Loading...
02-15-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH FEBRUARY 15, 2022 INDEX Site Plan No. 33-2021 San Souci/333 Cleverdale Road 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43, 226.12-1-44 Site Plan No. 35-2021 Mountain Vista Properties, LLC (Formerly Chris Racicot) 2. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60 Site Plan No. 2-2022 Patrick Connors 8. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-1 Site Plan No. 7-2022 Hoffman Development Corp. 12. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-42; 296.13-1-17.2 Site Plan No. 70-2021 Francis & Erin Steinbach 24. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 51-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Main House) 27. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Site Plan No. 52-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Guest House) 30. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Site Plan No. 4-2022 Adirondack Trust Company 32. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 7-2022 Fritz and Mary Stefanzick 34. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11 Site Plan No. 55-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 36. FWW 1-2021 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 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 02/15/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH FEBRUARY 15, 2022 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN MOLLOY JACKSON LA SARSO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT WARREN LONGACKER 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 meeting for Tuesday, February 15. This is our first meeting for the month of February and our third thus far for 2022. If you’ll observe the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency,, from this room at least, those are the emergency exit routes. If you have a phone or other electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it will not interrupt our meeting I would appreciate that. I will do likewise. We also ask that except for public hearings, the audience remain silent, in this room at least. If you want to have a discussion amongst yourselves, feel free to go to the outer room. There’s some chairs and tables out there for you to have discussions likewise. There are some applications before us this evening that will have public hearings. We will announce those at that time and you’ll have an opportunity to speak. We have a couple of administrative items, one of them being approval of minutes, and we’re anticipating another Board member to be coming who took part in those meeting minutes. So I think we’ll wait on that item. The second item is Site Plan 33-2021 for San Souci. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 33-2021 SAN SOUCI/333 CLEVERDALE ROAD TABLED TO APRIL 19, 2022 MEETING MR. TRAVER-This is a request for an additional tabling to April 19,. 2022. Laura? th MRS. MOORE-Actually we’re going to table them until May 17. th MR. TRAVER-May 17. Okay. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is the applicant is working on the details that are necessary to file an application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So that will be April 15 on the submission. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 33-2021 SAN SOUCI/333 CLEVERDALE ROAD 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. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 33-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Tabled until the May 17, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by April 15, 2022. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have approval of minutes for the meetings of December 14, 2021 and December 16, 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 14, 2021 December 16, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF thth DECEMBER 14, 2021 AND DECEMBER 16, 2021, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Molloy, Mr. LaSarso ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda being Tabled Items, and the first item being Mountain Vista Properties , LLC, Site Plan 35-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 35-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED – LEAD AGENCY PB 6/15/21, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8/17/2021. MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES, LLC. (FORMERLY CHRIS RACICOT). AGENT(S): NICHOLAS ZEGLEN, EDP. OWNER(S): MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES, LLC. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 20 NEWCOMB STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 14 UNITS CONSISTING OF THREE BUILDINGS WHERE TWO BUILDINGS WILL HAVE SIX UNITS AND ONE BUILDING WILL HAVE TWO UNITS. THE BUILDINGS ARE TO BE TWO-STORY WITH GARAGE AND EXTERIOR PATIOS. PROJECT INCLUDES SEWER CONNECTION. PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179- 5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD AND OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEWS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 45-2008, NOA 6-2005 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES, .43 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-60. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070, 179-8-050. CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHRIS RACICOT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this project is an application to construct 14 units, multi-family dwellings consisting of three buildings, where two buildings will have six units and one building will have two units. The buildings are two story with a garage and exterior patios. In my Staff Notes I note that the applicant should provide additional information in regards to the lighting and landscaping, as well as, or rather, sorry, signage and lighting and a timeframe of construction for each building, and last month we have tabled it pending the Town Board and their permissive referendum and that was the project in reference 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) to the consolidated sanitary sewer district. It was adopted last night. So it paves the way for this project to come back before the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record my name is Clark Wilkinson with Environmental Design Partnership, representing the Mountain Vista Properties and Mr. Racicot who is here as well. I just wanted to re-introduce the project since it’s been quite a while since we’ve been in front of this Board, and a couple of new members as well. Again, as Laura said, it’s 14 townhouse style apartments with a multi-family development, 1.04 acres at 20 Newcomb Street. We have gone through a couple of iterations. We’ve reduced the buildings from one building to two buildings for fire protection, and we also added, the existing house on the lot would be eventually taken down. Right now it’s being rented out, but once the new units get built, that house will be taken down and that will be turned into another two units total, and that’s all in the paperwork and everything’s good. As far as the Planning Board history, again, Laura summarized it pretty well in her Staff Notes. We’ve been here a few times. We have a sewer district extension that we went through with the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Hatin assisted us in that process and it got approved by the Town Board and the extension itself has been approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation There is existing water in the street. We are in the existing water district. So that’s going to be public water. We’ve provided plans and the computations for the stormwater which is on site and the couple of burning issues from Laura’s notes are the signage and the lighting, and the sign is planned on being a three by five wood sign that’s going to be lit by solar lighting that’s downward on it. We had been asked to put that into our application. Three by five is much less than that, so we should be okay, and that location is shown on the site plan, if I’m not mistaken. It’s not being added for final, but it’s going to be right near that main entrance. I’ll show you. MR. TRAVER-Does that meet the setback requirement? MR. WILKINSON-I’ll make sure that it does. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-I believe that’s 10. MRS. MOORE-For a sign it’s always 15. MR. WILKINSON-Fifteen? I’ll get it there. MR. WILKINSON-The lighting itself, all of the soffits on the entrance and over the garage have the recessed can lighting that’s downward in front of the front door and garages and the rear door will have a standard wall mounted light, and again it’s all going to be LED as required by Code, and again it’s very similar to other projects in the area. Our project is the same way, the same type of lighting. That’s what we’re trying to do is be consistent throughout the neighborhood. Other than that, we’re here tonight to seek site plan approval from the Board. At this time I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions, comments and intercession. MR. TRAVER-While you’re on the lighting, can you submit the cut sheets for those fixtures to the Planning Office for their review? Good. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Clark, are your lights going to be downcast? MR. WILKINSON-They’re the standard wall mounted lights. MR. DEEB-So straight up? MR. RACICOT-It would be more like a wall sconce. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Like the standard door ones there, you know, they have a little glass, they kind of hang there, 60 watt bulb. MR. RACICOT-Yes, it doesn’t really point anywhere. MR. TRAVER-And that’s LED as well. Right? MR. RACICOT-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. DIXON-On your plan up there, and I apologize, I can’t see it, but do you have sidewalks on your plans? MR. RACICOT-No. MR. DIXON-I’m just thinking connectivity towards Main Street. It’s kind of a unique design that you have. We’re starting to come off Main Street. What are your thoughts on that? MR. RACICOT-It hasn’t been discussed in the past. I believe there’s one property between us. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, there’s no current sidewalks. MR. RACICOT-There’s no current sidewalks anywhere coming off of Main Street, and anybody in here is likely just going to be pulling in and walking back and forth on pavement for neighbors and stuff like that. I don’t see a need, but again, it’s a point of discussion. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that’s in the Comprehensive Plan, isn’t it? MR. RACICOT-Not along the side streets. Only along Main Street I believe. MR. DEEB-It would be incongruent to have them right there and not the rest of Newcomb Street. MRS. MOORE-So what I’ve seen the Board in the past do is have the applicant responsible for the sidewalk in their property and their conversations with those that own the right of way if they’re not going to put it physically on their property. If they’re going to work within the right of way, then they would communicate with that entity that owns that road and it would be only for that section of what they own. So on Corinth Road that’s what we did with Stewart’s. MR. DEEB-So we could be starting something new then. MRS. MOORE-Potentially. MR. DEEB-You put sidewalks in. Then the rest of the properties put sidewalks in and then we can connect it to Main Street. MRS. MOORE-Possibly. MR. DEEB-Which would look nice. It’s a good point that Mike brought up, if you could consider that. You would be the initiator. You’d be the first ones to do it, and I think it would be an asset to the Town as well. MR. DIXON-I know from my perspective what I was thinking, as we continue to develop Main Street, you know, what’s going to be very attractive to live in this units is that they’ll be able to walk to Main Street if they’re shopping, you know, it’ll be interesting to see how it develops, but if people are encouraged to walk instead of drive it keeps them off the roadway and as we’re talking about that, though, I will bring up at our last meeting one of the residents across the street had mentioned that water seems to pool up on the road. Obviously that could be a Town issue, but I’m just thinking coming off the road I don’t know if you want to put any sort of depression. Make sure any stormwater stays on it. We were under the impression that water was running from the property to the road. MR. RACICOT-Currently, yes, but we’re interrupting that with stormwater management and re-grading the site. So that will be re-occurring. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. LA SARSO-I just have a quick question. You mentioned, I saw here that you have 28 spots for car parking. I didn’t see anything for bike parking. On that same note, as Mike said, would you be open to installing a bike rack or something? MR. WILKINSON-We would assume that with garages that all the people here that have bikes will be putting them in their garages, and I don’t see a need for that, but it’s up to the owner to consider. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. MR. RACICOT-To me I kind of like it clean, just kind of everything tucked away, nothing hanging out, at least up on the patios, not on the property, just clean look. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. LA SARSO-Sure. I’m fine with it without it. Just wanted to see if you had thought about it at least. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any takers. Laura, any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no new additional comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Let’s see, we did SEQR on this earlier in August. MRS. MOORE-Can I ask a question in regards to timeframe? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Do you know, are you going to build all three buildings, two buildings at once and then a six month lag and do the third building, or what’s your timeframe? MR. WILKINSON-So we had to throw the last building in there just to get through the whole process at once, just so it made more sense as one. We’re going to see how the first two, because obviously the cost and everything else. So we were going to see how the first two went, the two 6’s, and then go and see what we had with the room for the last one. MRS. MOORE-So what’s your timeframe in the next few months? Are you starting construction this year? MR. RACICOT-We should be starting right in the spring, as long as we get through everything and get our ducks in a row here. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. RACICOT-And I would assume that those two 6’s would take no more than a year. Hopefully. MRS. MOORE-So it’s possible, I don’t, it’s something that I would have to evaluate when you do go to build that third structure. It may trigger an additional trip; back to this Board. MR. RACICOT-Okay. MRS. MOORE-But if you had a definite timeframe of how you were going to construct it, then the Board could say those first two are on an immediate construction schedule. That last one’s going to take, you know, twenty-four months before it starts. So I don’t know if that’s in your process that you want to think about. MR. RACICOT-We can commit to that twenty-four month period. The first two in the first year and the second in twenty-four months. MR. DEEB-Coming back. MR. DIXON-And that way wouldn’t have to come back. MR. MAGOWAN-So how are we leaving it with the sidewalks? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s a question. We’ve discussed that, and any sidewalk would only be where their property borders Newcomb Street. It would not be all the way out to the Main Street. I guess I would ask the applicant about that. Would you consider putting a sidewalk just where your property borders Newcomb Street? MR. RACICOT-I’d rather, I understand exactly what you’re saying. I did address, because I thought in the beginning that that might come up, and we didn’t bring it up as something major. So I kind of threw more at the building to dress the building up so that kind of added more. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. TRAVER-Right. What if we did this. What if we linked the sidewalk with the third building? That would give you, well it also would, you would presumably begin to develop revenue, begin to recover some assets from your investment in the first two buildings, and then you’d have that third smaller project building and that would also be that last section of the property. So that would be a good time to do it and it would give you twenty-four months. MR. RACICOT-But I’d also like to add as part of that sewer extension, we are going to end up re-building the entire street as far as the road bed goes, and we agreed to that with the Highway as well. So that’s an added cost that we didn’t initially have as well. MR. TRAVER-So actually that would be the time to put in the sidewalk. MR. RACICOT-Right after the sewer. MR. TRAVER-Because you’re doing it anyway basically. MR. RACICOT-The sidewalk could go in any time because it’s not next to the pavement for sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the sidewalk in the twenty-four month window? MR. WILKINSON-We’d be agreeable to that. MR. RACICOT-Yes. MRS. MOORE-And so just for the applicant, there may be, if you work with the Town, the Town says no, say the Town said, no, we don’t want you to do it, and that is possible, I don’t know, then the applicant would not be obligated to do that. So word that resolution in some way that says that at this time the applicant is going to work with. MR. TRAVER-Subject to the approval of the Town. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anything else from members of the Board? Okay. It looks like we have completed all the steps up to the point at which we may consider an approval. MR. DIXON-I’ll give it a shot here. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 35-2021 MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES, INC./CHRIS RACICOT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of 14 units consisting of three buildings where two buildings will have six units and one building will have two units. The buildings are to be two-story with garage and exterior patios. Project includes sewer connection. Project site work includes lighting, landscaping and stormwater controls. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new construction shall be subject to Planning Board and other department reviews. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance on 8/17/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6/15/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/15/2022, 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 2/15/2022; 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, 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 35-2021 MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES (CHRIS RACICOT); Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted- no waivers requested; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) Applicant to install sidewalk along Newcomb Street (associated with the applicants parcel only) within 24 months subject to approval by the Town; m) Applicant to commence site work on Building Number Three within 24 months. n) Cut sheet of lighting fixtures to be provided to the Town. o) Sign details also to be provided to the Town. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-In reference to the sidewalk, is the Board saying that it should be for the entire length of Newcomb from this street, or just the property frontage? MR. TRAVER-They would only be responsible for their own property. MRS. MOORE-Okay. All right. Just so it’s clarified that it’s only for property frontage of the owner. MR. TRAVER-And I don’t think we could require that the sidewalk be beyond their property. MRS. MOORE-Not typically, but I just wanted to make sure. MR. DEEB-We will reach out to other property owners, right, at a certain time? MRS. MOORE-If they come in for review. The other item I would suggest, there were two. Sign details be provided on the final plans, and cut sheets also be provided on the final plans. MR. TRAVER-Right, cut sheets for the lighting fixtures. Thank you, Laura. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Does he have to say that or can I second the amended motion? You said it so well, Laura. MR. TRAVER-Well let’s have him read the additional conditions first. MR. DIXON-I heard the cut sheet was the addition, and what was the other one? MRS. MOORE-Sign details. AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you very much for your time. MR. RACICOT-Thanks, guys. MR. TRAVER-Good luck. The next item under Tabled Items, is Patrick Connors, Site Plan 2-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PATRICK CONNORS. AGENT(S): DANIEL RYAN, PE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 95 ROCKHURST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING DECK OF 644 SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A 644 SQ. FT. DECK IN THE SAME LOCATION. THE DECK IS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HOUSE AND HAS A PATIO AREA UNDERNEATH. THE STEPS FROM THE DECK TO THE LOWER PATIO AREA WILL REMAIN IN THE SAME PLACE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,890 SQ. FT. MINUS THE DECK. THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE BOATHOUSE STRUCTURE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-4-080, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DECK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1454-20953, SP 61-88, AV 3-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-1. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-4-080. DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PATRICK CONNORS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to replace an existing deck in kind. It’s 644 square feet. The deck faces the shoreline and the existing home is 1,890 square feet, and there’s no changes to the house itself. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan, Project Engineer. I’m here with the owner, Patrick Connors. I’ll be brief. I know you’ve got a long agenda. We like to think this is a fairly straightforward project. We have a 644 square foot wood deck in disrepair. It needs extensive modifications and repairs to get it back up to usability essentially. There are areas of the deck that are relatively sloped, settled, and there’s quite a few deteriorated members. So in order to repair it, it needs to be basically torn down and replaced. That classifies it as new construction which triggered, you know, the need for the variances to kind of get the existing non-conforming issues legalized and then back to you guys for the final site plan approval. I’d just like to reiterate there basically is no site work proposed other than a couple of piers that have to be removed and replaced because they’ve settled. The existing site is basically a concrete pad underneath, mat slab underneath the deck that’ll be maintained in this upgrade, and then all of the existing deck structure will be re-constructed in its exact same layout and configuration. So I guess if you have any other questions we’d be happy to review those. MR. TRAVER-I see that you received approval of your variance from the ZBA. Were there any changes to your project from what we reviewed as a result of your conversation with them? MR. RYAN-There were no changes or conditions I don’t believe that were stipulated. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I made the comment at the last meeting and I’ll make it again that this one, as far as the deck goes, it looks like it’s currently a safety issue as well if you do not replace it. MR. RYAN-Yes, like I mentioned, a couple of sections are sloped almost four to six inches due to settling and deterioration. MR. DIXON-I would nervous walking on that. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. There is one person that would like to speak. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’re not opposed to the Site Plan application but view the reconstruction project as the opportunity to make property compliant with the Town of Queensbury water quality protection regulations. We disagree with statements made at the Zoning Board of Appeals that said that there was no reason to improve water quality. As every application is a chance to protect Lake George, especially where you have lawns to the lake and there’s harmful algae blooms occurring along the shoreline. So we feel that there is the opportunity for conditions. It does not appear that there’s any stormwater management for the property. Considering that this structure does extend into protected shoreline area, we feel that stormwater management, very minor, not structural, should be considered. We understand that there’s no site work proposed. However, this is still an opportunity to improve the property and the lake. If we don’t take measures right now to address the existing runoff, Lake George will never improve. Also we feel that there should be consideration of the shoreline buffer as the Town Code requires. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There is a comment. It says, “I am writing in support of the project proposed by the Connors. Rebuilding an existing deck structure on its current footprint due to a need for improved structural integrity should be deemed as “maintenance” and I hope that the Boards will agree. Since moving to Rockhurst, the Connors have been diligent about keeping their property maintained and this necessary rebuild will keep their home both safe and attractive. Thank you for your consideration. Steve and Debby Seaboyer, 83 Rockhurst Rd” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No others. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So you heard public comment. There was the letter in support of your project. Can we talk about the, I guess first the shoreline buffer. I know you’re not suggesting any modification that I’m aware of to the buffer. Can you describe the buffer that exists? MR. RYAN-Yes, absolutely. Currently there’s 40 feet from the decks structure to the shore. That consists of a couple of tier levels. So there are a couple of retaining walls, one along the shoreline and then one sitting part way up the embankment. Currently we have over 40 feet of well-established grass filter strip. It is a common practice used to protect waterbodies and stormwater structural devices. The grass helps filter runoff. It consumes nutrients. It prevents erosion. To disturb it and dig it up to put another practice that is of, say, equal quality or usefulness doesn’t make sense here in this project. We have a deck structure that’s been existing for many, many years. There’s no current ongoing erosion problem and additionally there is no real source of pollution, phosphorus or things that might cause algae blooms coming from this deck. This is not the type of project proposing a much substantial increase in impervious. In fact we’re at 70% permeability. It’s going to be maintained without any changes. I agree the lake needs to be protected and there are times when that endeavor should be explored, but in this type of project I feel it would just be unwarranted to disturb more land and take more risk and remove vegetation to install vegetation. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. TRAVER-So even something like a rain garden you think would not be helpful? MR. RYAN-The benefit of a rain garden occurs when you can convey water to it. If we put a rain garden at the top of an embankment near the deck, what water is going to be captured and conveyed to it and properly designed where it’s pre-treated and what benefit would that provide above and beyond what the 40 feet of grass does? MR. TRAVER-What about the vegetation in addition to the grass? What is the buffering actually? MR. RYAN-Along the shoreline I would say if you envision there being two areas of landscaping, one is in the northwest corner of the property and it consists of about 30 to 40 feet of vegetated area with shrubs and flowerbeds. So that area is fairly large and significant in the northwest corner, and there’s also a similar area in the southwest corner which is more tree lined and it’s not necessary as much of a shrub style vegetation, and I would also like to point out that the whole southern half of the property beyond the home is almost forested. It’s all trees. It’s not lawn, it’s forested, and that’s pretty rare for these sites along the lake. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments from members of the Board on the public comment that we heard? MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. As I stated in the last meeting, I do know the property. I did paint this deck many, many years ago. I see that you have gutters up front, along the side that come down, and then the front. I was thinking, you have that drop off, you know, coming off the slab, but you have all that rain that’s coming up on that deck, coming down on that slab and the summertime grass does well. MR. RYAN-It slows the runoff, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the runoff, but the wintertime when you have that freeze and we get that rain that freezes. It is a slope down there. So, you know, that is a big slab underneath where you have the chairs underneath the deck. Is there a possibility of grabbing something to catch some of that water that’s coming down off the deck and coming down on the slab and then coming down? MR. RYAN-Certainly there could be, I guess that the concern would be stopping 100% of that runoff or some portion of it to collect it. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, it’s so tight and it is so close, you know, and I agree with you saying to disturb it, which it’s matured now, but then I also agree with Chris Navitsky there that every effort that we can, you know, moving forward to protect would be great. I mean I don’t know if there’s something that you’re thinking of underneath that deck is putting some kind of roofing material to catch the water to sit underneath. That way you could drop it into a gutter and that would stop the water from up above. I mean something to that effect, because that way, you know, you’ve got the deck and then the slab that runs down and then right down into the lake and you do have your, I’m just trying to think of a compromise. MR. RYAN-My concern would be, I mean ideally because the stormwater device requires collection, conveyance and then transmittance to the device itself, that’s hard to do in a small area, you know, especially at the top of a slope. So ideally the only practice that works well in this condition is to capture it, infiltrate it at its source, which would be along the edge of the slab. In that instance, you know, because it’s on a slope I’d be hesitant to undermine that pad and then try to put a stone infiltration device or some other measure the entire length of it at the top of the slope, and I guess my concern would be that in the long-term degradation of that practice could cause a problem with the mat slab itself, and then we’re in a bigger situation where that has to be replaced. MR. MAGOWAN-And I agree with that, too. I can picture that. Like I said, I’m just throwing some things out there because I know, you know, knowing the property as well as I do, I understand the circumstance and it’s really tight. You’re right. There is no area to grab it and convey it someplace else. MR. RYAN-Which is why my opinion is that the existing vegetation is working well. It’s serving its purpose by protecting the lake because it’s not promoting erosion and it is, there is uptake of nutrients, not that there’s a huge nutrient load here, because we’re talking a very small deck area. It’s not like it’s a road or a parking lot where you have sediment or pollutants from vehicles. So again, if the circumstances were different or if the land was flatter, I think we would have more opportunities to do it safely and in a conscientious manner that, you know, could provide substantial benefit. I just don’t know if the benefit we’re seeking is worthwhile to take risks and disturb more land, more area, in this particular application. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m happy with that answer. Thank you. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? Let’s see. This is a Type II SEQR. All right. Do Board members feel comfortable moving forward? Okay. We have a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 2-2022 PATRICK CONNORS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to remove an existing deck of 644 sq. ft. to construct a 644 sq. ft. deck in the same location. The deck is attached to the existing house and has a patio area underneath. The steps from the deck to the lower patio area will remain in the same place. The existing home is 1,890 sq. ft. minus the deck. There is additional work on the boat house structure. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-4-080, construction of a new deck 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 1/18/2022; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1/26/2022; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/15/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/15/2022 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 2/15/2022; 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 2-2022 PATRICK CONNORS; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal, waivers requested are considered reasonable; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. RYAN-Thank you all. MR. TRAVER-The next application, also under Tabled Items, is Hoffman Development Corporation, Site Plan 71-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 71-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. AGENT(S): FRANK PALUMBO, CT MALE. OWNER(S): 919 STATE ROUTE 9/925 STATE ROUTE 9 (ACCESS). ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 919 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,750 +/- SQ. FT. CAR WASH BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS DRIVES AND QUEUING LANES, AND 18 SELF-SERVE VACUUM AREAS. THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED A SIDEWALK TO BE COORDINATED WITH OTHERS ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON WEEKS ROAD. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR ACCESS ONTO ROUTE 9 THROUGH EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT AND THROUGH ADJOINING PARCEL ACCESS ON WEEKS ROAD. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1990, SP 53-2011, SP 57-1995, AV 42-1995, AV 74-1995, 99729-8147 ADDITION, DISC 5-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-42, 296.13-1-17.2. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-040. FRANK PALUMBO & ALANNA MORAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for construction of a 5,750 square foot carwash building and associated access drives and queuing lanes and 18 self-serve vacuum area pumps. In summary there’s several notes within the Staff Notes. I believe the Board may request additional information addressing the engineering comments for work in the right of way for the sidewalk and property authorization for the interconnect, and there were engineering comments. I think the Board received them via e-mail. They haven’t received a hard copy yet MR. TRAVER- Right. Okay. Thanks. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male. Also with me is Alanna Moran from VHP. VHP did the traffic analysis on the project. So she’ll be able to answer any of your questions on that. I think Laura’s quick rundown of the Staff comments, fortunately they were quick because I think we’ve addressed the majority of comments that have been brought forward when we were here in December. A couple of things in notes. The buffer area, as we’ve maintained between ourselves and the property to the rear of us, the apartment complex, was only required to be 20 feet and within there, what we have in most areas is almost as much as 50 feet back where the vacuum areas are, and that area is also being left with existing vegetation. At the Board’s discretion, if they felt this was in need of newer vegetation, we do have, our opinion is that the existing vegetation is substantial and should be maintained in that area of the buffer. With regard to the sidewalks that Laura just brought up, as you are probably aware our business is mostly car related. We put in the sidewalk after we first met for the pre-application process, an understanding that having the sidewalk along Weeks Road, especially with the conditions such as a bus drop off up in that area, that Hoffman’s has decided is a new thing that they should do to improve the situation out there. So that’s why we had placed the sidewalk in there. If the Board is thinking that it really wasn’t advantageous that we would act on your discretion with the sidewalk. I should have also mentioned that with us tonight is Tom Hoffman, Jr. and Marty Andrews from Hoffman’s and they can answer any operational questions. With regard to the interconnect, we are planning the interconnect as it was approved on the site plan back when that lot was originally developed. It’s a good access management and I think that’s why the Board had placed it there in the first place, that requirement on the site plan. So that’s why we were intending to use it, to get access out onto the light. We think that that’s the best situation for not just our project but for the access management of Route 9 and Weeks Road. We do have access on to Weeks Road. Sean has full access at this point. We think that that also is the better situation rather than trying to force situations of right in/right out or close it off entirely, and I’ll let Alanna explain. We had that discussion that it is the best situation for having the maximum flexibility for the overall traffic system. All of the comments that were in LaBella’s letter, most of them are related to the stormwater, as was their task. We have already prepared a draft letter. We just haven’t finalized it because we knew that there were a couple of comments that they would want to discuss with the Board, but all the stormwater comments were very technical, and in most cases were just some simple clerical corrections. One thing that did work out we think well from an early comment from 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) the Town’s Engineer was they had identified that the stormwater detention had to be at least 25 feet from the building. So we were able to accomplish that and still not overly impact the original design. So we think that we have all of LaBella’s comments addressed and ready to go. There’s nothing in there that substantially causes us to make any kind of substantial change on the plan. So what I’ll do now is I’ll ask Alanna to address, there were two comments regarding traffic from your TDE. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MS. MORAN-Thanks. Again, Alanna Moran with VHP. We completed the traffic evaluation for this particular project. As Frank had mentioned, there were two traffic comments from the TDE for this particular project. Specifically one of them was the question of trip generation for the site, and noting that basically the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual which is our industry standard for estimating trips for a new project, there’s very limited data when it comes to a carwash facility. So what’s being requested is that we instead use data from an existing facility and analyze that within, to see how that might differ, the traffic data in ITE. So we’ll go ahead and update the analysis to include data from an existing Hoffman’s site that would be similar to the one being proposed in this location, and then again the second question here in the comment letter was really about queuing and how quickly vehicles can be processed through the tunnel and what the might do as far as on site queuing. So again using information from Hoffman’s and an existing facility we’ll go ahead and address those comments in a letter for the Board to read. MR. PALUMBO-So at this point we know that, first, if the Board has any questions before going to a public hearing then we’d gladly address them first. If you want to go to public hearing and then we can address any comments. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, I have a couple of comments and they do largely regard the LaBella letter from th February 10. It sounds as though you feel confident that you can address these issues. There are a great many of these issues addressing stormwater and traffic. If you can clarify those with the engineer that would be great. The issue I guess for us is the potential impact it has on the SEQR, or doing a SEQR review. With the absence of all of the information being processed by our engineer and having their report on these environmental and traffic issues incomplete, because you need to work with the applicant to provide more information. So this may be a case, and we’ll certainly have an opportunity to take public comment and comment and questions from members of the Board, but this may be one of the instances where in order to expedite this evaluation of this project for official approval, we may have you work directly with the engineer and come back to us after you have worked out these various issues, the traffic and the stormwater issues, so that we can proceed with the SEQR review and that’ll be a lot quicker than trying to piecemeal through all of these individual things because you’ll be talking directly to the Town Engineer. MR. PALUMBO-One of the things, as I said, we have a draft response already done. We can have this over to LaBella tomorrow if that were the case. Certainly Alanna will need a little more time just to get that updated traffic, but if the Board and the Staff could at least allow us to initiate the conversation on the stormwater comments, because I do think that those are the type of things that sometimes have that little back and forth that go on. So we would like to initiate that process because I do think that their comments were good and I think that we have the answers for them, and I would say that probably 75% of them were the type of things where they were looking for, you know, we had labeled something, HD 1 and HD 2 and that kind of thing, and that was just a labelling type thing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and there was, I think I saw a comment about some potential of standing water on the Weeks Road entrance. Those are the kinds of things that could affect the overall project design. MR. PALUMBO-And what I think we’ve already done, we’ve added a couple of catch basins down at the entrance there and made sure that we have the gravity flows where it needs to be. So, yes, we’ve addressed those. I think we can get those back to LaBella immediately for those comments. MR. TRAVER-Good. All right. Well, I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. I’m not sure, did everyone have the opportunity to see the engineering comments? Okay. MR. DEEB-I’d like to discuss the traffic flow again. I’m a little bit concerned, after the last few warm days, the results on Quaker Road, seeing the backup with the queue going in three lanes. You’re talking about entering from Route 9 at the light and entering from Weeks Road and both lines going into the stack lines inside. