Loading...
02-22-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING ND FEBRUARY 22, 2022 INDEX Subdivision No. 2-2022 Cerrone Builders, Inc. 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.18-2-1 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 5-2022 Henssgen Hardware, Inc. 7. Tax Map No. 302.12-1-45 Site Plan No. 6-2022 Native Development Association, LLC 12. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-9.2 (308.20-1-9.21) Site Plan No. 8-2022 Kenneth Brown/Champ’s Chimney 16. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-90 Site Plan No. 51-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Main House) 19. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Site Plan No. 52-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Guest House) 21. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Site Plan No. 70-2021 Francis & Erin Steinbach 32. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18 Site Plan No. 4-2022 Adirondack Trust Company 35. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47 Site Plan No. 7-2022 Fritz and Mary Stefanzick 38. Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11 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 02/22/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING ND FEBRUARY 22, 2022 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN MOLLOY WARREN LONGACKER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board nd meeting for Tuesday, February 22, 2022. This is our second meeting for February and our fourth meeting already for 2022. Please make note of the red illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency, that is your way out. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that so as not to interrupt our proceedings. And we do ask, during our deliberations, other than in public hearing, if you want to have a conversation with one of your colleagues or whatever, if you would go to the outer room and have that conversation out there so, again, as not to distract or interrupt our proceedings this evening. There are some public hearings for some of our applications that we’ll be looking at this evening and we will announce those as they occur. And we do have one item that we anticipate tabling this evening, and that is under Old Business, Brett & Pamela West. They actually have two applications before us this evening. One for a main house and one for a guest house, and we understand that we are going to consider a motion to table the main house until next month. So if you’re here to discuss that as part of the public hearing with the Board, just be advised that we do anticipate that that will be coming up for a motion to table to March, and with that we’ll begin. The first section of our agenda is Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first and only item on that is Cerrone Builders, Inc., Subdivision Preliminary Stage 2-2022. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2022 PRELIMINARY STAGE. SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED-FULL EAF. CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. AGENT(S): TOM CENTER, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): CITY OF GLENS FALLS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 45 LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 49.5 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOTS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 0.47 ACRE TO 1.57 ACRES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION PROPERTY. THERE IS TO BE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO SHERMAN AVENUE. THE SITES WOULD HAVE ON-SITE SEPTIC AND BE CONNECTED TO MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 20 FT. NO CUT BUFFER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINES. WAIVERS REQUESTED FOR CLEARING PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE PROJECT SITE WAS AT ONE TIME THE LEAF DUMP AREA FOR THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183, REVIEW FOR A SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (S) 7-2021, AV 5-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. LOT SIZE: 49.98 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-1. SECTION: 183. MATT STEVES & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a 45 lot subdivision of 49.5 acres. In reference to the variances being requested, the lots range in size from 0.47 acres to 1.57 acres where a two acre requirement for the MDR zone is required. In reference to setbacks, the applicant is also requesting rear setback where 30 feet is required and 20 feet is proposed. The side setback required is 25 and the proposed is 15, and there is no change to the front setback, and in the previous month the Board sought Lead Agency. You can accept Lead Agency and if the Board feels it appropriate they can provide the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and SEQR as well? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MRS. MOORE-You’re going to do SEQR when it comes back. MR. TRAVER-That’s right. Of course, when it comes back. Okay. Thank you. So tonight we’re only considering the variance request which is for lot size and setbacks. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Tom Center, the project engineer and project surveyor, representing Cerrone Builders, Inc. on this project. I believe it’s been in front of you before, and as Laura stated, the Zoning Board has made the motion to make you Lead Agency on SEQR and like Laura said, we’ll be back in front of this Board after we obtain, try to obtain the necessary variances from the Zoning Board. The rear setbacks are the only setbacks we’re requesting variances from, and that zone is 30 feet, and because we’re using a cluster subdivision with that large area in the middle, we allow for a 20 foot rear setback, and Tom has information if you have any particular questions engineering wise. If you have any other particular questions on lot configuration or lot size or any other questions regarding the subdivision we’re here to answer your questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, before we begin, why don’t we go ahead and accept Lead Agency so we can get that on the record if we could please. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS SUB PRELIM. STG. # 2-2022 CERRONE BUILDERS WHEREAS, applicant proposes a 45 lot subdivision of a 49.5 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 0.47 acre to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowner’s association property. There is to be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The sites would have on-site septic and be connected to municipal water supply. The project includes a 20 ft. no cut buffer on the North property lines. Waivers requested for clearing plan and landscape plan. The project site was at one time the leaf dump area for the City of Glens Falls. Pursuant to Chapter 183, review for a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot size and setbacks. Planning Board will make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 2-2022 CERRONE BUILDERS, INC., Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So then as to the variances and the subdivision, one of the questions I had was I believe when we looked at this at Sketch, you were thinking in terms of 49 and you’ve now reduced it to 45. What was the thinking behind that? MR. CENTER-Going through the Department of Health and also getting out and having the area cleared, we eliminated a couple of lots that we were unsure of in the cleared area that it might be involved in the waste dump, the leaf dump areas. So we eliminated those and re-configured the lots a little bit. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. MR. CENTER-It also provides two large entrances into the pocket park area. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I know that this evening we’re really looking at the variances, but one of the things that we will be asking about at some point is about potential for sidewalks. I thought there was one other thing I was going to, landscape plan. MR. CENTER-Lot clearing. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, not just lot clearing, it was clearing of the site. MR. CENTER-With regard to lot clearing, because of what we’re trying to do here, and depending on, the reason I asked to waive that at this point, once we get the number of lots, we’ll come back again for Preliminary with an updated plan depending on the final lot configuration, but with this project, we more than likely will clear more than five acres in the beginning because what we’re trying to do is create that cluster where these houses, because it’s going to be a maintenance free design, we are going to clear those areas, and that’s also going to factor in with landscaping and what we’re going to provide for landscaping because we have to make those areas so that they’re clustered in between, graded off and create the lots for the area in the middle along the road, re-use some of that material so we can grade out the whole subdivision. What would happen is we would clear that area. We would grade it, then we would stabilize those lots. They would go to grass, and then they would start building the road on the middle, as that area that we graded off where the lots are would be stabilized with lawn or grass and then re- landscaped per the individual lots. So we will be providing some sort of landscaping that we’re going to call for, for each lot, very similar to the Sweet Road subdivision. If you’ve seen the Cerrone subdivision over in Wood Creek in South Glens Falls and Moreau, that’s exactly the way they did that there, and then they re-landscaped in at the end, put trees, landscaped on the individual lots, but because it’s maintenance free, everything’s packed closer together where the houses are and those lands, and then we’re leaving those other buffer areas, the 20 foot no cut areas, the front along Sherman Avenue is going to be natural areas. MR. STEVES-Like Tom was saying it’s the same type of subdivision as they had done on The Village at Sweet Road. You grade the lots off. You maintain the common areas, and that way the lot owners already know it’s common area. You can’t cut in there. There’s deed restrictions as far as the HOA for cutting within the common areas. You grade it off. You set the lots. That way they know exactly what they’re getting. They’re looking at because of the grading design, and this one, it opens it up, allows you to stabilize it and put the road in and then there’s a landscape package similar to the ones over at The Village at Sweet Road. MR. TRAVER-It came out very nice, too. MR. STEVES-The houses get some trees. The common areas get trees, the entrances will be walks with trees. So like Tom says, once we define that exact number of lots. That way we can put the landscape package together. Right now we’d do it and now we’re revamping the whole lots and we’re having a landscape architect re-design it. