above, it’s shown with a concrete pork chop or something in there, and I’m wondering why one’s good and one’s not. MRS. MOORE-That’s something that the applicant could address. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-The one thing I would suggest is that you open up the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. We do have a public hearing on this application. We’ll go ahead and open that up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/14/2021) MR. TRAVER-And could we have a motion to table this to Thursday. RESOLUTION TABLING SUBDIV. MOD 13-2021 DAVID HOWARD/BRENNAN ESTATES A subdivision application has been made where the applicant proposes to modify a 16 lot subdivision to include removal of the boulevard entrance and revision of the stormwater management plan. There is no change to the number or arrangement of the lots. Subdivision modification required for the update to the subdivision entrance roadway and stormwater plan. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, SEQR review for the updated project shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 13-2021 DAVID HOWARD/BRENNAN ESTATES, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the Planning Board meeting on Thursday, December 16, 2021. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 14 day of December, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So just one last reminder to please be here at 6:15 on Thursday, and with that, we’ll take a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER TH 14, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 14 day of December, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Thanks, everybody. We’ll see you in two days. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 24