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. DEEB-That concerns me quite a bit because if you’re going to come in from Route 9 and Weeks Road, you’re going to have cars coming in together, you’re going to have cars exiting the carwash itself, there’s going to be a traffic jam there. You’re going to have cars trying to get into the three lanes to get in there. I’m just wondering if there’s a smoother way to do this, because I think that could create some problems and I’m just wondering if there’s a way just to enter from Weeks Road, maybe just exit out to Route 9. MR. PALUMBO-I’ll let Alanna talk about the details of traffic flow on that site. MR. DEEB-You’re going to have people backing up, they might even back up to Route 9. MR. PALUMBO-Laura, can you pull up the one that we had stacking shown on this site? MRS. MOORE-On this site or? MR. PALUMBO-This site, yes. So what we did was we are showing the vehicles and how they would function through the site. Your point is taken in terms of the red cars which are coming in from the access way out to the light at Sweet Road. Those reds are coming in and, yes, they have to make a left hand turn now. What we know, in terms of the volumes that we’re projecting, is that we do expect that the larger volume would be from that location. People having the ease of making the traffic signal on Route 9. So that they’re coming in, but also the green we had so that someone comes in and they can make that turn right there. We cannot control every driver that says, well, I want to go here, I want to go here, but at least we have, with the dual lane at that point, at least it improves it. So as you mentioned with Quaker Road, that’s a single lane that divides into three. We have the dual entering lane at that point. So vehicles that would come in from Weeks have the ability to make that full complete right to get in that lane there. If there is not a bac up at all on, this is the maximum sort of situation. If there’s not a backup at all there, they can go to any turn style and make that turn in there, but it does have the ability to make both directions happen. With the cars coming out of the tunnel, during the maximum period of flow, we would think that if they don’t have a gap, if they wanted to go out to Weeks Road but they don’t have the gap, the easier move is to make that right and go out to the traffic signal which is also, again I stress the access management that was decided on by the Town, that that is the location which is the safest point to exit and that with the amount of time that it takes for the cars to go through it does not cause a backup at that intersection. So we understand your point, but we do think that this addresses how the flow is better by having the two points there. If everybody were to come in through Weeks, that means that any of the queuing that might, and if there was a heavy period, the queuing had a greater chance of going solely out onto Weeks and that’s what we’ve been trying to avoid. So we think that the full access is the better situation for the overall flow, not just for our site but actually for out at Route 9 and on Weeks. It gives the maximum flexibility and eliminates more of the problems than that problem on site might cause. MR. DEEB-I don’t know if you’re going to convince me of that. I’m looking at the cars coming out of the tunnel, all right. They can either turn right or left. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. DEEB-Now if they decide they want to turn left because they want to go to Wal-Mart, there’s a line coming in on your busier days where you see the red cars. They have to wait to get out there in that opening and that’s going to cause some congestion in there and it also slows down for the cars coming in from Weeks Road to get into the line to get through the carwash. That’s why I was, I keep looking at this and I’m saying why can’t they just exit to the right out of the tunnel and go to the light and get out? MR. PALUMBO-We want that exit, but we also think it’s the best access management to have a full entrance off of Sweet Road traffic signal which was always planned for access management by the Town. MR. TRAVER-We’ll also have more accurate information once we get the full traffic study. MR. DEEB-I understand that, but. MR. PALUMBO-I don’t disagree. So if people are waiting to get, come around that curve and then make the turn in there, they may not be feeling nice to allow someone to get in there, but then when you look at it, they have the abilities to just make the right. So if they’re sitting there and they’re saying, well why do I need to go out, why would I need to make that left out of there if nobody’s letting me out? If you needed to go down to Weeks, which direction are you going to go? If you’re going to go left on Weeks that’s the way you’re going to go and you can’t get out, well it’s not that difficult to go up to the signal, make the right and make the right. MR. DEEB-Agreed. Agreed. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. PALUMBO-All right? So that’s not a problem on the exit, but on the entrance situation if you were not allowing the entrance in there as it was always planned. We came up with this design only after we saw that that was a condition of the site plan and the access management that was thought of for the future development of the site. So a previous Board had thought that that was the way to go. I understand you have to look at the particulars of this, but that entrance there allows for more vehicles to get in and get off of the road system and be stacking on the site, and the ability to have the two locations to enter from only improves that situation of us getting cars off of the main roads. MR. DEEB-Okay. My point is I noticed that at Quaker Road. You have several employees at these stations themselves to help people get in and out which works efficiently. Would you have an employee at the turn in where you turn in right on Weeks and where you have to turn left coming off Route 9 where the lines are going to intersect? Would you have somebody in there saying, okay, you’re next, you’re next? People have tempers. I mean, let’s face it, people are people, and I could just see somebody flaring, it’s my turn to get in, it’s my turn to get in. MR. PALUMBO-Don’t you know it soothes people when they go in and get their car washed. MR. DEEB-It’s great being in the tunnel. MR. PALUMBO-I think either Marty or Tom could talk about that operation in terms of how they do things there. MR. DEEB-You’d have to convince me. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, Dave. One of the things, you weren’t talking about closing down Weeks altogether. Just entering. Just entering off of Weeks, and I think I brought that up before is entering on Weeks, because now that you’re looking at it, the cars that want to come out. You’ve got the vehicles that want to get into the queue, they’re bottling up going into Weeks, but if you had everybody exit and go out to the light, then that way they could go right, right and go to Wal-Mart if they want or go to the light, but just having the entrance where you could get the people into the queue. MR. PALUMBO-All right, Mr. Deeb. So maybe I misunderstood. You are allowing for the entrance and exiting out to the traffic light. What you were saying is to prohibit the exiting onto Weeks Road? MR. DEEB-No, I’m sorry if I confused you. I’m concerned. TOM HOFFMAN, JR. MR. HOFFMAN-He’s concerned about this traffic right here. MR. DEEB-Thank you. Going into the line. MR. HOFFMAN-And this person taking a left. MR. DEEB-Right. MR. PALUMBO-Right. Right. Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. DEEB-And also, I mean, as Brad said, if you have just an entrance off of Weeks Road, you’re still going to get the same number of cars going into those lines, whether they come off Route 9 or not, but if they exit and go right out to Route 9, I think it makes for a smoother traffic flow. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I see what you’re saying now, yes. Now I see what he’s saying, because it’s like you’re driving in England now. You’re on the opposite sides of the road. Dave, why didn’t you just say that? Now I see what you’re saying. That’s going to confuse people going out because nobody can. MR. PALUMBO-So you would like them, when they come out of the tunnel to make a right. MR. DEEB-Turn right and go out to the light. MR. HOFFMAN-We could narrow this down so that people have to take a right. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. DEEB-And I’m not sure I’m crazy about them coming in and turning left as the people come in from Weeks Road and turn right. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MS. MORAN-One of the things to also think about here is that condition that we’re looking at up on the board right now is something that’s only going to happen max 15 times a year. This is not the kind of thing that’s going to be happening on the regular. So for the most part on most days, most hours, all that kind of jazz, you’re really looking at trying to have a site that functions fully for everybody to have as many options as possible, and then on those days when it is certainly kind of looks like this instead of looking like it would on a normal typical day, then you can do things from an operational standpoint where you have somebody who is say at the exit of the tunnel itself and directing people to only turn right, or you could have it barricaded and restrict that movement. So there are options operationally that would let you have full access all the time, except for when it really needs to be restricted. MR. DEEB-I think when you need to make those accommodations it’s important. I mean in the middle of summer, I don’t think you’re going to have that problem. MR. PALUMBO-Right, and the other thing, we can handle and accommodate that, but I still say that what’s going to happen there, even if people aren’t being nice to one another, that’s still a better situation than forcing anything out onto the road system where people are traveling at much larger speeds. So that’s why we wanted the fullest functionality there to make the, get the people turned into the site at the traffic light We position the sign, because we do feel that that is the safest and best place to be making the turn in, as compared to if they didn’t allow them to turn in there. Then everybody would be turning onto Weeks and I think that there’s been public that spoke at the last meeting that didn’t think that that was s such a great idea. MR. TRAVER-Right, and then also we need to wait, too, for the accurate traffic data. We’re speculating about a lot of these things and let’s look at the figure and see what the engineer evaluation says and then we’ll have a much more accurate. MR. DEEB-Alanna, I liked what you said about making accommodations at certain times when they have to be made. We have to recognize those times, and to make sure that we can make accommodations so that you don’t have people getting out and having fist fights with each other. MR. HOFFMAN-And on the busiest of days we can also block that off so that people have to take a right. MR. DEEB-Which would be important. I think that should be reflected in the presentation. MARTY ANDREWS MR. ANDREWS-Marty Andrews with Hoffman’s. We also have a place similar to this where we do that in Delmar, where we close down our vacuum lane to push cars over into that vacuum lane so we can double them up and to get them around. And that’s an accommodation that we made in the Town of Bethlehem and it works well. MR. DEEB-That addresses my concern, because I mean, so, I mean I think they’re legitimate concerns. MR. MAGOWAN-I like that idea. MR. TRAVER-Other comments from the Board before we go to a public hearing? MR. DIXON-I do have a functional question and Mr. Hoffman may have to answer this one, but just from my perspective. So if somebody’s coming out of the tunnel and traffic does get backed up, how do you stop the machine if traffic is too great? MR. HOFFMAN-Tom Hoffman, Jr. There is a control system that detects the vehicle at the end of the tunnel. There’s a loop like a traffic loop that detects a vehicle. There’s also a camera that can actually see the vehicle and it stops the production so that it prevents collisions. MR. DEEB-I have to admit, when I go through the tunnel on Quaker Road it’s just amazing how many cars you push through there in such a short time. It’s such an efficient operation . I’ve just never seen anything like it. MR. HOFFMAN-And regarding that, while you say it, our competition down the road is re-modeling. So we suddenly bumped up our volume by over 100,000 cars a year and it’s annihilated the place. Not that I’m looking forward to him re-opening, but it’s completely changed the complexion of that side of the road, but just like a Chik Fil A and McDonald’s drive thru lines, people driving by, and this location offers a really full view of the entrance where Quaker Road does not. It’s hidden. When you see a line at an establishment like a Chik Fil A or a carwash, you choose to go a different time. Plus we’re busy in the 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) middle of the day, not during rush hour. When it’s dark out we’re very slow and, you know, typically, except for Quaker Road it seems like, or in the morning during rush hour people are rushing to work and they don’t have time to get their car washed or it’s too cold out. So we’re primarily busy when there’s less traffic on the road. MR. DEEB-It sounds like you’ve given considerable thought to all the scenarios and that’s what I was looking for. MR. MAGOWAN-Well they’ve been in the business a while. They know washing cars. MR. DEEB-They have the formula. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board before we go to public hearing? MR. DIXON-I do have one more ask. So it came up again as far as the sidewalk going in, which I think is very generous of the Hoffmans to do that, and I’m thinking if it’s school children or whomever, it’s keeping them away from the road. Knowing that there’s going to be a fair amount of traffic there, you’re expecting it to be a busy business, it’s counterintuitive, but lighting along the sidewalks. I’m just thinking if people are pulling in and pulling out, if we’re talking children. MR. TRAVER-Lighting? MR. DIXON-Lighting, yes. MR. HOFFMAN-So I happened to be at the site one day when buses were getting off, and in the winter it is dark when they’re getting off the bus. The light poles, we did revise the lighting plan based on the last comments during the average lighting, but the lighting that we have between the stacking lanes and the sidewalk does have enough light spread that it is lighting the sidewalk as well. It’s giving some light. It’s not an overly, you know, it’s not like we’re over flooding the roadway, but there is some light because that’s where the position of the light poles ended up being. MR. DIXON-And I know that’s where it gets a little awkward because any lights that we put in are calculated into your average. So this would be one of those scenarios if we felt that you needed to put in an additional three poles similar to what’s on Main Street and tied in with your power so that your lights go off at whatever time. It’s counterintuitive, but to light up the sidewalks I think is important. You feel that there’s enough light on those sidewalks. MR. HOFFMAN-I would love to light them up. Let’s light it up. MR. DIXON-I know you would. That’s the balance here. MR. HOFFMAN-I will go double check exactly where the photometric plan showed the lighting there, but I do think that that was something that we had talked to Laura about, and, you know, we were trying to make that balance in making sure we were keeping our average for the site down to the point at which the commercial sites in Queensbury are supposed to be below 2.5 for the average. MRS. MOORE-Something like that. MR. HOFFMAN-So we got our average down. Before we were much higher, and so we got the average down but still had directional light where we needed it, and I think right over in that area, because we’re only about 10 feet away from the road edge to the side, and then you also mentioned about the lights will go off later on, but that would be a point when the business is closed. I think, Marty, you said we had it set for half an hour after the business closed. MR. ANDREWS-8:30. MR. HOFFMAN-So the lights will go off, but, you know, we don’t think that timeframe is a time when a lot of people would be using the site. MR. DIXON-I don’t know how other Board members feel regarding lighting, providing additional lighting or if it’s adequate. MR. ANDREWS-Well you know how they design it with zero cut off at the property line? I think they can also design with a little bit of spillage. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. HOFFMAN-Right, and one thing that we pointed out at the entrance, one of the things where I thought he might be going was also the sidewalk, the roofs does take it across that drive, the entrance drive, but there is a pole really close. You’ll be able to see it there, and we did that specifically so that the lighting at the entrance was going to be more lit than some other areas because that’s somewhere where we want people to have the most visibility, and so if anyone was crossing that sidewalk there, that would be in full light right there. MR. DIXON-All right. Well thank you. MR. DEEB-One more thing. You’re sharing the road with the neighbor. You have cars coming out of each property onto that one road. I’d like to make sure we have safety considerations taken into account when the restaurant has cars coming out and when you have cars going out, too. MR. HOFFMAN-Right. MR. DEEB-That could be a little problematic. I don’t know if there needs to be a yield sign or whatever. MR. HOFFMAN-We talked about that, that we could have a yield sign there so that the main operational flow is to, for the restaurant. We also wanted to talk more specifically about the average delay is not significant to get out at that light. MR. DEEB-I wouldn’t think it would be because the restaurant will probably be busier at the time when you’re not so busy. Thank you. MR. HOFFMAN-Right. We think people are going to go and get their car washed and then stop over. MR. DEEB-And eat, yes. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BEN BOTELHO MR. BOTELHO-My name is Ben Botelho. I’m an attorney with Braymer Law. We represent Whispering Pines Associates which owns the apartment complex on Weeks Road in close proximity to the proposed carwash. In addition to our client’s apartment complex, there’s another apartment complex and a number of condos on Weeks Road with hundreds of residents relying solely on Weeks Road as their only way to and from their homes. We had previously expressed concerns regarding traffic with the project including congestion and safety issues on Weeks Road and Route 9. Here with me tonight is Jay Krushna Kopel, a professional traffic engineer who’s personally reviewed the applicant’s traffic study and made a number of recommendations which I’ll summarize briefly to the Board. Jay is here ready to answer questions if the Board has any. The first recommendation is that the study should be supplemented by real world data from the existing Hoffman’s locations. The Institute of Transportation Engineers, or ITE, estimates for operating a carwash are based on a very low sample size, in this case only three studies, and ITE itself recommends the use of supplemental local data for more accurate estimates. I know Hoffman has a lot of locations to get real data to backup. MR. TRAVER-Yes. You should be aware that our Town Engineer has already made that comment and their traffic study is going to be updated and reevaluated by the engineer. So we’ll have updated opinions from the Town Engineer regarding the traffic study at our next hearing and there will be a public hearing there as well. MR. BOTELHO-Okay. That leads me to the second recommendation was that a queuing analysis should be done. I understand the Town Designated Engineer recommended the same thing in this case. I do have some pictures. I’m sure you’re all aware of the Quaker Road location but I took some pictures recently that show traffic backed up quite a bit on Quaker, and t e concern is that that’s going to happen on Weeks Road and people won’t be able to get home or leave their homes. They’ll be stuck on Weeks Road. I’ll give these to Laura to pass out to everyone. Third, a traffic analysis should be performed to examine the impact on crash rates on the Weeks Road and Sweet Road intersections. Fourth, the sight line analysis for the proposed access drives should be prepared to make sure there’s adequate visibility for safe ingress and egress. Fifth, the applicant’s traffic study does not take into consideration the recommendations made in the 2019 Warren County Traffic Corridor Study, which was prepared by the Town, Warren County, and DEC to evaluate the current traffic issues in the area. The traffic corridor study specifically acknowledged the Weeks Road and Route 9 intersection and recommended re-routing Weeks Road up to 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) Sweet Road across the parcel. I printed out some diagrams from the study that show how the study recommends that be done. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. If you could provide t hose to Staff for the file, we’d appreciate that very much. MR. BOTELHO-I think they were in Jay’s letter. I have copies for everyone if you want to see them. Obviously this would severely impact the feasibility of this project. So I think that needs to be looked into. MR. TRAVER-We can have Staff distribute them for our review prior to the next meeting so all the Board members will have an opportunity to look at that information MR. BOTELHO-Okay, and I understand the Town Board may be interested in pursuing that. So there should be a little bit of coordination between the Town Board and the Planning Board to make sure that nobody’s toes are being stepped on. I know the Board has already recognized that the traffic issues are a major concern. For this reason I urge the Board to issue a Positive Declaration under SEQR so that these impacts can be fully understood and investigated and if necessary deny the application if they do not meet these particular concerns about traffic and other issues. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board this evening on this issue? Yes, sir. JOE NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. NICHOLS-My name is Joe Nichols. I’m an attorney. I appeared at the last public hearing on this matter. Seated to my right is Todd who is the Executive Vice President of an international trust which owns the adjoining property which is now 40 Oak, the restaurant. When we were last here we spoke briefly about the interconnect, and I was a little bit in the dark at the time about the interconnect because it seems to have been on the map, but there was no, my clients purchased property after the subdivision approval back in 2005 which is where the genesis of the interconnect had arisen. So I spent a lot of time going back over the minutes, historically, to find out where that came from, and it appears that when the initial subdivision application was made by the predecessor in title, the interconnect was something that was discussed in the March 2005 meeting, and there was a directive that the applicant make a motion for final approval for the April 2005 meeting to include the interconnect issue as being part of that motion. In reviewing the minutes from the April 2005 meeting it appears that that was not done. There was no mention of the interconnect at that time. There was no motion made to approve the interconnect, but there was on the approved map a designation indicating where the interconnect would be. So it appears that that is where the interconnect received “approval”, but there was nothing in the minutes to indicate that that was actually done by resolution. MR. TRAVER-So if I understand what you’re saying, there was no specific separate recommendation for the interconnect, but it was part of the final approved plan? MR. NICHOLS-Right. Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it was created when the approval was made. MR. NICHOLS-That’s correct, and subsequent to that, there was a subdivision request in 2011 to divide the lot that my client owned with Red Roof Inn and what was the Outback Steakhouse, shared that lot, and when that map was approved, there was no mention of the interconnect on that map. So with all that said, there certainly, at least from my client’s perspective, we didn’t own the property at the time so inconsistencies about that interconnect. If we set that aside and assume for the sake of argument the interconnect is a legitimate interconnect, then the issue becomes will what is the legitimate use, or the proper use, of the interconnect? The applicant seems to be taking the position that the interconnect provides unfettered access to their property from Route 9 and I’m not sure that the interconnect is defined that accurately. I mean it says that there’s an interconnect, but there’s no indication where the scope of that interconnect is. There’s really been very little discussion about the fact that there’s a business right next door. There’s a restaurant that relies on cars coming in, being able to get in, being able to get out, and we’ve seen this on Quaker Road recently. If somebody is coming to eat at my client’s, tenant’s restaurant, and they see traffic backed up for 100 feet, they’re going to go somewhere else, and that is one of the primary considerations that my client has here which is that there is no question that there is going to be a significant traffic impact and it is going to affect my client’s, tenant’s ability to earn a living. When the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) property was subdivided between The Outback Steakhouse and Red Roof Inn, we took great pains to try to make sure that there was a parking easement and that everything would be ordered between those two companies, and it has worked out well, and thus far there’s really been no issue. Now it seems that there’s really not any indication that they appreciate what the impact is going to be on my clients if they were to get approval for the traffic pattern that they are proposing. Now Mr. Deeb astutely picked up on what my clients would prefer to do, if, again, setting aside the issue of the interconnect, and assuming that it is valid, the better traffic pattern, in my client’s estimation, is that there be an exit only onto Route 9, and a right turn. Therefore it would not impact greatly, probably somewhat, but it would not impact them to a great extent, patrons coming in to go to the restaurant. It would be more orderly. It would be a loop. I understand the issue of the queuing and how they figure that that’s going to work, but it seems to be a logical consideration that the traffic would come in, loop around, and go out and go out to the right and would not greatly impact that situation for my client. So we did take the liberty of sending some visual. There you go. That, I guess it would be green cars, basically show the traffic pattern that my clients really do not want which is, you can see the traffic which would be coming southbound on Route 9, turning there, gets backed up and then also perhaps at the light at Sweet Road, taking a left in there, and the bottleneck that it would be creating under those circumstances, particularly at busy times. Now it’s easy to say, well that isn’t going to happen very often. I don’t know how many people in this room have driven down Quaker Road in the last couple of weeks, but there’s no way to predict exactly when there’s going to be an overflow of traffic and if somebody wants to get their car washed at noon and wants to get a bit to eat at noon, and they come southbound on Route 9 and they see a traffic jam, they’re going to go somewhere else to eat, and that’s really my client’s main consideration. MR. TRAVER-I understand. First let me say that the traffic information that we have thus far is incomplete, and the applicant is going to work with the Town Engineer to make sure that that traffic data is provided to the engineer in a way that is acceptable to the engineer and sufficient to generate a report to us, Number One. So at this point I think, although I appreciate your concern, I think we have to wait until we actually see what the traffic study reveals, in terms of patterns and so on. I mean in terms of a potential customer of your restaurant observing a traffic backup and deciding not to use your restaurant, I mean, that’s a little bit hypothetical, but again, we kind of need to see what does the traffic actually look like. Once we know what a professional analysis, an engineering review of the actual traffic based on what we expect to be a realistic study, then we’ll have a much more realistic for busy times, not so busy times, different times of day and so on, and I think then we’ll have a much, much better picture, less subjective picture, I should say, of what the traffic impacts are likely to be and what if any mitigation measures would be required, and there will be public hearing at the time that that that study is discussed, when we receive it back. MR. NICHOLS-My client would just simply like to be able to participate in that process because they’ll be affected. When I say participate in the process, I know that the applicant is going to meeting with the Town Engineer. They would just like to be able to. MR. TRAVER-And if you go to queensbury.net, you’ll be able to look at all the materials that we see prior to the next meeting, and we’ll be discussing about the submission dates and the dates of the next meeting before the close of business tonight. So you’ll have all of that. If you have any other questions, I’d urge you to reach out to the Planning Office and perhaps Laura herself and she can guide you if you’re looking for something specific or you’re having difficulty finding some piece of data that you’re looking for, but if it’s something that we have access to, the public has access to it through queensbury.net. MR. DEEB-And also, Mr. Nichols, we did discuss mitigation at certain high volume traffic times, that there would be mitigation to the problem and what we discussed, they would barricade so people would just exit. So there as discussion on that also, and I’m sure they’re trying to work in cooperation with your client. MR. NICHOLS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think, aside from stormwater, traffic is one of the major issues that we have to look at for the State Environmental Review. So rest assured that we will be looking at that in some detail, as will the Town Engineer. MR. NICHOLS-Much appreciated. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. BOTELHO-Could I just make one comment? MR. TRAVER-Sure, you can come up to the table. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. BOTELHO-Sometimes it’s hard to get copies of the Town Designated Engineer back and forth between the applicant and the Town Designated Engineer. We’ve had to do it through FOIL a couple of times. MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m not sure I can speak to communication between an applicant and the engineer. You’d probably have to reach out to the engineer’s office for that. MRS. MOORE-It’s a FOIL process and we’ve discussed this. So it’s not. MR. BOTELHO-It would be really helpful if all of that could be uploaded. MR. TRAVER-But as far as we are going to, the reports that we receive and that we will be looking at for our own analysis prior to discussing this again with the applicant, you’ll have access to all of that through the Town website. If you have any other questions, reach out to Laura. She’ll be able to assist you. MR. BOTELHO-Okay. It is just tricky to figure out what communication is going on behind the scenes. I know it’s all subject to FOIL and I can get it if I want to, but it would just be helpful. MR. TRAVER-Also at some point you should be able to access the letter that was submitted to the Zoning th Administrator, Code Compliance Officer, and this Board of February 10 by LaBella which includes the discussion items that we brought up with the applicant tonight and they will be addressed. So that will give you the bullet points right there. MR. BOTELHO-I didn’t see that in the Town’s website. MR. TRAVER-We just actually received it today, but it should be with the materials. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It’s, and we’ve been through this. At the moment it is only subject to FOIL. It is not placed on the. MR. TRAVER-It’s not? Okay. MRS. MOORE-And I understand it’s been a discussion. So it’s something that there’s further discussion. It hasn’t ended yet. MR. BOTELHO-That’s it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. You’re welcome. Is there anyone else that wanted to address? Yes, sir. HAL HALLIDAY MR. HALLIDAY-My name is Hal Halliday, and I’m here as a resident and a citizen. I’m not representing any company or any business, but my experience with this exact property I think could give you a little bit of information since 11 years ago I was the General Manager of The Red Roof Inn on that property for three years, making it the Number One Red Roof in the country. I’m familiar with the traffic patterns, and just from personal experiences I have to tell you that we had trouble during Americade and every event with just normal traffic getting in and out of the property with the traffic on Route 9, and what no one has mentioned yet is if you’re going south on Route 9 to make a right turn into the light, there’s no breakdown lane there. So if one car is backed up at that light, all of Route 9 is backed up, because there is no center lane except for the turn lane. Okay. Also we had problems with people almost getting hit because on the other side of the road from the Red Roof there’s a two lane road coming north which merges into a one lane road right in front of the Red Roof, and it’s almost like a drag race sometimes with people jockeying to try to get into position to be one car ahead of somebody else on Route 9. If they’re coming north on Route 9 to make a left hand turn into the light entrance, what’s going to happen if it’s backed up all the way out to the street? Nobody’s going to be able to get into that entrance for anything, and I don’t know if it was an accident or what, but there’s nothing on this map that shows the northern entrance to the Red Roof Inn that people could drive through behind the Red Roof Inn to the carwash or in front of the Red Roof Inn on their parking lot to the carwash, and I just wanted to mention that. Hoffman’s is a great company. I have a year pass that I got for my daughter. They do a great job. I’d like to hire them to do my landscaping. I have nothing against the company. I love our Town. I think it’s great, but I’m just afraid that this is. I appreciate what you guys are doing, but you weren’t here 10 years ago. I just wanted to do a courtesy, and thank you for your time. I know you put a lot of time into this, and just please do your job. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your insights. We appreciate it very much. MR. HALLIDAY-Thank you. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Okay. Well we will be leaving the public hearing open on this because we anticipate tabling it for some additional clarification on the engineering at least. Welcome back, sir. So you heard the public comment. I know a lot of it was related to traffic which we’ve talked about a great deal and know that some of these issues will be re-heard once we get the updated information and you have further opportunity to reflect on what the engineer provides us with. I don’t know if you have anything that you want to offer tonight in response to any of those comments. MR. PALUMBO-No . You’ve handled this for a while now. I’ll just say we did get some advanced notice of this, letters came in just in the last couple of days. So we got information. So we’ll address all of them, the items that Mr. Botelho has brought up. As you noted, the first two of them the Town Engineer had already addressed. So now we have to answer that one. The crash analysis, they reference the impact of, the impact study, the traffic improvement study from 2018, that had crash data analysis with it. They did not study Weeks Road, but they studied the Sweet Road intersection. The study that they referenced began at Sweet Road and went north to the Exit 20 area. So that study was quite large and extensive and I would just say that about 95% of it focused on the areas north of there. It doesn’t mean that their comments aren’t valid to give consideration to, but I don’t think we have to do necessarily an independent crash analysis if the report that they’re asking us to look at that references the connection had crash analysis data in it, but we will put that all into one report for the Board for the benefit of reviewing engineering. So that you’ll get that independent analysis. MR. TRAVER-And I think what would be best is if we have you respond to all of the engineering concerns prior to coming back to us. That way we’ll have all of that cleared up, and that would include the traffic study as well. It sounds like you’re pretty confident that you should be able to do that. So that’s a good t thing and we’ll go from there. MR. PALUMBO=The one thing I would ask is, we can talk to Laura about this, but I know how busy the schedules have been. We do want to get back before you as soon as possible. As I said we’re ready to address the stormwater comments. The traffic study we’ll talk with Alanna about how long that will take to put that information together. We don’t want to rush, but we also don’t want to be delayed too long. MR. TRAVER-We understand. Believe me, every application that we look at is in a hurry to get the approval and move forward. We understand that. We also would just as soon be able to process your application and move on with our agenda. So we’re not interested in holding this up, however we do need to have the information. We have a State Environmental Quality Review Act that we’re required to follow that requires us to have all of that information. So the sooner that you can work with the engineer, provide all that information so that the engineer, Labella, can get back to us with it, so that hopefully the next time we come together we’ll be able to do the environmental review, have the additional public hearing, and be ready to do the Site Plan and move on from there. MR. PALUMBO-The only point I’ll make, and this is not a criticism because I know that we do graphic stuff all the time, but before that image shows up in the newspaper, the vehicles that were shown on that plan were about 60 feet long and 25 feet wide. So it looks very, very congested there, and I’m not being critical that way, I just know how things end up in the newspaper. MR. TRAVER-That’s not part of the application materials. That’s part of public comment. So understood. MR. PALUMBO-All right. Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-So the next consideration I guess, well first let me, before I move on, let me go back to members of the Board. Do other members of the Board have additional questions or comments, concerns that you want to address with the applicant? Laura, I’m not sure. Did I ask you if there were written comments? MRS. MOORE-You actually did not, but they were from the law offices that Ben already spoke. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and those are going to be part of the record? MRS. MOORE-They are part of the record. I just want to also, in reference to tabling this application. Typically today was actually the deadline date for March’s agenda. I think this is what Frank’s getting at, is that I typically don’t, I typically have applications that are tabled at one month’s meeting skip a month thth to go in. So the next deadline would be March 15, to be on April 19’s agenda, and please, in regards to this particular application, and any application subject to engineering review, there’s a two week turnaround time for engineering review. So it’s not, it doesn’t happen as quickly as some might want it to 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) happen, but that’s the process is that once an application is submitted to engineering, they typically have a two week turnaround time for us to receive that information as Staff, and that information is then provided to both the applicant as well as the Board members. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if they got the submission March 15, say. MRS. MOORE-Well I would typically, in this case, since they’re already in the queue, if they were to address the engineering comments both traffic and stormwater, they would typically submit two copies to our office. We physically deliver a copy to the Chazen/Labella group. So that they already would be in the middle of that process. It sounds like they’re almost ready to do that, but I’m assuming there may be one more iteration at some point so that it would make, they would have a package that’s almost done th by March, in the sense by March 15 they may have their signoff from engineering, and then moving forward with the rest of the application noting that they have an interconnect issue and noting that they have to work with other entities regarding the sidewalk. Some of that information should be as part of that package, how that is being addressed. MR. PALUMBO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just ask Laura in reference, as I said we think that we’re, basically, we could tomorrow submit for the stormwater items. Could we get at least some latitude to work with Labella on those comments so that we assure that there’s not something new that’s going to pop up from those? I know that Alanna’s work on the traffic is certainly, the comments that you’ve heard and the way that we’ve been talking about it, it requires some additional time to make sure we get it right. MR. TRAVER-We encourage you to do that. That’s what we’re suggesting. Understood. Yes. MR. PALUMBO-But I’d love to be able to get those comments to you there, for the stormwater. MRS. MOORE-So that’s something that we can discuss, but the idea is the submission for engineering review, if you’re already in the queue, is taking those packets, two copies, and then we would submit that to Chazen or Labella. MR. TRAVER-So would you suggest an April date? thth MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes. The next date is April 19 with information due by March 15. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the first meeting would be April 19. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. Okay. MR. PALUMBO-What is the second meeting, just in case? th MRS. MOORE-So the second meeting would be April 26. MR. TRAVER-Do you have a preference? th MRS. MOORE-So my suggestion is to table it to the 19. If something comes up, then you can further table it. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the suggestion from Staff is to, at this point, is to try for the 19. We can further table it if an issue arises between now and then. There would be another meeting a week later. If the issue isn’t huge, we could maybe just bump it one week, if it doesn’t require additional information. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. All right. MR. TRAVER-That would get you in the queue at the earliest possible time, pending your being able to comply with what we need from the engineer. Okay. Will that work? MR. PALUMBO-That will work. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything further from the Board? MR. DEEB-You haven’t tabled it yet. MRS. MOORE-Yes, you have to do a resolution. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Before we did that, I wanted to. All right. So I guess we’re ready for that tabling motion. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. Applicant proposes a 5,750 +/- sq. ft. car wash building with associated access drives and queuing lanes, and 18 self-serve vacuum area. The applicant has included a sidewalk to be coordinated with others along the property line on Weeks Road. Project includes site work for access onto Route 9 through existing traffic light and through adjoining parcel access on Weeks Road. Project also includes associated site work for landscaping, lighting and stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the April 19, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by March 15, 2022. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll see you in April, and, sir, I would urge you to keep in good contact with Laura, just to keep things on track. MR. PALUMBO-Laura, you heard him. MR. TRAVER-Yes, communication is key, and it works in your favor. All right. Thank you. The next section of our agenda is Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first item under Recommendations to the ZBA is Francis & Erin Steinbach, Site Plan Modification 70-=2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 211 ASSEMBLY POINT DRIVE. (REVISED) 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 HAS BEEN REMOVED AND THE PROPOSED NEW DECK IS 260 SQ. FT. TO COINCIDE WITH THE NEW ENTRY LANDSCAPE STEPS. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONVERTING THE DRIVEWAY TO PERMEABLE PAVERS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040, 179-6-095, 179-13-010, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, SHORELINE AND PROPERTY LINES, AND FLOOR AREA. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1995 ADDITION, SEP-0657-2019, SP 15-2020, AV 74-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021; FEBRUARY 2022 (SHORELINE, HARD SURFACING). SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-18. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179- 6-065, 179-13-010. JON LAPPER & ANDY ALLISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this project is being sent back to the Planning Board for recommendation due to a deck at the front. You already provided a recommendation in reference to lifting the house, doing the rear deck addition. Those elements of the foundation are too close to the property. The rear deck is too close to the property line. This recommendation is in reference to that front deck. It’s too close to the shoreline setback. In this case that average of the two adjoining houses triggers a setback of 76 feet I believe, 76., greater than 75. So that’s why it’s coming back before this Board. At this point that front deck had been torn down. The applicant wasn’t aware of the process, what happens when you tear 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) something off, or remove elements from your existing house. So that’s why they’re back in front of this Board. MR. TRAVER-I want to make sure that I’m absolutely clear on this. So the average setback in the area is 76 square feet? Okay, and this one is? MRS. MOORE-So the current setback to the shoreline is 15.8 feet. MR. TRAVER-From the shoreline. MR. LAPPER-It’s 49 feet. MR. TRAVER-Forty-nine. MRS. MOORE-Forty-nine. I missed one. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Forty-nine versus seventy-six. MRS. MOORE-Yes, thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hi, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Andy Allison, the project architect. So I wasn’t here when this was on the last time, but the Steinbach’s asked me to represent them. What happened , essentially, was they started the project based upon what was approved last time, took the deck down because that needed to happen to lift the house and then realized, Staff realized that they required that additional variance. The road, Assembly Point Road, is between the shoreline and the property. So they really weren’t thinking about that shoreline setback, but the reason for the variance, they have to have the deck because that’s, not only is that they’re only view of the lake, but it’s also the way to change the grade, to go up the stairs and go into the front of the house. They took the existing deck down, and this deck that they’re requesting is smaller than they originally asked for. It’s about 40 square feet bigger than what was there to begin with and that’s just a way, Andy will explain, to interface with the stairs and getting in the front door. SO this is really a minor change from what you saw the last time, but it’s really important in terms of the development of this property. The whole house will be 1300 and change square feet and frankly what they’re doing is adding a basement that you won’t see, not even accessible from inside the house. MR. TRAVER-So it’s a slight change from the deck that is on the lakeside. Correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And that’s the changes from since we last saw it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and is that change further closer to the lake, or further back from the lake, or the same? MR. LAPPER-The same. It doesn’t get any closer. MR. ALLISON-Andy Allison from AJA. SO if you look at the drawing, the upper right hand corner you’ll see the old deck, we called it the existing deck at the time, and we’re basically just straightening off the front face of that the furthest point back from the lake, and then we’re extending over to the right to meet the new stairs. So you can see where the red square where the old stairs are being removed, which were concrete and just shed water right toward the lake across the road. The new stairs are being put in. They’re all stone pavers coming up from the driveway, and then t here’s a landing being built and a set of wooden stairs that will go down to the first stone pavers where it turns. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ALLISON-So one of the main things for doing this part of the project, too, was that the concrete stairs that you can see there literally are just shedding water from the roof of the house on the deck down the stairs and went right down across Assembly Point Road. So these new stairs now take a turn to the right so we can get the water going towards the grass and then the new stone paver stairs, at the urging of some of the Staff Notes, were to put those on a sand bed, and they’re slightly pitched towards the lawn area now. So none of that water will come out front and then the driveway’s also being replaced with permeable 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) pavement as part of this project. We did receive a letter from Chris Navitsky the Waterkeeper about the project. He actually had a suggestion to eliminate the footing drains we’re proposing as part of the new f foundation and to catch the roof water runoff from the roofs into gutters which we were doing anyway. We’re piping those to the footing drains, but we’re going to put those into raingardens now, which doesn’t show up in your plans because I just got his letter today. I did speak to Chris about it and we sent kind of a concept sketch out, but there’s, can you go to that other sheet. There’s an area just to the left of this d drawing in the back side of the house where we’re going to catch stormwater coming off the back side of the roof into a raingarden, and t hen there’s an area in the front on the north side just outside of the stair path where we’ll have another raingarden there that’ll catch all the stormwater from the roof. So we were handling it before just with footing drains. Chris thought it would be a better idea just to handle with raingardens which I actually think is a great idea. So I think we’re going to make that one change to the application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ALLISON-I hope that we can handle that, Laura will just give you a quick drawing tomorrow that will show that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I think that’ll do it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? This is a recommendation on the variance. So there is no public comment at this stage. There will be public comment when it returns from the ZBA. So you heard the numbers on the separation from the lake. The applicant made some comments regarding improvements to the stormwater, it sounds like improvements to the stormwater. So any questions, comments from members of the Board? Any concerns that we want to express to the ZBA as they look at the variance request? MR. DIXON-I’ll thank the applicant, though, for listening to the Waterkeeper’s suggestion and incorporating them into your designs. I think that’s a good idea. Anytime we can improve anything along the lake it’s a benefit to all of us. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Obviously you’ll update the plans to reflect that change? MR. ALLISON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I guess if there’s no specific concerns that we’ll entertain that motion. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 74-2021 STEINBACH The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised) 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. with a new floor area of 2,786 sq. ft. (30.5 %). The project includes a removal of a 444 sq. ft. rear deck to construct a 356 sq. ft. deck; site has previous approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The front deck of 220 sq. ft. has been removed and the proposed new deck is 260 sq. ft. to coincide with the new entry landscape steps. The project also includes converting the driveway to permeable pavers. Pursuant to 179-3-040, 179-6-095, 179- 13-010, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, shoreline and property lines, and floor area. The Planning Board will 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. 74-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) th Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MRS. MOORE-I want to note, so the Board understands as well as the public, that there are no public hearings scheduled when we do a recommendation. It always follows that. I know there’s an open public hearing for this project, but in reference to this recommendation, I’m not going to have public comment read into the record at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ALLISON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item, also under Recommendations to the ZBA is Site Plan 51-2021. This is for Brett & Pamela West. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE). AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 106 BAY PARKWAY. (REVISED 1/18/2022) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME 2 STORY HOME WITH A 5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO, INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREAS, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,670 SQ. FT. WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 8,687 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-010, 179-6-065, 147, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, SECOND GARAGE, AND STORMWATER DEVICES LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 53-2017 SEPTIC VAR.; AV 47-2007 & SP 39-2007 – BOATHOUSE; SP PZ 89-2016 & SP PZ 210-2016 & AV 95-2016 – ADDITION; SP 37-2009; AV 57- 2021; SP 52-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021, FEBRUARY 2022 (STORMWATER DEVICE). SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.91 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-6-065, 147. JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-This is for the Main House. This is one of two applications that we’ll be reviewing. MRS. MOORE-So there have been revisions to this project. I’ve noted the square footage has changed. There’s no relief requested for the permeability or the floor area at this time. This project is back for Planning Board Recommendation because it was identified that there was a stormwater device less than 100 feet from the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-And that was the permeable pavers? MRS. MOORE-Permeable paver patios, yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Chris Keil the project engineer from Environmental Design. So as Laura just mentioned, we’ve had a number of meetings with the Zoning Board since we were here last, and I guess just to begin with when you looked at it last time, you suggested that we should look at the floor area ratio, the size of the house, setbacks, and number of variances. So as this project has changed over time, has gone back and forth with the Zoning Board, as Laura said, we completely eliminated the floor area ratio. So it’s a conforming size house. There’s no permeability variance at all, and we drastically changed the setbacks from the lake where there’s only two small setbacks on the main house and not on 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) the guest house that we’ll talk about next. Of course these are two separate lots. So there’s the main house on one lot and the guest house on the other lot. The setback variance, the one that’s here, and Chris will show you the slides, but they want to have this connection which is a covered porch which is very Adirondack, great camped, and so that’s the only one in zero setback because of the two lots, they touch each other. It goes between the two homes, but we’ve talked to the Zoning Board as a condition if this were ever in separate ownership, which we don’t think it ever will be. That’s not the point, but that can just be cut back at that time if it were going to be sold so that there wouldn’t be reason to connect it, and that’s just a minor point, but that’s the variance for the zero lot line is just for that Adirondack porch. So beyond that Craig just determined that, it wasn’t on here previously, that each of the stormwater facilities should have their own variance because they’re not 100 feet, and that particular provision, I know you’re aware of this, the Lake George Park Commission has just changed it, and the towns in the basin are considering it, and Queensbury hasn’t yet, but it’s changed from 100 feet to 35 feet for infiltration, basically because infiltration is a good thing on lake lots. If the house can be 50 feet, you can’t really have the stormwater facilities 100 feet back. So we designed this so that nothing is closer than 35 feet, which is the anticipated new setback for stormwater facilities. So with that I’ll ask Chris to just show you the visuals. They’re easier to understand. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KEIL-As Jon said, last time we met with this Board, this is a re-hash of where we’ve been since that time. Overall in summary I just want to show you kind of the design process and how I think we’ve kind of gotten to the current proposal which we think is really strong and has taken a lot of the feedback that we’ve received from this Board and also from the ZBA. In that we’re talking about really carefully positioning the house. We’ve given a lot of care to the natural architecture. Improving it’s stormwater and also creating a better condition. So this slide here shows an aerial image. The house to the south as we all know has already been demolished, but I think it’s useful to sort of see what was there previously. You can see that it encroaches that red line is the 50 foot setback line. It’s kind of over than line, and just looking at it you sort of understand the mass and character of what was there previously. So here’s the existing house. Again that lower house is removed and was kind of sketched in, but you can see there’s kind of these six separate buildings with almost 1800 of which are beyond or in the shoreline setback. The setback from the north just from the lake the structure is back 19 feet and then we have 29 feet in that southern dimension there from the main house. So at first pass this is what we came to you in September. We already were trying to take that proposed house and move it, keep it within the footprint of that existing house and even pull it back, but we had that northern dimension at 30 feet, and 31 feet in the south. Some of the comments that we received then were the scale of the house was still a little bit big. We also had some permeability issues there. We were requesting a variance at that time for both properties, but you can see that even in this condition the area within that shoreline setback is reduced from the existing. And now here’s our current proposal. As you can see we moved it considerably back, I mean we’re 46 feet at the north from the lake to the proposed house and 35 feet in that southern dimension, and some might say why not go an extra four feet to get it completely up, but as you can see kind of in the gray there we need the ability to circulate there with vehicles. So it’s like we’re quite constrained from moving it any further. In addition we’ve reduced the mass of both the northern house and the southern house. So we no longer need a variance from FAR and similarly in permeability for raingardens and other practices. MR. LAPPER-So another point there is the vast majority of the main house is outside of the 50 feet. It’s just the two corners very small on the top and on the west side a little bigger, but just a small area of the house is within the 50 foot setback, and not by much. MR. KEIL-Yes. Only 300 square feet is within the setback. It’s a 72% reduction of what is currently built, and that’s not ignoring the house that’s been removed in the south area. So here’s, it’s a little bit dark on the screen, but you can see the rendering from the lake with all of the vegetation on the shoreline, this existing mature trees to remain. You can see sort of the scale and the natural buffering. I mean the covered walkway is something that people talked about quite a bit. Keeping those trees in that center there from this view it wouldn’t even be visible from the lakefront, and just the style is something that we really wanted to sort of preserve the owners vision for this project. So we think this Adirondack great camp style, the maturity, the scale and sort of the massing of it is really appropriate and it’s significant. MR. LAPPER-I should mention. One of the variances or the last one is for a second garage which we talked about a lot. It’s a porte cochre which isn’t a garage, but in Queensbury it counts. MR. KEIL-And here’s a view of the proposed guest house, and furthermore, some of those existing houses on the property are going to be removed and we think some of these are not of that sort of character. So there’s going to be significant improvements. Here’s the stormwater plan. As Jon mentioned earlier, you have that 35 foot setback, which is the Lake George Park Commission’s stormwater reg’s for setbacks. A number of those stormwater infiltration practices will be within that 35 foot setback, but as Jon mentioned 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) we still need to request the variances for the 100 foot setback for those. As a combination of grass depressions, permeable paving, drip edge and raingardens. MR. LAPPER-And those are all good practices to deal with the stormwater, and right now there are zero stormwater facilities on this site. MR. KEIL=Here’s just one other thing to add in terms of landscape planting.. As I noted earlier, the mature trees along the lake’s edge are to remain and there’s two sort of problem areas where there’s erosion at the lake land interface which is currently grass right up there. So those are periods that the proposed planting plan is going to address by creating more of a buffer. That’s kind of just a summary of where we are now and how we got to that point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So this evening we’re addressing this variance for the stormwater devices. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MOLLOY-I just have one, completely unrelated to the variances, but the Adirondack great camp style you guys are going after, I very much like that. I’m happy to see something like that. That’s all I have. MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have issues with the stormwater devices being within the 100 foot setback? MR. DEEB-You said it’s been changed to 35 feet? MR. LAPPER-The Lake George Park Commission, which has enacted stormwater regs for the basin but they have to be adopted by each of the towns. So the Park Commission has already changed it on their side, and the towns on the lake are each reviewing it. Laura can tell you what I think Queensbury’s. MR. DEEB-Any idea where we are with that? MRS. MOORE-At the moment I don’t. MR. TRAVER-So the Town’s 100 and the Park Commission is 35. MR. DEEB-Yes. Which triggers the variance. MR. LAPPER-Which triggers the variance. MR. DEEB-Are we going to get there? MRS. MOORE-Well I know we’re in the middle of the process of requesting RFP’s that are already in I believe for updating the Comp Plan and the Town Code, so it may be within that development, but there’s nothing on the books that I’m aware of that they’re changing. That doesn’t mean there isn’t, but right now I’m not aware of it. MR. LAPPER-The point really is that 35 feet should be sufficient to protect the lake and to infiltrate. MR. DEEB-According to the Lake George Park Commission. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I’m not hearing any concerns for the ZBA on this request. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 57-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised 1/18/2022) Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new 2 story home with a 5,436 sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Also, included is installation of permeable pavers for patio and driveway areas, a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 8,687 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management. Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Pursuant to chapter 179-3- 040, 179-6-065, 147, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline are subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, second garage, and stormwater devices less than 100 ft from the shoreline. The Planning Board will make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) 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 57-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE); Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15day of February 2022 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Should we, since the Town Code is different than the Lake George Park Commission, should we just make note of that in the recommendation? MR. TRAVER-Well it’s part of the application. MR. DEEB-You’re going to the ZBA tomorrow? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And you’ll be bringing that up anyway. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DEEB-All right. Never mind. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. Good point. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-Just, again, I know there’s an open public hearing, but due to the Planning Board recommendation, we’re not doing that. MR. TRAVER-We’re not taking public comment tonight. Right. Yes. Understood. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Okay. You’re off to the ZBA with that one, and now we move on to Site Plan 52-2021. This is also Brett and Pamela West. This is for the guest house. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE). AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 108 BAY PARKWAY. (REVISED 1/18/2022) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH A 3,210 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND 2,160 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE HOME IS TWO STORY WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COVERED WALKWAY FROM THE HOME TO THE PROPOSED ADJOINING HOME AND INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVER FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREAS. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH A RAIN GARDEN, NEW SITE PLANTINGS, NEW SEPTIC, AND NEW LINE FOR DRINKING WATER. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6- 065M 146, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND STORMWATER DEVICES LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: DEMO 803-2019; AV 52-2009 & SP 54-2009; PT 802-2019 SEPTIC; 2010-184 ADDITION; SEP 343-2021 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) SEPTIC ALT.; AST 433-2020 BOATHOUSE; SP 51-2021, AV 58-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021, FEBRUARY 2022 (STORMWATER DEVICE). SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .34 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 147. JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And the same variance basically. Laura? MR. LAPPER-This is a little bit simpler. This is the lot next door that the Wests bought so that they could do this. Originally they were trying to do this on the one lot. So now have one house on each lot and it’s the same thing as the other side, with zero lot line setback for the great camp dimension and originally we had floor area ratio variances and lake setback variance, permeability has all been reduced and we actually, we moved the house to the north so it would be less of the connection on this parcel. So we moved it away from the neighbor to the south, and closer to the West’s main house. So it’s really just the same thing for stormwater devices. MR. DEEB-When you said that, the setback of course is zero where the two lots connect, and you mentioned that if the property ever were sold, you’d take that walkway up. MR. LAPPER-Or take the 10 feet of the property. MR. DEEB-Take 10 feet out. MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Board will include that as a condition. MR. DEEB-As a condition. Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’re basically in the same situation or nearly the same as the original house. Does anyone have any concerns regarding the stormwater appliances being within 100 feet of the lake? I’m not hearing any, so I guess we can make the resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I’d just like to make the comment, what a vast improvement, and I really appreciate it. You really put some lead down on this paper there with your pencil. There’s some drastic changes and really it’s making it come into conformance. So I really do appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? I guess we’re ready. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 58-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised 1/18/2022) Applicant proposes construction of a new home with 3,210 sq. ft. floor area and 2,160 sq. ft. footprint. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home and installation of permeable paver for patio and driveway areas. Site work includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings, new septic, and new line for drinking water. Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 147, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and stormwater devices less than 100 ft from the shoreline. The Planning Board will 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 58-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE) Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER- You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MRS. MOORE-And again the same note that there’s no public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Because it’s a recommendation. The next item on the agenda, also under Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is Adirondack Trust Company, Site Plan Modification 4-2022. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 4-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY. AGENT(S): JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 79 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN BY INSTALLING A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE ADIRONDACK TRUST BANK UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 79 MAIN STREET. THE SIG MATERIALS ARE ACRYLIC AN THE COLORS ARE GREEN, WHITE AND BLACK WITH A STONE BASE. THERE ARE TO BE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING 3,860 SQ. FT. BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040, 140 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE PLAN FOR SIGN INSTALLATION IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 2-2021, SP 19-2021, SV 2-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET. LOT SIZE: .29 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47. SECTION: 179-9-040, 140. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for installing a 45 square foot freestanding monument sign. This project was seen by the Board earlier last year. So earlier last year they had placed it probably closer to the corner, and now it has been moved so that it’s closer to the entrance on Main Street. This is due to an electrical box or telephone box, electrical box, that was in the way of the original sign. So they relocated it. So it’s not in reference to underground, I know there’s easements in that area, but it is not in reference to those underground utilities. It was simply because of a box that would detract from the sign. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Well you’re getting the hard hat of the evening tonight, Jon. MR. LAPPER-So as Laura said, so this was approved last spring. The building is up. It was an important architectural improvement for that Exit 18 corridor, built to the setback in the Main Street zone and can’t be any more than 12 feet from the property line. The Sign Code, as Laura mentioned in an earlier application tonight, a sign has to be 15 feet back. It needs to get changed in the Main Street zone because you can’t have a 15 foot sign setback if you have a 12 foot building setback, and you and the Zoning Board recognized this. We got the approval on the corner. The reason for a monument sign either on the corner or in front is that the only other sign on the building is out front parallel to the road. So if you’re coming from Exit 18 or even coming from Glens Falls, you won’t see the sign on the building until you’re right there. So this is perpendicular. It’s a very attractive expensive stone base. Not too big sign. It’s the same sign, it’s just that somehow this got all drawn and approved and then when they went out to the site they realize that there’s a traffic control box blocking it on the north side. So there’s a temporary sign now. The building is beautiful, but there’s no monument sign. So we moved it to a location where it won’t interfere with the traffic box, and that’s it. MR. TRAVER-Are there any sight line concerns with it being so close to the? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. LAPPER-So you had discussed that last time. There it was at the traffic, at the corner. Now it’s nowhere near the corner. MR. TRAVER-So it’s less of a? MR. LAPPER-Less. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-I’m sure the color schemes are coordinated with the building? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DIXON-And this is truly just a move? No different lighting? MR. LAPPER-Just a move. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say, Jon. You can’t make this one up. This is a good one. MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns with this modification that we want to mention to the ZBA? It seems fairly straightforward to me. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a tight corner. Not much you can do there. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I’m not hearing any concerns. So let’s entertain that motion if we can. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: SV # 2-2022 ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved plan by installing a 45 sq. ft. free standing monument sign for the Adirondack Trust Bank under construction at 79 Main Street. The sign materials are acrylic and the colors are green, white and black with a stone base. There are to be no changes to the existing 3, 860 sq. ft. building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-040, 140 of the Zoning Ordinance, site plan for sign installation in the Main Street zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. The Planning Board will 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 SIGN VARIANCE 2-2022 ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA again. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Recommendations to the ZBA, is Fritz & Mary Stefanzick, Site Plan 7-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRITZ AND MARY STEFANZICK. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 43 HANNEFORD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 233 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,434 SQ. FT. HOME. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE. ALL WORK ALTERATIONS ARE INTERIOR. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 3,337 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 3,580 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065, A SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 21-94, AV 27-1994, SP PZ 0016-2015 SECOND FLOOR, SP 61-2014 GARAGE, AV 69-2014, AV 7-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: .4 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-11. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065. FRITZ STEFANZICK, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a 233 square foot second story addition to the existing home which has a footprint of 1,434 square feet. The floor area is improved to 3, 570. It doesn’t trigger any floor area, but it does trigger setback relief to the south property line and it’s supposed to be, it’s proposed at 16 feet and it’s required to be 30 feet. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEFANZIK-Good evening. My name is Fritz Stefanzick. I appreciate the time tonight. So I’m the owner of 43 Hanneford Road, and following this sketch here, project overview, the top photo sketches the house as it’s built right now, and then down below you see an addition that we’re proposing, 233 square foot dormer addition to the second floor. This is all facing the north view. So the 233 square foot addition is going to be just under seven percent increase of floor area. It’s still going to be about 455 square feet below the allowable floor area for residential for this size parcel. All the work is going to be done interior to the house, to the footprint, and also within the existing height. All that was recently re-built, about five years ago. It was all built to Code and approved by the Town. I had a CO issued back in March of 2017. So just recently. So besides the floor area increase, the other variance is the setback. This house currently is a non-conforming structure. It has been like that for decades, and it’s on the south side of the property where the house is five feet away from the property line. The addition itself is on the north side of the house. The closest that addition is going to be to the property line is going to be six feet. So there’s the request for the setback variance for the addition, 16 feet versus the required 30 feet. Now all other setbacks, the north, east, west, including the shoreline, are well within the allowable. So also this addition is going to be within the existing footprint. There’s not going to be any disturbance to the soil, to the surrounding property. So no change to the grading, topography, and also the green infrastructure that exists throughout the property. Over the last three, four years I’ve done a lot of work with professional landscapers to create over 10 different landscaping beds throughout the property, all to help with any stormwater runoff or erosion. Also around the house, this is when we re-built the house five years ago, around the house, we put a lot of stone around the perimeter of the house, contained by Elgin blocks. So when the water came off the roof it would go into those strips of stone and then kind of ease its way out into the landscaping beds. So when you look at this project, just from a stormwater perspective, the changing of the roof is not really going to change the area where the rain is going to fall, but what will happen is that the rain will come off of the roof differently. It’ll still go into the rock gardens that are around the perimeter of the house, and then it kind of flows its way out into the landscaping beds. Besides that, hitting the checklist items that were on the application, this addition is just for myself and my wife. It’s not going to change how the house is used. It’s not going to increase traffic or pedestrians. No need for parking, parking lots, signage, lights. So that’s kind of it in a nutshell. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There was one comment that came actually from the County Planning Department. I don’t know if you saw that. There was a Staff comment that just said, I’ll read it to you. “The Planning Board may want to discuss and suggest a reduction in size of the window on the exterior side of the dormer as a mitigation effort to reduce window glare for large surfaces that can be viewed from the lake and shorefront.” MR. STEFANZICK-That’s the first I’ve heard that. I wasn’t aware that. I know that the window that we had in there, that I think is going to be nine feet, and we’ll try to get that for the office. If you look at the size of the addition that we’re building, the sides of that room are going to come down. So you have limited 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) head space, head room, and then you’ve got the center of the room where basically the office is going to be. I wanted to have the availability of a window, you know, it was some decent view of the lake and, you know, it looks aesthetically proportionate. That’s how we ended up getting this. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. The only thing I thought of, and understanding what you have, and it seems like it’s well designed. The only thing I had thought of possibly, and I’m not a window expert, believe me, but I wondered if, since that was a concern that they raised, if there might be, when you talk to the vendor that you get your window from, there might be a possibility for some kind of a coating or something on there to reduce the glare. I’m not sure, but that’s a thought, because it was enough of a concern that evidently they talked about it, and it probably has to do with the line of sight, the way things line up in the sunlight and so on. So I suspect that there may be some type of a coating or something you could put on that window that would not affect the view from the inside, but could affect the way the light interacts with the window from the outside, maybe a polarized film or, you know, I don’t know, but if you could have that discussion. MR. STEFANZICK-I will. I think that’s what we call the E Value of the windows, and I think the E Value is on the design of the windows, and as far as I’m aware that’s part of the standard window that Pella. MR. TRAVER-I’m sure it’s a standard window. Yes. It’s just that I think what their concern is apparently there was some sense that it was sort of in a non-standard location because it’s near the lake. And evidently for one reason or another there was concern that there may be some glare issues. So it’s just a question. It’s not a concern, and it doesn’t have anything to do with our, what we’re looking at, your application for tonight, but I happened to notice that comment and I thought I would mention it because at some point you’ll be coming back for Site Plan Review. MR. STEFANZICK=Was it to the bay window, the dome window or all the windows? MR. TRAVER-It’s for the, it says the. MR. MAGOWAN-Isn’t the front of the house the arch overlooking the lake, looking west. So when the sun sets, that glare comes in. Now on the low E. The low E is a fleck in the glass that for, in the summertime when the sun is high, it reflects the light out so you don’t, it kind of reflects the heat so you don’t get, and in the winter when it’s lower, or vice versa, all right, it lets more of the light come in. So it heats. They call it a low E, but it’s more of a reflector. MR. TRAVER-It sounds like it’s a polarized effect. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it’s almost like a polarized, but it has nothing to do with the sheen on the outside and that comment caught me, too, because usually the County says there’s no impact on this, but she did write that. I think what she was trying to say is when that sun is setting it’s going to have a glare, but you’re just looking over Harris Bay. You’re not, it’s not shining up the lake. MR. STEFANZICK-Exactly. That’s true. So I got that comment. Those windows that are on the west side, there’s a whole bunch of those windows that exist now. The window that we’re talking about is the exact same type of window that we installed. MR. TRAVER-It could be because of its location relative to the structure. It was just a comment and I thought I would mention it. MR. DEEB-I was going to ask you, is that the same size as the window next door? Is it identical to the window in the dormer? MR. TRAVER-It’s bigger. MR. STEFANZICK-Well, the one on the west side is slightly smaller. Slightly smaller than the existing. The window facing north, which is the window that I originally thought we were talking about, is the larger nine foot window that’s facing north. It’s not even facing the lake. It’s facing north. So when you look out, you’re looking basically parallel to the shore. Basically into trees. MR. DEEB-That’s not going to affect at all. I’m not sure it’s a concern. MR. TRAVER-So does anyone have any concerns that we want to reflect to the ZBA regarding this 16 foot setback? I’m not hearing any. I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 7-2022 FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 233 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 1,434 sq. ft. home. There are no changes to the site. All work alterations are interior. The existing floor area is 3,337 sq. ft. and the new floor area is to be 3,570 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065, a site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and expansion. The Planning Board will 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 7-2022 FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. STEFANZICK-Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and actually the only item this evening under Old Business is Antonio & Maria Civitella, Site Plan 55-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-2021 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 104 KNOX ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES A TEAR-DOWN OF AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,477 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 4,091 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY, NEW SEPTIC NEW WELL, NEW SITE PLANTINGS AND NEW SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065, 147 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. OF SHORELINE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1- 20. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. JON LAPPER, KIRSTEN CATELLIER & MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,477 square feet. The floor area is 4,091 square feet. Project includes significant work in reference to the driveway area with some permeable pavers and asphalt, new steps to a future sundeck, new septic. My understanding is that there will not be a new well. Water will be drawn from the lake. There is new site plantings as well as new shoreline plantings. The applicant received variances for the setbacks, where 20 feet was required on 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) one side, 15.9 feet and then 14 to the north property line. The floor area was also updated in reference to the application of the Zoning Board to be 24.3%. The applicant did reduce the amount of hard surfacing. Their permeability increased to 71.5%. So they no longer needed the permeability relief requested and infiltration practices referenced most likely for the patio areas would be less than 100 feet from the shoreline. Those are all the items that I can think of right now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, where are we this evening? MR. LAPPER-Okay. So to begin with for the record Jon Lapper and the team is Kirsten Catellier from Studio A, the project landscape architect and Matt Huntington from Studio A, engineer, and Anthony Civitella is here tonight. He wasn’t at the previous meetings. So the brief history of this, we came before you in October and you unanimously were not in favor of the over 30 foot floor area ratio. This is a pie- shaped. Like all the neighbors’ lots, kind of small lot. So the Civitellas decided to hire Kevin Maschewski who’s here also, an architect, who’s used to doing houses on the lake and in fact did one just to the south and on that basis you recommended we presented it with a 24.3% floor area ratio and reduce the setback drastically, and on that basis you recommended it and we went to the Zoning Board and they granted the variances, but not before, at the meeting they were reviewing it, they asked us to see what we could do to increase permeability. So at the meeting we cut off four feet of the pavers on the lakeside of the house, brought it back from 20 feet of paver area to 16 feet and we moved the turning area on the garage side, on the lakeside to get the permeability up to the number that Laura mentioned, and on that basis we got approval from the Zoning Board. So we’re here tonight to review the Site Plan. There was a letter from Chazen that Matt Huntington will address, but they were really minor comments and so I’ll turn it over to Kirsten, I guess, to start with and she’ll walk you through the Site Plan and then Kevin will talk about the engineering. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. CATELLIER-Kirsten Catellier. So just walking through the Site Plan, it’s still the same as the last time we were here. We came up with the asphalt access drive just before the residence before it would transition to permeable pavers. We did already reduce the driveway width from 12 feet to 10 feet, and then once you arrive at the permeable paver area for the motor court we did take out 50 square feet from that bump out, just to the south of that property line. Circulating around to the front of the house we are still proposing stepping stone steps so we can keep the soft surfaces as high as possible throughout most of the site, and then wrapping around to the front patio on the lakeside we did already modify that to go down to 16 feet. I think those are about all the revisions we’ve done. It’s really still similar to what you guys have seen for the layout. MR. TRAVER-So the only changes from what we reviewed last is improvements in the permeability? MS. CATELLIER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. Are you going to present to the Board information about an updated planting plan? MS. CATELLIER-Yes. So the permeability was increased in the reduction of the pavers and the driveway width. MR. TRAVER-So I’m hearing that you are affecting a change, proposing a change in the landscape plan? MR. LAPPER-Well, nothing along the 35 feet from the lake which we have to do in the Town Code, but the applicant thought that there was a lot of landscaping on the sides that perhaps wasn’t necessary. They don’t have a lot of usable space on the lot. So we’re here to talk about that and Kirsten has a plan, but at the end of the day it’s up to you guys. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, we normally do not accept materials on the evening of the meeting. The other concern I have is we actually don’t have all of our Board members here tonight. I mean you can certainly hand it out and describe it to us. MR. LAPPER-Yes, well, you just describe it and we’ll see where it goes. MS. CATELLIER-All right. MR. TRAVER-I guess my first question would be, are you improving the buffering and increasing the planting, that type of thing? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. LAPPER-Decreasing the plantings on the sides, MR. TRAVER-Decreasing. MR. LAPPER-The applicant saw the final plan, they thought it was a little excessive, but again, that’s up to the Board. MS. CATELLIER-If you look through the packet that I just handed out, the first sheet is just a demo plan showing the removables. The second sheet is a comparison of the proposed residence and hard surface areas and grading that’s required, and the trees in red are the ones that are being removed. You can see exactly why they’re being removed in relation to the proposed development. MR. LAPPER-Really what’s being removed is just what has to be for the septic system and the house. These are kind of tall dangerous pines that don’t have any understory. MR. TRAVER-So this, and for the record I’m holding up L0.3. These circles with x’s in them are all trees to be removed? MS. CATELLIER-Yes, that’s correct, but this was the previous demo sheet that was submitted. It was just we put it in this. MR. TRAVER-So this isn’t a change? Okay. All right. MS. CATELLIER-The second sheet is the same demo sheet, the same trees. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. CATELLIER-It’s just the ones in red are more visible to see in comparison to the proposed development. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s just easier to read. MS. CATELLIER-Yes, it’s easier to read, and one change, there are two trees within the 35 foot shoreline buffer setback. We are just swapping one out to be removed and one is to remain. So no change in the amount of removed or kept. It’s just one for one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. CATELLIER-And then Sheet Three is the originally submitted planting plan and Sheet Four is the planting plan that the applicant has requested to provide you. The major difference is that the buffering along the north property line has been revised. Along the south property line they’re going to have both plantings removed and then within the two entrance areas on each side of the walk to the main door, those will all be done. MR. TRAVER-All right. So let me see if I understand that. So I’m looking at, I guess they’re both the same. MS. CATELLIER-In the packet Sheet Number Three, third page what was previously submitted. MRS. MOORE-So you notice that one of the packets had an outdoor fire pit. The one that they’re proposing, that outdoor fire pit has been removed. Is that accurate? MS. CATELLIER-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the last sheet is what you’re now proposing? MS. CATELLIER-Yes, that’s right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’ve taken out everything that’s going to be on the north side? MS. CATELLIER-Yes, that’s correct. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. LAPPER-Except within the 35 feet. MR. TRAVER-Well I guess my first question for the Board is we normally do not receive materials on the night of the meeting, and Mr. Longacker is not here this evening. I don’t know, is the Board comfortable accepting this and trying to process this? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, hang on, before that. This one here, L4.10, they’re both L4.10’s. MR. LAPPER-What’s the date on it that you’re referring to? MR. TRAVER-The one in your right hand is the one that was approved. MR. MAGOWAN-This is what we approved, and this is what you’re going to. Why did you take out so much around the house? You cut out everything on the north and then you put in lawn. MR. LAPPER-Because the applicant felt that they didn’t have enough usable area on the site, that the planting beds were not a good site. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MRS. MOORE-I guess the question, before you continue, Brad, so the question is, from your Chairperson, do you want to discuss this at length or do you want to take some time to evaluate that information? MR. DEEB-I’m not comfortable having it thrown on me right away and looking at it and making a decision. MRS. MOORE-I think there’s other elements of the project that you can go start talking about. This way you have this information if you decide at some point during this meeting that you want to continue looking at it. I think you can move on to some other elements at this time versus. MR. MAGOWAN-Well it’s kind of fresh in my mind now. MRS. MOORE-I know. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re taking down 20 huge trees. MRS. MOORE-Well there was no change in the amount of trees being taken down originally. MR. MAGOWAN-But I believe I said something before, that’s a lot of trees coming down that aren’t involved, and then, you know, I saw this planting, I said, all right, that’s a beautiful planting scheme from all the trees that are coming down and, okay, you’re putting a lot of vegetation back in, and now I’m looking at a third. MR. TRAVER-We do have public comment on this application also this evening. Are there individuals in the audience that want to address the Planning Board on this? Yes, ma’am. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAM LESTER MRS. LESTER-Hi. My name is Pam Lester. I’m a registered landscape architect and I happen to live on the Point. I commend Kirsten for the planting plan and plant selection. I hope you’re going to give them maintenance guidelines. In regards to the tree removal, without the fire pit, without the well, and if they left the steps to the dock where they currently are, there would be a number of trees along the shoreline that could remain. The ones in the back, yes, they’re going to be lost because of construction access, because of the septic system, but there are, would be, a number of trees and probably some mitigation measures to those trees to protect them. The raingarden that is on the south side of the property, if it was elongated it would help with the reduction in planting, it could be spread out, and it would also help to keep it from being a concentrated flow down the bank, and other than that, those were my comments. She’s already done the reduction of the patio and the roadway. So those are my comments. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Yes, ma’am, I believe you wanted to address the Planning Board as well. LORRAINE RUFFING 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MRS. RUFFING-He can go first, I’ll go after. MR. TRAVER-Very good. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-They saved the best for last. Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We feel this project proposes significant disturbance and development of a small lot in the Critical Environmental Area of surrounding Lake George, and demonstrate by the number of variances there is a significant disturbance. With projects of this nature, mitigation measures should not only meet the requirements of the Town for stormwater management and vegetation but they should also exceed those requirements due to the relief that was granted for these variances. Unfortunly this application fails to meet the Town’s stormwater management requirements and will result in increased stormwater runoff that will negatively impact Lake George and the neighboring wetland. It is recognized a landscape plan, this was before, that is proposed and we supported the diversity of trees that were being proposed on the site. There is a concern regarding impacts to Lake George and its water quality, which is degrading in this part of the lake, and we request that the Planning Board consider these protection measures during your deliberations. Regarding the stormwater management, the Town’s requirements, as you’re well aware, focuses on infiltration. However, two of their, I think four devices, five, actually are lined with impermeable liners. Therefore they will not infiltrate stormwater. They will just store it, and then it will be slowly discharged. I think that was addressed in Chazen’s letter. It was even put into their stormwater management report that impermeable liner will be installed along the trench to ensure infiltration does not occur. That was in the letter. Also the project fails to provide management for the existing impervious surfaces as required by the new Lake George Park Commission regulations. There’s been a lot of discussion about how the Park Commission has reduced the setback, which gives the developer benefit, but it also requires you to management stormwater from the existing impervious covers, which a lot of times they seem to forget. The reason they put this in is to address the existing runoff and to improve the existing conditions of the lake. If we don’t manage runoff from the existing impervious surfaces, the lake will not improve. They put in credit for that, only manage the increase in pervious. We request that you evaluate the landscape and tree protection plan, and I think you’re doing that. Even some of the trees that are going to remain are actually going to be graded around and undercut and those roots will not survive if they grade by more than a foot. I think a lot of the variances, the substantiality in the Board, Zoning Board substantiated the variance based on the landscape plan.. Now if they are submitting an amended landscape plan, there might be a little more concern about the permeability. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Yes, ma’am. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live on Assembly Point. I think the Waterkeeper and Mrs. Golde have made many of my points. So I will skip over those. As you’ve noted it’s a very small lot, .39 acres, and 80% would be disturbed during the construction. As the Board members noted, 20 out of the 38 existing trees are going to be removed and you have this in the packet with the x’s, and I’ve noted that nine of those are along the shoreline, and I did submit photos of that shoreline with my letter, and it has been alleged that these trees are a safety threat, and they are not. You can look at the pictures, that they are in good condition. These trees are going to be replaced by generous landscaping supposedly, bushes, grasses and trees of lesser dimension which will not have the absorptive capacity of these mature trees and there is also the possibility of contamination from fertilizers and pesticides which could be used to promote the new growth and that is another danger for our drinking water. Last point I’d like to make is that this site development plan is not in keeping with the neighborhood, and I refer you to the letters that the Pensels and the Ahlers sent, who are our nearby neighbors, and you can see from the lots of the Pensels and the Ahlers that they were of similar size, and they built homes with smaller, and less site disturbance. Now while this site development plan might be acceptable in an urban area, I don’t think it’s an acceptable plan in an area that borders the lake and the wetlands, and particularly with the changes that you have been presented with this evening. So it would be helpful if the developers could go back and see if they can preserve some more of the mature trees and take into consideration that this is a Critical Environmental Area and we need to preserve our water quality. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Are there written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are a few written comments. So I’ll read the first one. “Dear Mr. Brown: We have spoken in the past about several matters relative to the proposed by Mr. Civitella on Knox Rd., which is the subject of Mr. MacElroy’s attached letter. Earlier this year I submitted written comments winch, I understand, was not read into the public record regarding this construction and I am hereby requesting that it be read. My property at 106 Knox Rd is adjacent to the Civitella property and I not only share, 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) endorse and support Mr. MacElroy’s observations, but it is my property that will be greatly impacted by the construction and unknown consequences of stormwater run-off, etc. as Mr. MacElroy has very specifically explained. I can only register my concern that there will be a negative impact on the wetlands and, quite possibly, my driveway. Will the Civitella’s be responsible for any damage which may occur to my property, including my driveway during the proposed construction. No agreement exists for such responsibility as of now of which I am aware. Mr. MacElroy’s request to be invited to certain upcoming meetings is critical to having an objective, informed opinion when the details of the construction are presented. Although we have no formal agreement, I cannot think of a better advocate for the neighbors and neighborhood in Mr. MacElroy’s presence at the meetings and I support his request to be invited. Please red this letter into the public record and, if the various hearings are so inclined to respond, I would appreciate having my questions answered as well as those of Mr. MacElroy. Thank you for your consideration. Frank M. Vaccaro 106 Knox Rd. Queensbury, N.Y.” The next one’s addressed to Craig. “I am writing in representation of our family property located at 103 Knox Road regarding the proposed site development of 104 Knox Road. We certainly respect the right of the Civitellas to improve their property in compliance with the review and associated approvals granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board. Our concern is the impact the construction activities will have on the existing access road serving the Civitella property. What is not clearly represented on the site plans is that the property of 104 Knox Road does not have frontage on a Town Road. Access to the property is via a deeded right-of-way across lands of the MacElroy Camp LLC. The right-of-way contains an approximate 400' (min.) driveway which is a gravel/crushed stone surfaced roadway, 11'+/- in width. And within its length it contains an approximate 10' x 11' concrete slab bridge (circa 1931) spanning the adjacent wetland drainage way. This driveway serves the properties of 104, 105, 106 Knox Road as well as our family property of 103 Knox Road. We are concerned that the condition of this driveway and somewhat 'sensitive' bridge will be properly maintained and preserved during the construction phase of the redevelopment project. The transport of equipment and materials with heavy-duty vehicles across the driveway and bridge has the great potential to impact the short term and long term condition of the driveway. While this may be an issue that the Planning Board feels is beyond their jurisdiction , I would compare it to the concern the Town would have for the protection of the 'normal' adjacent Town road accessing a project site. In this case the adjacent access road is much more vulnerable to project impacts. We, as neighbors to the project, dependent on this access for connection to the Town road, want to go on record voicing our concern about the proper maintenance of this driveway during construction. As a result, I would request the following: • The Planning Board should include a condition of their approval that the access drive and bridge serving this property shall be maintained and protected during the construction and returned to a condition equal to that which existed prior to construction. • The Applicant (Civitella) and all associated contractors should be aware that no off- site parking or storage of materials will be allowed without prior authorization by the adjacent property Owner (MacElroy Camp LLC). • I would also request that I be included at the customary pre­construction site meeting that Bruce Frank conducts prior to the initiation of construction to convey information about off-site concerns. Now regarding on-site issues, I would add my concern about the effectiveness and long term impact of the proposed liner under the section of driveway permeable block pavers adjacent to the wastewater absorption field. Where will this runoff end up ? Doesn't the liner effectively make this 80'+/- section of driveway impervious? I have concerns that as the driveway runs down gradient, stormwater will end up discharging offsite in the common entryway to all our properties. Review by the Town's TDE must confirm the compliance of this design(?) concept and assure that no long term impacts will result The liner, as a solution to the wastewater separation issue, potentially results in an offsite stormwater condition detrimental to the neighbors and the adjacent wetland. Thank you for your attention to these issues. Please be sure this letter is shared with the Board and is read into the record during the public hearing portion of the Planning Board meeting. Sincerely, Dennis MacElroy, 103 Knox Road” I have more, I apologize. So this is addressed to Mr. Craig and Ms. Moore. “It has come to our attention that the above applicant is revising their square footage and set backs on the above mentioned property. I live at 254 Lake Parkway and am already very close to my adjacent neighbor. This adds another home packed in closely, along with vegetation and trees stripped to accommodate a large home on a small lot. I have some concerns that this doesn’t fit the criteria that has already been established in the past by the Board. The pre-existing structure and its footprint should not have been expanded to the extent this new proposal has been expanded. We should all be looking at the long term here with the lake itself being the highest priority. While I agree that the existing structure needs to be torn down, and of course the homeowner has the right to expand to the limits allowed, I do not agree those limits should be stretched beyond what the Board has previously set limits and guidelines for. Why have these guidelines if they are continually pushed to the limit and beyond? Also – the access for construction vehicles is over a small patch of bridge right before the property that is clearly over a wet land area and looks precarious for heavy vehicles to continually be using during this process. I would think that issue should also be a concern. I am hopeful the homeowner will agree 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) to guidelines and not ask for more variances and the Board sticks to their original guidelines. Sincerely, Margaret Gregory 254 Lake Parkway” The next one is addressed also to the Planning Board as well as the Zoning Board. “Patty and I are thrilled that the property belonging to Antonio and Maria Civitella is going to finally be developed after having lived next door to an abandoned building, and property for 18 years. We do have some concerns in reviewing their plans. We ask that the Civitellas include the immediately adjacent properties in their plot plan. We believe this is relevant information that will prove valuable in the Board’s decision on set-backs and foot print relief. This will provide the Board and residents a greater understanding of the potential effects of the requested foot print relief. In order to build a house of this size and magnitude, a significant number of mature trees will need to be removed. We feel it would be prudent to ensure this will not have a negative impact on the ground water absorption and excess nutrients reaching the lake. The site plan indicates 69.5% of permeable area but the standard is 75%. As a result we ask that the Board consider a more thorough environmental engineering study to ensure the aforementioned concerns are addressed. We are also concerned about the demolition and removal of the existing structure. Our understanding is that there is a tremendous mold issue, as well as potential asbestos and lead presence based on its age. Before it is demolished, we request a thorough review of the demolition plans to ensure all modern health procedures and guidelines associated with these types of contaminants will be followed. This is of the utmost importance to ensure the health and well-being of the residents and habitat of the area. With regards to the Floor Area Ratio requirements, being that this is a redesign, why should it be necessary to go above the required Floor Area Ratio of 22%? The 22% requirement would be easy to meet, and may allow the orientation of the home to marry better with the neighboring properties. The original home has an orientation facing further south which would ease the setback situation to the north. The Town standard of 22% is intended to limit site development to that which can better protect the lake as well as nearby properties. We would like to close by thanking the Board for their consideration of our comments with hopes their ultimate are consistent with other recent reviews of the FAR and permeability variance requests in this very sensitive community. Sincerely, Patricia and George Pensel” This is addressed to the Planning and Zoning Board. “First some general comments Luise and I welcome the Civitellas to our little paradise at the end of Knox Road. Let's not drive ourselves out of this paradise by destroying it. It is extremely sensitive: the lake is on the west, and wetlands south and east of the proposed new house and of those in the immediate vicinity our lot sizes are tiny. New lake-front houses, including the proposed house, tend to be huge: with large foot-prints, high with deep basements and large roofs. Because of the small lots, setbacks from property lines are challenged. Storm-water runoff capacities tend to be minimized. Soil permeability is reduced. Almost all centuries old pines (some of the last on Assembly Point) are proposed to be removed specifically including the lakefront area. Trees are viewed as enemies by builders and home-owners. In truth they are friends: Trees promote soil quality and stability. Trees retain ground water levels and quality. Drinking water for houses in the immediate vicinity at 103, 106 and 105 Knox Road is supplied by lake-water. The proposed residence will be supplied with well-water.” We know that they’re going to change that to lake water. “One possible reason for the difference: Lake George water quality is and has deteriorated for decades. Development and removal of trees are a cause for that deterioration. Trees protect from harsh wind and cold and sunlight and summer heat. Lake views are not diminished but rather enhanced by trees. The value of old-growth pines cannot be compensated by young "native trees". Deciduous trees such as maples and beeches are invasive species because in time they crowd out evergreens. These are some of the main reasons for contesting the view of the proposal that it "reflects the character of the neighborhood." Now to some specific variance applications.” These are a reference to the variances. So one was for setbacks. One was for floor area. The other was for site permeability, which has already been granted. I will continue. “We provide here concrete support to the general concerns: Minimum side-yard setback proposals of 14' and 1 5 '9" are significantly less than the required 20'. Maximum floor area of 24.3% is significantly more than the WR required 22%. Site permeability of the proposed 69.5% is significantly less than the required 75%, but especially so in comparison to the existing 93%. It is no secret that general building practice seriously disturbs lot- and soil-conditions especially of a small lot such as 104 Knox Road: All of the original, high- quality topsoil built up over centuries (often more than 2 ft. deep!) disappears. It is displaced by low- quality soil dug up to prepare for footings and foundation walls. That poor quality soil is typically piled up on the site only to be spread out over the entire lot when foundation walls are finished. To cut costs, that excess soil is typically not removed. But thereby the original grade level increases, which increases the height of the house. The new grade is higher than original grade. Town regulations now prohibit that practice. We request that original grade is retained. We request excess soil is removed. We request that the high-quality original topsoil is retained and spread out over the whole lot when house is finished. These steps enhance the quality of the proposal, the lake and the sensitive environment. These specific concerns undergird the first-mentioned general concerns. We believe more closely meeting required metrics would enhance and not degrade the proposal. We hope and trust the Board and the Civitellas agree. We thank the Board for considering these concerns in their deliberations. Sincerely, Luis and Rolf Ahlers 105 Knox Road Lake George, NY 12845” This is addressed to Mr. Brown and myself. “Kindly read this letter at the Queensbury Planning Board meeting tomorrow night 1/25 for the Civetella hearing. As a long-time resident of Assembly Point and an advocate on the Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition team I urge the ZBA and Civitella family to consider the environmental impact of the extensive tree removal proposed. At a time when Queensbury's own CEC and CSC committees are struggling to create programs for increased 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) tree planting to mitigate erosion and denuding and to increase absorption and carbon storage capacity, and at a time when the Supervisor of Queensbury, himself, empowered the Lake George Waterkeeper and a team of advisory participants, to improve and tighten LID code recommendations, why would our boards consider the approval of such destructive tree removal, especially the hemlocks and the pines. The Lake George Land Conservancy writes ..."Hemlock roots stabilize stream (and lake) banks, prevent erosion and drastically reduce sediment and nutrient loading into the lake. They also provide food and habitat to many animals in the northeast. Brook trout depend on the cool water temperature that is maintained by dense hemlock cover. Chickadees, wrens, warblers, and other songbirds rely on hemlock for habitat. White- tailed deer, snowshoe hare and porcupines feed on its bark and needles. Without the eastern hemlock, the water quality of Lake George, and the forest habitat of the watershed, would suffer." White pines play a key role in lake hydrology and health as well. It is not just invasives that we must fight to protect our trees ...we need to strongly limit variances allowing such overdevelopment. Small new plantings usually proposed to replace felled trees take years to re-grow, and raingardens and permaculture as alternatives to the living, working full grown trees are beyond inadequate. We should be fighting against any unnecessary tree removal, calling into question what is considered necessary really. Our boards need to protect the land and water and educate the developers and families who engage them, the lawyers, engineers, construction companies and landscapers to encourage and frame more protective proposals. Lisa Adamson, 128 Lake Parkway Lake George, NY 12845” This other one is a reference from the Pensels asking that the footprint of their house be placed on the plans, which occurred. So that completes all of the public comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. For the moment we will leave the public comment open. You heard public comment. Do you have responses to any of those? MR. LAPPER-Just two. The issue everyone shares an easement and all the other houses that were built had to go over the same driveway. So obviously if it was down during construction it would have to be replaced by the applicant. That’s under common law, that if you share an easement you’re responsible for maintaining it, and if their trucks put ruts in they’ll have to fix it, just like the neighbors. Chris’ comment about infiltration. So this was designed to comply with the Town Code in terms of the infiltration and the only areas that don’t have infiltration that he mentioned that have liners is because, Dennis mentioned in his letter, there’s a separation distance. So you’re not allowed to have infiltration next to the septic field, and that’s why there’s a liner because it has to be. Otherwise it would be non-conforming. You can’t have infiltration so close to the septic, but it’s still, all of the infiltration meets the requirements. MR. TRAVER-There are a number of engineering comments relating to stormwater. Are you confident that those can be addressed? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Matt, do you want to come up? MR. HUNTINGTON-Matt Huntington with Studio A. Yes, we can briefly address those. One actually the liners have been removed as part of this. Part of the issue was one, the septic, and, two, the well. So in response to the engineering comments we’ve actually added a raingarden on the, one correction to that I guess, eastern portion where it kind of comes to the Point. MR. TRAVER-Is that in the update that was handed out this evening? MR. HUNTINGTON-No, that isn’t because that’s part of our response to LaBella’s comments. Actually LaBella’s comments were pretty minimal on that end. They were fairly addressable. They mainly pertain to the lining of infiltration areas. MR. LAPPER-It was mentioned by Laura at the beginning that the well is being removed, and the well required the liner as well as the septic. So that’s why the well was removed so that area of pavers didn’t have to have lining. That’s why we’re using lake water, to avoid that separation distance. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, correct. That was a portion of the patio on the north side. So a portion of it infiltrated, a portion didn’t, but we’ve removed the well and we’ve revised our stormwater and the raingarden as opposed to that, some trench. So we removed the liner there as well. So it is in compliance with the Town’s Code. Actually the Town requires a 25 year storm be analyzed for residential construction and what we’ve done is essentially cut the runoff in half from the existing conditions to the proposed conditions by the use of two raingardens and permeable pavers. MR. TRAVER-Now, can you add that change to the information that was submitted tonight on the new landscaping plan? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, certainly. And that will come back to the Town, LaBella. I’m sorry, it is there. You’ll see on the eastern portion of the site that grouped plantings there out on the end of the Point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well with that change, plus there’s significant changes to what we looked at when we made our recommendation to the ZBA, I’m going to suggest to the Board that we table this and give the full Board an opportunity to see the updated information and have you come back, and, Laura, I don’t know, I guess one of the things that I’m wondering, because this is a pretty significant change to the Site Plan, does, do we need to re-recommend to the? MRS. MOORE-I’m not aware of having to do that. MR. TRAVER-It’s an interesting question. If an applicant makes a change. MRS. MOORE-Not in reference to the variances. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It’s a change to this Board. Typically the Planning Board addresses planting. MR. TRAVER-I just thought in the context of the project as a whole, the ZBA might want to see what is being proposed. MRS. MOORE-I can discuss that with Craig and get back to the Board. MR. TRAVER-I’m saying that not even necessarily for this particular application, but just for looking to the future. If we review a project, it gets a variance approval, and then there’s a significant change to the project. MRS. MOORE-If it was relevant to the variances being granted, I could see it going back, doing the re- referral like we did with the stormwater devices for those previous applications that we saw tonight. I’m not certain it would go back to the Board for a project. MR. TRAVER-The reason that I suggest that is because this Board, I assume, I would hope, that the ZBA would look at the entire context of the project, and the variances are a sub-set of that. MRS. MOORE-They look at the variance. They’re directed to look at the variances. So, again, I’ll communicate with Craig, and if there’s something that we all decide that needs to be re-referred, then we will do that, but at this point I don’t believe it does. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’d be interested in hearing an answer on that. MR. LAPPER-Steve, we’ll talk to the applicant, in the interim, about the planting plan, seeing what we can come back with. We hear what you’re saying. MR. TRAVER-And the engineering, stormwater issues that were raised in public comment as well? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we have it ready to go to LaBella. MR. TRAVER-And you heard a great deal of public comment from the neighborhood and so on. Okay. Well, we appreciate that. MR. DEEB-Jon, one thing, I’m not really happy with the number of trees you’re taking down. MR. LAPPER-Dave, we hear you and we’ll come back, we’ll address that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think they understand that. All right. So with all of that, and, Laura, how is the agenda? I know you’re not happy about April. MRS. MOORE-No, I think we would have them tabled to April. They would revised information by th March 15, but they would appear on the first April meeting. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So April 19, then, is I think the first meeting. Will that work for you gentlemen? th Will you be able to have submitted information by March 15? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) MRS. MOORE-Just so I understand. I know what just happened. So let me just jump in so it’s clear. The th deadline for March has already past basically. So February 15 is for March’s meetings. So instead of, all those applications that came in for the March meeting are ready to go, which makes that agenda full. So that’s why this application would be moved into April. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Yes. MRS. MOORE-Just so you know I understand what occurred at the table. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So you’d have a few weeks until the middle of March to submit that information and address the engineering concerns. MRS. MOORE-So it’s possible that you may get engineering signoff, which is to their benefit. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we understand. MR. TRAVER-That would be great. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. th MR. TRAVER-All right. So then we’re going to make a tabling motion to the April 19 meeting. We will leave the public hearing open, which is why I didn’t close it a few minutes ago, and we’re ready for that motion. I should ask before we make that motion, do any of the Board members have comments? Okay. All right. Go ahead. I’m sorry. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 55-2021 FWW 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 55-2021 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Tabled until the April 19, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by March 15, 2022. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll see you in April. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY TH 15, 2022, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, everyone. See you next week. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2022) Stephen Traver, Chairman 47