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. STEVES-We appreciate the comments and concerns on that, but that will be forthcoming. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-The 20 foot no cut buffer comes from, how did you pick 20 feet? MR. CENTER-That’s along the back edge of the property, the rear perimeters. MR. VALENTINE-How did you pick 20 feet? MR. CENTER-That comes up to the setback line. With these lots being smaller, that sets that back line is just a natural break for a 20 foot buffer. Plus, if you look, most of the neighboring lots don’t clear up to that back property line either. So we’re providing something. MR. STEVES-Most of those lots won’t be more than those deeper lots are, and most of those lots have a 50 or 75 foot rear. MR. VALENTINE-That was just, you’re going right to my point is there’s a lot of vegetation between the septic and that north property line, and 20 foot is from me to you, and in some places in these areas you don’t get many trees between me and you that you’re keeping, and if you had a no cut buffer. I’m shooting for more than 20 feet is what I’m saying particularly if you’re saying HOA area and things like that. MR. STEVES-I understand, and that’s why we looked at it to the north 20 foot because of the fact that most of the properties to the north already have an additional 50 to 60 feet of tree buffer on their property. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. VALENTINE-If they remain. MR. STEVES-If they remain. MR. CENTER-And we’re not proposing to, in some of those lots, depending on where the septic system, we’re not proposing we clear up to the no cut. The clearing limit there would be set by where the septic system lies. So we’re not proposing to clear that now. We’re just saying in those areas. MR. STEVES-Especially if you look at the northeasterly corner, the deeper lots, we can look at that and we can see if we can adjust to accommodate a little bit more. Some of the lots to the extreme east and the extreme west in order, because of that large area right in the center that was the former leaf dump and try and create that nice common area right in the middle, re-grade that, put some trees and paths. If you went into The Village at Sweet Road you’d see exactly what we’re talking about, but we’ll see what we can do, Mike. I appreciate that. You’re looking for 25? MR. VALENTINE-Well I’m just sitting here I’m thinking on sites that I’ve been on before and you start going out and looking at 15 to 20 feet. You may get two or three trees, four or five trees along the width of the backyard that are worth keeping, and they certainly don’t provide a buffer between my backyard and the backyard that’s beyond that. MR. STEVES-Exactly. And in this case we looked at having it wooded in the back, and all these lots are going to be more than two to three trees and if we can take a hard look at that so that we can say okay on these five lots or these four lots we may have to propose some plantings. MR. VALENTINE-And I’m not necessarily thinking from the developer you’re looking at that. I’m thinking later when it’s a homeowner and an HOA and all of a sudden somebody’s gone out there and clear cut because they, whatever. I don’t know. MR. STEVES-And like I say, that, we appreciate that and we understand and we will have items within the HOA guidelines that does allow that. Like outs, I have a tree that just blew over this year in a windstorm. Technically, and I will have to go the HOA Board and get permission to take that tree down that has blown over in my backyard, and that’s the right thing to do because you don’t want somebody to just say I don’t need permission. I’m just going to go cut down five or six trees. We agree. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CENTER-And we’ll also define those clearing limits before the construction. MR. VALENTINE-How far away is the municipal sewer? MR. CENTER-It’s quite a ways. It’s all the way up Corinth Road. Or Sherman Avenue at the City Line. Sherman Avenue, the piece that comes up to the industrial park there. MR. MAGOWAN-There’s sandy soils over there, too. MR. CENTER-Yes, the soils are great. We’ve been out with the Department of Health. We did our test pits and they were very comfortable with the soils for the septic systems. MR. DEEB-Can you tell me, what’s the average size lot on Sweet Road? MR. STEVES-The average size lot on Sweet Road is just under four tenths of an acre. MR. DEEB-Four tenths, because I’m just a little concerned with the size of the project. I think I expressed that earlier, with the number of houses and I don’t know why it has to be so, maybe because that’s the only way it’s going to be profitable. I don’t know. MR. CENTER-Well predominantly we’ve got a large area that we cannot develop in the middle, for the pocket park. MR. DEEB-I understand that. MR. CENTER-And to the east and west predominantly those are half acre lots. To the north they’re closer to an acre, but predominantly to the east and west those lots are all half acre lots, very similar to what we propose. MR. STEVES-I believe the average, David, to your point, I believe is around .66, .67 acres. MR. DEEB-Which fits in with, like you said, the east and west. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. STEVES-Again, The Village at Sweet Road has Town sewer. So you don’t have to have room for the septic, but there in that subdivision, too, when we went through, that was the same scenario, but we left the 30 foot rear setback in play, and then a couple of people decided to put down a patio, and then a deck off the house and the next thing you know we were getting a variance for a 28 foot setback. So that’s the other reason for this because you’re pulling everything up front to surround that common area to give it a little bit of room in the back for that purpose, but like I say, it’s substantially larger, almost twice the size of the average lot in Sweet Road. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thanks. MR. VALENTINE-As a follow up to Dave’s question, and another sort of angle to it. How will these garages and houses that will go to this development, how will they match the market around them? MR. STEVES-The average house in here, if you’re talking to the Cerrone’s, you’re probably looking at, if you drive around looking at the other subdivisions, you’re going to be looking at the 17, 18, 1900 square foot homes. That’s going to be basically what you’re looking at here. So that it fills in with the market that is here on that western side of Queensbury without a 4,000 square foot home. That’s not going to happen. I mean you get a couple of larger homes on those larger northeast, northwesterly corner lots because they can sustain it, but when you look at a box, you know, and I don’t mean the whole footprint is 50 by 50, but if you have a front garage and you have a master bedroom behind and recesses and comes back around, 50 by 50 is going to be, all your houses are going to basically fit within that 50 by 50 box. MR. CENTER-And they’re predominantly ranches, too. MR. VALENTINE-These will be? MR. CENTER-What they’ve done in similar subdivisions for this market, what people are looking for. MR. STEVES-There’s one colonial in ours. It’s typically what the market is bearing right now for this type of development. MR. VALENTINE-In their packet of materials it mentioned I think it’s the three parcels that the HOA. MR. CENTER-Correct, that front Sherman Avenue. To the east and west of the entrance roads, those will be HOA properties so that all the development is happening off of Sherman Avenue. So there’s a natural buffer between Sherman Avenue and the subdivision and then there’s the central portion for the pocket park. MR. VALENTINE-So those southern property lines of the lots, the four lots, for both entrances, HOA property. So that’s that area there. Is there any other HOA property? Obviously are they taking the leaf area, the HOA? MR. CENTER-Yes. The HOA, that has to be maintained in one entity ownership, based on what we discussed with DEC, can’t be built on, can be used as passive recreation. MR. VALENTINE-Can the HOA sell compost? It’s a joke. I’m just kidding you. MR. CENTER-I’m pretty sure the Cerrones, we do have a plan to take those large mounds out and have them ground down. That may already be going somewhere or be used for the trails and things. MR. STEVES-I think Laura just put up, Mike, so you can see the proposed clearing and limit plan, the septics and the houses, and you can see it there. MR. VALENTINE-I was looking at that on the sheet there, too. I was just wondering, and it’s funny, when you’re looking at that, then you look at the existing tree areas there, that’s what brought me to my first question. MR. STEVES-Putting everything on one sheet, you end up moving it to a scale it looks like a postage stamp. MR. MAGOWAN-A lot of these questions are kind of familiar, especially with the one on Sweet. I’ve been through the one in South Glens Falls. I have to say, I always talk about Sweet Road and I said it before. I just sometimes drive through it because it’s really, I know the concern, but this is definitely a market that we need, being on a local development corp., we’re looking for more houses and we need it, and I think this concept is awesome, and right across the street, what is it, Sherman Pines. MR. CENTER-Those are quarter acre lots with homeowners, the homeowners association parcel. So those are all quarter acre lots. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-And they have like a shared septic. MR. CENTER-They have a shared septic. MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean that was years ago, but that filled right up like that and I mean the houses, for sale signs don’t stay long over there. So I really, you came in with this concept and, yes, I was concerned. I appreciate, I know we did talk about maybe not bringing the lots right up to the road. I appreciate the homeowners, you know, putting that buffer in there and like I said, it really, I’m excited. MR. STEVES-Your point is well taken. It is, you know, we’ve been down this road many times, we’ve learned from different subdivisions different aspects. When you have one builder controlling it and then you have an HOA that’s established before you even get in, you have another policing agent right then and there for the municipality. I live in one and it works great, and you have these other subdivisions where you’re leaving it up to the individual homeowner to say, okay, we put in a deeded 20 foot zone no cut zone. The one guy says, well, if he can do it, I can do it, and like I say, over there, you know, the language is written in. We’re going to emulate that in this HOA. So it’s the same thing. You have to have permission from the HOA Board and you can’t take any live trees out within the buffer zones. If you make any exterior changes to your house you have to comply, you know, meet with the HOA to make sure, they don’t want to see somebody come in and say, okay, I’m going to dig out the side and put in a sandbox on the side of my house, front of my house for my grandkids or something. So there’s a lot of different vehicles here that help protect the people in the subdivision, the Town itself and the neighborhood. MR. VALENTINE-Is this going to be a full offering plan or what they call a diminimus? MR. STEVES-It’s going to be a CPSF basically, just like the other ones were. If you don’t have amenities like a pool or some kind of a community building you don’ really need to get into that. It’s just the common area and then the by-laws that govern that common area with some paths. So we don’t have to get into a full blown offering plan. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments regarding the variance for lot size and setbacks? Are we ready to make a referral to the ZBA? Do we have concerns that we want to communicate? MR. DIXON-Did you want to do anything with the setback that Mike mentioned? MR. VALENTINE-I did have one question. Landscape plans. They’re going to be individual landscaping plans to offer a homeowner for their lot? Is that how it’s going to work? MR. STEVES-What will happen is just like we did on the other subdivision and especially the Cerrones. We will have, once we know these lot configurations and the number of lots, we will do an overall landscaping plan and then every package as you can see if you drive through there, there’s also an individual landscape package that comes with every home, but I think they planted 30 or 40 trees just within, on the common area, entrances and paths, along the road and along the boulevard entrance. MR. VALENTINE-That’s what I was referring to. There’s not a landscape plan in this package. Okay. All right. And that will be an HOA. MR. STEVES-That will be an HOA and roughly show you, give you a detail of what a typical lot. MR. VALENTINE-Like if somebody goes to buy a house, they sit with a realtor, here’s your package. Okay. MR. STEVES-You’re going to see one for the entire subdivision. MR. VALENTINE-That’s what I’m thinking about. MR. TRAVER-And when we look at Preliminary by that point you’ll have that detail. Okay. Anything else from the Board? Do we feel comfortable moving forward with a recommendation? Okay. I guess we’re ready to hear that motion. MR. DIXON-And just to pull everybody in. Anything of concern with the 20 foot setback? Or we’ll leave that as it is? I mean, do you want that? Mike brought up the concern. So I don’t know if we want to make a recommendation for review or if we’re comfortable with it at this point. MR. TRAVER-Well my feeling is it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be a consistent 20 feet. They’re going to come back with more of a plan. So in view of the layout, I mean I can’t speak, obviously, for other Board members, but I’m not uncomfortable with allowing that as a variance because I don’t believe it’s going to be something that, every lot it’s not going to be an issue. That’s my feeling. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-I agree with you. MR. VALENTINE-I mean you’ve got grading constraints on the east side and then you do have those deeper lots on the north side. I just don’t think an average Joe is going to go back there and clear 60 feet out and wipe out the backyard. It doesn’t make any sense. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-Twenty’s just a funny number. That’s all. MR. STEVES-If you look at that center piece toward that common area and you say, that way people say let me offset my house a little more and get a little closer to that larger common area and walk right out of your backyard and walk there. MR. DIXON-All right then. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 5-2022 CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 45 lot subdivision of a 49.5 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 0.47 acre to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowner’s association property. There is to be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The sites would have on-site septic and be connected to municipal water supply. The project includes a 20 ft. no cut buffer on the North property lines. Waivers requested for clearing plan and landscape plan. The project site was at one time the leaf dump area for the City of Glens Falls. Pursuant to Chapter 183, review for a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot size and setbacks. 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. 5-2022 CERRONE BUILDERS. 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. nd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Henssgen Hardware, Inc., Site Plan 5-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 5-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HENSSGEN HARDWARE INC. AGENT(S): LUIGI PALLESCHI, ABD. OWNER(S): ANTLER PROPERTIES, LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 43 EVERTS AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE STORY 3,000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 7,300 SQ. FT. BUILDING. THE ADDITIONAL SPACE IS FOR AN EXPANDED STORAGE AREA. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS USED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION FACILITY FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL HARDWARE; THE FACILITY IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, A SITE PLAN FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING IN THE COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 49-2003, SP 33-2003 SHED CONSTRUCTION. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2022. LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-45. SECTION: 179-3-040. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) LUIGI PALLESCHI, TIM BARBER & MATT NOVAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant wishes to construct a 3,000 square foot addition to the existing 7,300 square foot building. The area is for additional storage area. There’s really no changes to the exterior of the building. They’re going to put exterior lights on the new addition to match the existing. The applicant has asked for some waivers and they discussed in my Staff Notes the Board may discuss a waiver for stormwater management. The applicant has identified the area that the addition is, is on existing hard surfacing, or the majority of it is. So I think it’s worth having that discussion. I did receive information from the Fire Marshall that the Fire Marshall has no site issues at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PALLESCHI-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So tell us about your project. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. So Luigi Palleschi here with ABD Engineers. MR. BARBER-Tim Barber from JAG Group. MR. PALLESCHI-Also with us is Matt from Henssgen Hardware, but to start off with the site in itself, the overall parcel, is a little over an acre in size. There’s an existing 7300 square foot building. It’s a hardware store. It’s been there for 40 years or so. A couple of additions throughout those 40 years and business is growing and they’re in need of another addition, 3,000 square feet. As Laura mentioned the existing site out there today has current asphalt and gravel areas which are impervious now. This 3,000 square foot addition would be on top of that existing gravel or asphalt area and in the back of the site we’re actually reducing some of the impervious area, increasing the green space. The fact that she was referring to about the stormwater, any time you reduce any impervious you better the stormwater runoff. So we are going to provide a swale to capture the rear rooftop of that new addition. The existing rooftop pitches the other way and we’re not looking to change that, and everything naturally drains to the same spot that it does now. There are some storage containers that are out there today, and those will go away once this 3,000 square foot addition gets built. So they’re in need of additional storage space. The operations will remain the same. The uses will remain the same, and, you know, the goal is really to build this 3,000 square foot addition so that the containers can be removed and better the operations and organization inside of that, for their facility here. There’s parking spaces that are out there today, and once the container spaces are removed, there’s additional parking that can be utilized. There are FedEx vehicles that come and go. They’re like a distribution and, you know, again, that operation that you see there today will continue the same. They’re not looking to increase the number of trips or anything. So at this time I’ll turn it over to the Board for any additional questions. MR. TRAVER-Just one question I had was on lighting. I know you’re adding lighting to match the existing building. Is it all Code compliant, downcast and so on? MR. PALLESCHI-It will be down type, yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Questions from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-For the longest time I always wondered what was there. Then I knew that, then I found out you couldn’t go in but I think it’s great. The only question I have, do you have a sump pump that runs like 24/7? MR. NOVAK-We don’t have a basement there. It’s just on a slab. MR. MAGOWAN-It seems like water just comes out of that, the north corner all the time. MR. BARBER-That swale. MR. NOVAK-Between where we are and Duke Concrete, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I just wondered if you had a sump pump that runs 24/7, because I know it’s kind of a high water table, but I think it’s awesome that you’ve been tucked away there so long and I’m just so happy to hear business is booming and I looked over the project. I was impressed with your design on the concrete. So I think it’ll be a great project and tucked right away and backs right up to Duke Concrete. Then you have Community Action right behind you. That’s awesome. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-So that, I guess, raises a question. If you’re having water, is that stormwater that’s leaving the site? Do we need to add some? MR. PALLESCHI-It’s an existing swale that’s there currently. MR. BARBER-There’s a swale over here that goes down, the swale actually comes along the property line here, it’s preexisting and t is roof system runs off into here and it’s actual swale. This water now runs around here right now. So we’re going to actually take this pavement part away and just have a swale down one side of the building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that should eliminate runoff leaving the site. MR. BARBER-Correct. MR. PALLESCHI-Everything that’s here now goes this way. Everything that’s coming off is going to maintain the same path. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well my concern was I was hearing that it was leaving the site, which we can’t have. MR. PALLESCHI-Right. Everything will remain the same, if not get better, because we’re increasing green space. I think what you’re referring to, there’s a natural drainage course along the property line. That’s there currently. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. 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? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, are there written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any follow up questions from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Laura, are you happy with the stormwater? MRS. MOORE-The question is, since this is on hard surfacing, is the Board comfortable waiving the stormwater management requirement, or do you wish to have additional information supporting the addition to this property and do you feel that it should be referred to the Town Engineer? If it’s a natural drainage channel and it’s not considered a stream, it’s not part of, there’s no change to that. The applicant has indicated that the swale that they’re providing is additional green space. So that’s to an advantage of placing stormwater in the proposed swale to go to the drainage area and then when I look back at previous plans that’s exactly what the case was. That there was a design specifically, and it was a managed design, to put a stormwater in that particular area. MR. DIXON-Well that does bring an interesting question. So what I have now, where the new building is being proposed is that where you currently put your snow in your plowing, or do you haul it all off site? MR. NOVAK-That’s currently back here where these storage sheds are currently. These are going to be removed so that you can come around this side here. Snow will still be in this area and in this green area here. We do push it along the bottom, the south, along the south border, to create a bank along that swale a little bit. They’re going to be pushing straight back, and then we’ll also have the ability. MR. TRAVER-Sir, I’m sorry. We should probably get you up to the table and having you on record. If you’d state your name for the record and that way your comments can go in the record that way. It might be significant. MR. NOVAK-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Sorry about that. MR. NOVAK-Matt NOVAK. I own the building with my wife Rachel. She’s not able to be here tonight. So currently I think maybe I will come up here. So obviously Everts Ave. here and the main entrance to the property is here. It’s just all gravel, and then parking is here, and there will be more parking available 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) here once we take these two 40 foot containers out here. Obviously we have these two containers as well that will be removed. So when we build the addition, which will be this here, we’ll have plenty of space to be able to get around on the side and out back. So currently we have two dumpsters here which we have fenced per Code and everything. We’re going to potentially re-route that possibly so that there, so a truck could back in or we’re going to figure that out. They may not need to be re-routed, but this will provide some cover for our garbage and we have a few trailers and other miscellaneous things out there. We’re going to push snow coming in off Everts Ave. along the swale here, all the way to the back corner and all the way over to this. This is all just green space here. Any other questions? MR. MAGOWAN-You have up there dumpster to be re-located to the concrete pad. That to me looks like a better spot for the truck either to back in or if you have a front-end loader and I’m sure you have a recycling bin and a garbage bin. MR. NOVAK-We do, and typically now they come in and oftentimes they pull in over here when they back in. I think the point is we’re going to have plenty of space behind the building still for the truck to turnaround or, you know, if they choose to back in. Any other questions? MR. MAGOWAN-I guess my question is, what you’d have to decide is are we going to move the concrete pad dumpster or we’re not going to move it, because that would change your snow removal. MR. BARBER-It would go there, because this is going to be typically a front load truck. Is it rear now, Matt? MR. NOVAK-It’s front. MR. BARBER-So he’s going to pull right in, and that’s what we, when we were looking at this design, to make for ease of operation, is you come straight in, lift it, and then back out and go out. MR. TRAVER-So in your final plans that you submit to the Town, if you could just make that change so that they have the most accurate plans. Thank you. Anything else from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I’m not trying to bust you on that. It’s just we see a plan, we might and we might not, and we can’t do that. MR. LONGACKER-Are you going to have enough radius to get a garbage truck around that corner with about 15 feet? MR. BARBER-Yes. There’s a lot of room here. They currently go back in here right now. So this will just make it a lot easier for the front loader. MR. NOVAK-Yes, these are two containers, 40 foot full size containers here, so I don’t have the exact measurements from here to here, but the other thing is this swale here, I mean there’s gravel there now and so that gravel, I mean it’s not all trees or anything. There’s plenty of extra space if we have to. MR. BARBER-We’ve got about 22 feet here on gravel. We looked at that there. MR. DIXON-I guess I’m just having difficulty envisioning we might get snow this weekend, Friday, and if it’s all being piled up there, if you’re planning on leaving it there, it’s your business how you’re going to remove your trash and get somebody back there. MR. BARBER-All this property back here, there’s a lot of room here. There’s probably 50 feet in this entire area. Then you’ve got another 10 or 12 feet right here. So there’s a lot of room here to push all the snow back here. It never comes out this far. So when you’re in a front loader you don’t need a lot of room to back in there. MR. DIXON-And you’re confident as this snow melts that the water will stay on the property? Because Everts Ave. is very low. MR. BARBER-Yes. This property all naturally drains this way. That’s why they have the little drainage swales they have in the original design right there. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? Do Board members feel comfortable moving forward? MR. MOLLOY-Yes, actually so I think I should state for the record I used to babysit Matt’s kids. So I think maybe it would be appropriate for me to recuse myself from this vote. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. MOLLOY-So I guess I’ll head to the hallway then? Do I head to the hallway? MR. TRAVER-No, actually you can just abstain when the vote comes. You don’t need to recuse yourself. Thank you. Anything else? All right. I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 5-2022 HENNSGEN HARDWARE, INC. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a one story 3,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing 7,300 sq. ft. building. The additional space is for an expanded storage area. The existing building is used for the distribution facility for commercial and industrial hardware; the facility is not open to the public. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, a site plan for an addition to an existing building in the commercial light industrial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/22/2022, 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 2/22/2022; 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 5-2022 HENSSGEN HARDWARE, INC.; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal and considered reasonable to request a waiver; 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; 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) 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 nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. NOVAK-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Native Development Association, LLC, Site Plan 6-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 6-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC. AGENT(S): LUIGI PALLESCHI, ABD. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 24 NATIVE DRIVE LOT #1. APPLICANT PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT A 19,320 SQ. FT. ONE STORY ADDITION ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING 117,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND REMOVAL OF A 6,000 SQ. FT. AREA LOT. SITE WORK INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF 34 PARKING SPACES AND ALTERATIONS TO A PORTION OF THE ACCESS DRIVE. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING WILL UPDATE THE EXISTING OFFICE AREA AS WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR AN ADDITION TO EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 69-2017, SP 14-2019, SUB 5-2020, SUB 6-2020, SUB 5-2021, SUB 6-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 11.15 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-9.2 (308.20-1-9.21). SECTION: 179-3-040. LUIGI PALLESCHI & TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a 19, 320 square foot one story addition on the west side of the existing 117,square foot building. There’s an area of the property, I’m not sure, 6,000 square foot area is being adjusted, but site work includes development of 34 parking spaces and alterations to a portion of the access drive. As you know this is a five lot subdivision recently. So in regards to stormwater, the applicant is working on some details that I think can be handled between Staff and the applicant in reference to pulling information from the original SWPPP specific to this particular addition, but I’m putting it in front of the Board so you understand that there is still some stormwater item outstanding, but I don’t think it’s necessarily inhibiting the project as it’s being proposed. I did note in part of the summary that there should be some clarification about how the interior tenants are going to access the storage area and the exterior of the building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello again. MR. BARBER-Hello. Tim Barber from Native Development. Steve Springer from Native Development. Luigi from ABD. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So in reference to the stormwater, if you work with Staff on clarifying that, that should suffice. All right. You have a, I’m trying to remember it’s been a while since I read the original application, but you have like a 6,000 square foot that’s sort of a covered area? MR. BARBER-Yes. That’s this area right, the rear center right about right there, that demarcation line. MR. TRAVER-And that’s going to be replaced by the building. MR. BARBER-That’s correct. It’s going to encompass the building area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Gotcha. Okay. I’ll turn it over to members of the Board for their questions and comments. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. VALENTINE-I had a question on that, and I still don’t know if I understand what you mean on that because I had a question mark in my notes here. Where it says explain removal of 6,000 square foot lot. MR. PALLESCHI-It’s not a lot. It’s the area. MR. TRAVER-It’s the covered area. It’s just a typo I think. MRS. MOORE-So this building overhang area is being incorporated into the addition. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. I saw that from the elevations. I could see it on there, but I was looking all over the plans for a 6,000 square foot lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I know what you mean. MR. VALENTINE-You said 11 and a half acres for this one and I’m going well where’s 6,000 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I know what you’re saying. I went through some of that myself. Actually there is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application for Native Development Association? I’m not seeing any takers. Written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So there’s no written comments but I will note that the Fire Marshall provided me with the comment that “It appears that a new 26 foot wide drive aisle is being installed to accommodate emergency vehicles, and allow a full 360 degree travel at the site.” MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DEEB-Well, the Fire Marshall said it appears. Is that what’s happening? So you will have a 26 foot? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. MR. DEEB-All right, and that has to be on the plans. Okay, and clarification of the interior tenants access to storage area, what we were talking about. MR. BARBER-Sure. Laura, could you put up Elevation A-1. This one. Okay. The question was how are tenants going to access this facility. So on the southeast corner we’ve got this handicapped ramp doorway and window through here. This’ll be the pedestrian entrance, and back on the other side of this would be the north wall there’s an emergency exit. There’ll be these loading docks on the front and then there’ll be an on grade door towards the northern side. MRS. MOORE-So they come in through this corner here and then they’re able to walk to whatever tenant area they’re? MR. BARBER-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. BARBER-They’ll be able to exit out through here. Obviously our man door would be put in when we submit for the building plans and we’ll have an on grade access overhead door down in this vicinity. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-I’m just trying to follow. So you’ve got existing building, and then you have parking in here. I’m trying to get what is, is this a, is that a future lot that was approved from before? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-And now will you need anything as far as cross easements across that? MR. PALLESCHI-It’s same ownership between the lots. MR. VALENTINE-It is now. MR. PALLESCHI-So at the time of development of that future lot, I think that’s when. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. VALENTINE-Okay. So you’re not going to look at anything ahead of time requiring any kind of access easement? MR. PALLESCHI-I don’t think so. Not at this time. MR. TRAVER-Because you don’t know what might be there. MR. PALLESCHI-Right. Yes, and that could change when we come in for future site plan application. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. VALENTINE-Truck templates, it’s included, for movements, and I’m still trying to figure how he backs up into the bay area. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, they do it currently right now with the exist docks that are there. MR. VALENTINE-I assume they would, but I just don’t get it. So I’ll have to go out there when they’re doing it and see how they work. Somebody else asked the question down here on another project about the turn radius. Everybody’s putting a lot on truck drivers to make sure they can do it. MR. BARBER-They do it all day long currently. This extension will only help that movement. MR. VALENTINE-That was my thought, that that would give them something to go out further and back. Okay. But that also brought me to the point, yes, that was there before. How do they do it now. MR. DIXON-Good observation. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. PALLESCHI-And these templates I think are as they’re driving, well, you know, six to twelve miles an hour. I’ve seen tractor trailer drivers, they can turn on a dime. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s amazing. MR. PALLESCHI-It’s amazing. So we like to be conservative on something like this of course, but hopefully they can. MR. TRAVER-Well, especially in view of the fact that there’s somewhat of a shortage, and you’re going to have some less experienced folks behind the wheel. They’re even talking about I guess reducing the minimum age or something to try to help fill the job. Very good. Anything else from the Board? MR. DIXON-Just a quick question, going back to stormwater. So we want some verbiage in there as far as them providing the stormwater management specific submitted and approved by Staff? Is that the right word? MRS. MOORE-That’s a good idea. MR. DIXON-I’m all set. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess we’re ready to hear that resolution. MR. DIXON-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 6-2022 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 19, 320 sq. ft. one story addition on the west side of the existing 117,000 sq. ft. building. Site work includes development of 34 parking spaces and alterations to a portion of the access drive. Improvements to the building will update the existing office area as well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, site plan for an addition to existing industrial building and associated wok 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; 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/22/2022, 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 2/22/2022; 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 6-2022 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal and considered reasonable to request a waiver of these items as the project is for one addition to the existing building and related site work associated with the addition. 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) That information from the subdivision stormwater management specific to the addition and area work be submitted and approved by Town Staff prior to site work. nd Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. BARBER-Thank you, Board. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Kenneth Brown/Champ’s Chimney, Site Plan 8-2022. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) SITE PLAN NO. 8-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. KENNETH BROWN/CHAMP’S CHIMNEY. OWNER(S): LOUIS P. FARAONE. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 845 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 1,322 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO OPERATE A SALES STORE FOR WOOD AND GAS STOVES AND RETRACTABLE AWNINGS. THE PLANS INDICATE SPACES FOR 9 VEHICLES AND A LOADING AREA. A NEW SIGN REPLACEMENT IS PROPOSED AT 32 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-9-020, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVED LONGER THAN 7 YEARS AGO SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-99, SP 10-99 (MOD) – 2001, SP 9-2013. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 222. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: .24 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-90. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-020. KENNETH BROWN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to reuse the existing 1,322 square foot building to operate a sales store for wood and gas stoves and retractable awnings. The plans indicate spaces for nine vehicles and a loading area. A new sign replacement is proposed at 32 square feet. The project is before the Board because it’s past seven years. So they have to come in for site plan. So the applicant’s here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BROWN-Good evening. Kenneth Brown, Champ’s Chimney Sweep, LLC. MR. TRAVER-So you are going to reuse an existing building. You’re not changing anything on the exterior. You’re talking about updating the sign, and you’re going to sell wood stoves and gas stoves? MR. BROWN-And retractable awnings. MR. TRAVER-And retractable awnings. In fact you’re going to have one on display. Right? As I recall. MR. BROWN-That’s correct, on the front of the building, about an 18 foot one. MR. TRAVER-Are you going to sell wood as well? MR. BROWN-Maybe. Our landlord might. He sells wood currently and I think he would like to. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s what I was wondering. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Pellets or wood? MR. BROWN-Wood ones. MR. TRAVER-And when you talk about gas stoves, these are like gas fireplaces and types of things that you’d be installing? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. Wood and gas stoves, fireplaces and pellet. MR. DIXON-When you display inside, are you going to have any of them operational? MR. BROWN-That’s the plan. So currently our biggest concern is getting open for the spring to have our retractable awnings on display. So that would be what we put up first, and then we’ll build a showroom out in the summer and install the gas stoves and the wood stoves and we’ll have a few set to burn. MR. DIXON-Do you think you’ll have the wood stoves burning as well, or just the gas stoves? MR. BROWN-Both. Yes, that’s our intention. MR. DIXON-How many fireplaces that are wood burning do you think you would run at any given time. It’s going to get hot in there. MR. BROWN-Just one. We’ll just have one that’s wood that we can burn in the store. The other will be gas that we can turn on and off for when we want to show them. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. DIXON-All right. I’m just thinking the smoke coming up and out because you’re next door to a residential neighborhood. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. DIXON-Just to keep it knocked down a little bit. MR. TRAVER-Well some of those residences probably have wood stoves, too. MR. DIXON-Probably. MR. VALENTINE-I’ll go back to the question that was posed down there, was wood storage is not noted. Outdoor wood storage is not noted on the site plan, and I have to say from history I have in Saratoga County with the applicants with a facility on Route 50 in Wilton that became a major issue with DOT and the Town. So if wood storage is going to be done on this site, it should be incorporated on the site plan so it can be reviewed and approved. MR. BROWN-It will not be cord wood being sold. If he sells wood, it would be camp wood, little bundles. I think he wants to have a little display out front that has the camp wood, but we’re not going to have large cords. MR. TRAVER-So what you’re describing I guess would be like a convenience store might have with like a rack with bundles of wood that you would update, replace, whatever, as they’re purchased. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. DEEB-I had the same concern about placement and storage of the wood. I think it should be noted, because you could have a little bundle, but you could have 1,000 of them. You still need a place to put them. MR. TRAVER-What we can also do is condition the resolution that wood should only be stored as a display for sales and any additional storage would require additional review. MR. VALENTINE-Well, if you say wood for storage, though, then you get into not the little small pallets, little things. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s what I’m saying. We could put a condition in there that any wood on site would be limited to bundles that are sold and not large, you know, not wood storage. MR. DEEB-Well I think you’ve got to quantify it, too. You’ve got to either put it by area or by number. MR. TRAVER-How many bundles of wood do you think you would have on site? MR. BROWN-So we have, well what we have in mind is a display probably no bigger than this table. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BROWN-For our business we wouldn’t want him having cord wood in there to sell or a display any bigger than this. There just simply isn’t space. MR. TRAVER-So you might have 30 bundles, say. MR. BROWN-Max I would think. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-You see them all the time driving on the road. A lot of it’s just the slab wood that they cut up and then they bundle. Because it has to be within 50 miles and so on. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s more of a convenience thing, but isn’t your landlord the motel next door? MR. BROWN-Does he own the motel next door? No. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Sorry. MR. TRAVER-So if we limit any firewood storage on site to 30 bundles, would that clarify? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. DEEB-I think you’d be better off with square footage or area. MR. VALENTINE-And having it be displayed on the plans, a display area for storage of wood. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would be on the final plans. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe mention just campfire wood. MRS. MOORE-Camp wood. MR. MAGOWAN-Camp wood. MR. TRAVER-Camp wood. MR. DEEB-And a maximum number of square footage. Like whatever that table is. MR. MAGOWAN-That table is three by six, twenty square feet. Eighteen square feet. MR. DEEB-You could even go more, but I’m just saying you need a number for the site plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. He’s working on it. MR. VALENTINE-Three by six is what? MR. MAGOWAN-Well wasn’t it a chimney fireplace store years ago? MR. BROWN-It was. MR. MAGOWAN-Then it went to a pizza joint. So welcome back. It always looks so cozy there. MR. DIXON-Do you want a height requirement on this, too? Three feet by six feet by? MR. TRAVER-Yes, four feet maybe. MR. DIXON-And we want it to be displayed on the final plans. MR. TRAVER-Yes, on the final plan. So when you submit the final plan to Staff, to the Town, if you would mark the location of where this firewood display will be. Presumably it will be on the front porch or something like that. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So if you could just mark that on there so that’s delineated. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Are we ready? MR. DIXON-I’m ready? MRS. MOORE-Did you do a public hearing? MR. TRAVER-No, I don’t think I did. Had to get at least one in tonight. All right. So we do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Do you want to try that again. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 8-2022 KENNETH BROWN/CHAMP’S CHIMNEY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 1, 322 sq. ft. building to operate a sales store for wood and gas stoves and retractable awnings. The plans indicate spaces for 9 vehicles and a loading area. A new sign replacement is proposed at 32 sq. ft. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-9-020, site plan review for a site plan approved longer than 7 years ago shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/22/2022 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 2/22/2022; 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 8-2022 KENNETH BROWN/CHAMPS CHIMNEY; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: -j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal and considered reasonable to request a waiver as these items as the project is a reuse of the existing building with minimal changes; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Camp wood storage to be displayed on final plans and not to exceed three feet by six feet by four feet high. nd Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. The next section of our agenda is Old Business and the first item is Brett & Pamela West. This is for the Main House. Site Plan 51-2021. OLD BUSINESS: 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 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) 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. CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And we understand, Laura, that this is to be tabled? MRS. MOORE-The application was tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals at their February meeting. It th was tabled on a request for a full Board. So they’ve tabled the Zoning Board to the 16. So it would be the second Planning Board meeting that the applicant could be heard. nd MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would be the 22 I had written down for some reason. nd MRS. MOORE-That is correct. It would be March 22. I was saying that the Zoning Board tabled theirs th to the March 16 meeting. MR. TRAVER-Because they didn’t have a full Board. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we had scheduled a public hearing this evening. Should we open that and just leave it open? MRS. MOORE-You should leave it open, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Because previously it was for a recommendation and we had no public hearing. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Well, yes. The public hearing had been left open since previous. We identified a new variance. Therefore I did not take public comment at the Planning Board recommendation stage. So this one is still being left open then. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. In that case we will open the public hearing. This is for the Brett & nd Pamela West main house, Site Plan 51-2021 which is being tabled until the March 22 Planning Board meeting. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. I guess we can retain written comments, if there are any, until we actually hear it in March. MRS. MOORE-There are public comments coming up for the guest house. MR. TRAVER-For the guest house, yes ,but I mean for this one that’s being tabled. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have a tabling motion, I believe, for that. MR. DIXON-All right. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 51-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) (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. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 51-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE). Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, Tabled until the March 22, 2022 Planning Board meeting pending Zoning Board decision. nd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and next, also under Old Business, is the other half of this project which is Brett & Pamela West, guest house. This is Site Plan 52-2021. 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 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. CHRISTOPHER KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This house to be constructed is 3,210 square feet with the footprint of 2,160. It includes a two story house with an attached garage. The project includes the covered walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home, installation of permeable paver area for patio and driveway area. Site work includes stormwater management with raingarden, new site plantings, new septic, and new line for drinking water. The variance that was granted was for the walkway and setbacks to the property line as well as setbacks to the shoreline. They did not require relief for the permeability and they did not require relief for floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KEIL-Good evening. Christopher Keil, Environmental Design Partnership. MR. TRAVER-So we looked at this, made a recommendation, you went to the ZBA and you did receive your variances. Were there any changes to your plan as we originally saw it, as a result of your meeting with the ZBA? th MR. KEIL-Yes. We received comments from LaBella on the 17 and we were able to respond pretty quickly. So we’ve made just some modifications to stormwater. There were six comments and we turned it around in a day. MR. TRAVER-We actually received that report from LaBella and although there are quite a number of comments, they seem largely technical and all related to stormwater. Right? I didn’t see anything that would fundamentally change the project, and signoff from LaBella is going to be required for final approval in any event. So okay. So questions, comments from members of the Board? We have looked at this a 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) couple of times. I think last time it was for the permeable devices that were within 100 feet of the, within 35 feet of the lake. MR. DEEB-I have a question for Laura. Just out of curiosity. The main house was tabled but this one wasn’t. This variance was granted. Is there any reason why this one was granted and the other one wasn’t? MRS. MOORE-Because the other one, simply because there was not a full Board. MR. DEEB-At the time, but there was when this one came up, the second one? MRS. MOORE-They discussed this application and they didn’t identify concerns for the particular project. MR. DEEB-So there wasn’t a full Board for the guest house but they felt they could act on it without a full Board. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. So the Zoning Board does a polling process before they actually make a motion So there wasn’t enough supporting votes to grant the main house. MR. DEEB-I understand. Thank you. I was just curious MR. KEIL-Let me just add to what Laura said. I mean I believe when we went through the Main house it was a three to three vote and I think we were very close, my idea, if we had a little more explanation I thought it would have passed, and then the guest house in turn passed unanimously. MR. DIXON-So I guess my question, my concern ends up being if the main house is tabled currently, yet we have a shared driveway and there’s the covered walkway that’s described in the guest house connecting to the Main house, how do we proceed? I just find it very difficult moving forward. MRS. MOORE-So in reference to, I’ll start with the access drive. That is something that can be constructed on its own. That’s not dependent on the project of the main house, and in reference to that covered walkway, if the applicant weren’t able to proceed with the main house, they could build it up to the line, but they could build it no further. So my guess is that may disappear if they couldn’t build the whole structure. So that’s how that would proceed. That’s how I would see that proceeding. MR. TRAVER-And that would have to be reflected on final plans if they had to change. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. DIXON-I guess, Laura, what would be the access road? I don’t want to give them free reign to build that entire driveway which connects to the main house. Could we limit the extent of the access? MRS. MOORE-I think that would be suitable. Let me just jump to. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I was, frankly, a little surprised that this hadn’t been tabled as well, just to sort of handle the whole thing in one package. MR. KEIL-Just to sort of add to that. I think we obviously could, given an opportunity to have like an alternate plan that shows this as a discreet project, but our intention is for the applicant to have both approved and we think we’re getting close on that larger. MR. DEEB-So just by chance if the Zoning Board doesn’t approve the Main house, how will you proceed with the whole plan, with the Guest house? MR. KEIL-Well, if that were the case, I mean the house here would be to start construction on the Guest house sooner, hopefully in the hopes of having phased construction at some point, you know, getting approved the main house. So, I mean, one suggestion, I mean maybe you, as the Board, have some insight on this, would be we could have the final plan show that as sort of a discreet project. MR. DEEB-As long as you have a plan for any contingency that arises. MR. VALENTINE-What was the purpose of the lot line adjustment? MR. TRAVER-I’ll let the applicant answer. I think that was related to the setbacks. MR. VALENTINE-And that’s what I was sort of going to. I said, you know, lot line adjustment. I’m trying to follow the line. I’m not sure, when I was looking at that, it’s the line between the two, but is it that jagged line that is the lot line adjustment? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. KEIL-That’s correct MR. VALENTINE-How do you wind up with equal, nothing changing there? MR. KEIL-Well because the area stays, because you’re taking a little bit of that 195 square feet. MR. VALENTINE-Usually you see a conveyance from one to the other. MR. KEIL-Right. No, the goal was to keep them the same. MR. VALENTINE-So, would there be the possibility of, what’s keeping the main house from being on a lot by its own considered that way? I mean you can get a driveway out to the main road. MR. KEIL-The guest house. MR. VALENTINE-The guest house. MR. KEIL-Yes, I mean that is definitely possible. That’s something in previous meetings we’ve discussed. I mean honestly I think the applicant thought it’s better for the neighborhood really to have a consolidated. MR. VALENTINE-Well this is just a what if question. MR. KEIL-Right. I mean I think there’s a really straightforward answer, and granted we don’t have that plan showing all those things on this lot. MR. VALENTINE-And then you’d have to adjust that, get a new lot line on there, wouldn’t you also, with the setbacks? MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. I think it’s just providing this Board, if the applicant decided to put a direct driveway on Bay Parkway instead of using the adjoining lot, the applicant could come back to the Board and say we have a site plan modification. We’re not using this. MR. VALENTINE-Does that dividing line meet frontage, lot size, setbacks? Where the lot line adjustment was done. MRS. MOORE-Doesn’t change the road frontage. It does not change the road frontage for the, there’s nothing precluding them from having their own driveway, other than they haven’t proposed it yet. MR. VALENTINE-Right. I was just thinking is there anything to stop you from designing and creating another lot for that house by itself? They’re before the ZBA. What’s the variance they’re looking for? MRS. MOORE-It’s a similar variance for setbacks. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It’s a separate lot. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s already two lots. MR. VALENTINE-I understand that. There’s a lot line adjustment that was done for what purpose, then? MR. KEIL-For setback. MRS. MOORE-For setback. So if you look at the guest house, it’s only for the guest house. The actual building setback, the building itself, not the covered walkway, that is what has been adjusted. So there’s no change, even if it was, it wouldn’t change it, if it was itself. It wouldn’t alter the lot line adjustment. It remains as it’s presented. MR. VALENTINE-So the variance that they’re seeking for that. MRS. MOORE-The main house> MR. VALENTINE-The main house, yes, is? MRS. MOORE-Only on that side, it’s specific to the setback to the covered walkway which is zero where they need to have 25 feet. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. VALENTINE-So if they don’t get favorable, they remove that portion of the sidewalk, come back and, okay. So we’ll see this again. One way or the other. MRS. MOORE-The guest lot? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-You may not. I can’t guess that, but I mean right now the possibility is probably 50/50. There’s not one way or the other. MR. TRAVER-So the bottom line is hypothetically, if we were to approve just the guest house this evening, and there were significant changes or a denial on the main house they would have to submit an updated plan anyway for the guest house. We’d have to look at it again. MRS. MOORE-For the guest house, the only thing that would modify the guest house lot is the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Is the driveway, but we would get an updated plan. MRS. MOORE-You would need to see that again if that needed to occur. MR. TRAVER-So I’m just pointing out, this is somewhat unusual in that we’re approving it really, even though it’s by itself, it’s pretty conditional on, almost conditional on the main house in some form being approved. MR. DEEB-The two plans are integrated. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And I’m not sure I’m comfortable approving one without the other coming back. MR. KEIL-Because? MR. DEEB-It’s going to just stir up the pot, if something goes negative. MR. VALENTINE-What gets stirred, though, David? MRS. MOORE-They’re two independent projects. MR. DEEB-Okay. As long as everybody else is comfortable with it. It’s not my property. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just saying what is it that you’re stirred about? MR. DEEB-Well I’m just saying if they come back, I’m not wishing you ill on anything. MR. TRAVER-It is unusual. MR. DEEB-It is. We have never really done anything like this before. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there’s a lot of hypotheticals, because if the main house, let’s say that doesn’t come to be, which doesn’t seem likely, but it certainly may not be in its current form, but hypothetically they could modify this standalone application for the site plan for the guest house and still go ahead and build that even if the other house wasn’t built. MR. DEEB-Right. MR. TRAVER-But what we’re asked to look at today is what we’ve been looking at now going all the way back to September 2021, which is the last iteration of the proposal for the project but just for the guest house. So there’s a connection, in terms of planning and also in terms of site design, to the main house. So If this is approved tonight the only way it’s going to stand, and become a reality, is if they get the main house approved in some form that will still be compliant generally with the plan that they have. MR. VALENTINE-Because that will give them their driveway access to the road. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-Otherwise they’ve got to come back to. MR. TRAVER-Right, and the walkway too. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. VALENTINE-And the walkway, too. So two things, the walkway and the driveway. MR. TRAVER-So we’re approving it, and again, I thought it would all be, it would be tabled to next month so that we would have the opportunity, as we’ve had up to now, to look at both of them as, even though they’re separate applications, really as one project. MR. VALENTINE-To David’s point and my question, is I think it just becomes much easier to review both of these projects as one than it does to even just out ahead of the thing and say we’re going to take one tonight and we’re going to take one next month or something like that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I agree. MR. VALENTINE-I think there’s a comfort level in saying, come on, bring it back to us when it’s all set. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well in a sense that’s what they’re doing because they’re not, at this stage, proposing a change to the plan. They’re just pending re-hearing at the ZBA. So they’re trying to get this part of the project done. MR. DEEB-Do you want to start construction? One month is going to make that much of a difference in construction? MR. KEIL-Yes, I mean I think any sort of jump we can get on it, I mean that’s a big project. So it’s just getting something. MR. TRAVER-And it’s the growing season, when, you know, there’s a lot of especially high pressure to try to get these things done so they can be ready to go when the ground thaws and they actually start construction. MR. KEIL-There’s a level of like final construction documents that need to be developed for the architecture. MR. TRAVER-Contracts need to be signed, time wise. MR. KEIL-Yes, and I mean obviously without that approval it’s hard for the applicant to pull the trigger on all those other things. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s certainly, I agree with the rest of the Board. It is a very odd and I’m not sure if it’s unprecedented, but it is an odd situation, but personally I’m comfortable with it because I know all the strings that are attached in the sense that if it ends up being a standalone it has to come back. If the main house is modified and that has a trickle-down effect on this it has to come back. The main house has to come back. So if there are any changes other than what we have before us this evening we’ll see it again. That’s the bottom line, and it’s really on, it’s their effort to present it to us tonight and again, should any changes be required, I’m assuming that they’re trying to be optimistic that the main house will ultimately get approved at the next opportunity to present to the ZBA. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I’m still trying to wrap my head around that big if. If it doesn’t get approved, and now we’ve got this. MR. TRAVER-But it’s not our if. It’s their if. MR. DIXON-If it’s their if, so now we’ve got a driveway going through a separate piece of property to what will no longer be a guest house but it’ll be a residence. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s all one owner. MR. DIXON-For now. MR. TRAVER-Yes, for now, right. MR. DIXON-I guess they’d have to address it with easements or if the person’s landlocked. MR. VALENTINE-If that lot up above the main doesn’t get done, they just take the driveway for this guest house and go straight out and they don’t even have to use that other driveway at all. So they modify their plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I doubt very much that they would sell that little piece of property and have an independent homeowner build there. I think that they would, and I don’t want to speak for the applicant, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) but I suspect that after the effort they’ve put into this and their desire to complete this project, they would simply continue to work with us and the ZBA until they come up with some iteration that will come to fruition. MR. MAGOWAN-They’ve already done that. MR. TRAVER-Well, they haven’t got the ZBA approval. MR. MAGOWAN-No, but they’ve made modifications to the main house. MR. TRAVER-There’s been a lot of work on everybody’s part to get to this point. MR. MAGOWAN-I feel comfortable due to the fact that really all we’re talking about is the driveway and the covered walkway. MR. TRAVER-As far as we know. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And in looking at the designs and everything that’s going into just the guest house alone there’s a lot of prep time, like you said the quicker you get on it, because from the understanding, I believe what they stated before is that this has to be done before they can do anything to the main house. MR. TRAVER-Right. We understand. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean staying in the existing main house right now and working on it. MR. TRAVER-I know. Every application before us is always an emergency. MR. MAGOWAN-I didn’t say an emergency. I just know what it’s going to take to get this project going and everything that’s involved. I feel comfortable, this being a separate project on a different lot. That’s all I’m saying. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Understood. Well we have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Laura, I think you mentioned there were some written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. This first one is addressed to Mr. Traver and I may pull some information out of here, but I’ll start with “I live on Assembly Point at 11O Lake Parkway, Lake George, NY and I am a registered Landscape Architect practicing in NYS. Both projects have been in front of the Zoning and Planning Boards numerous times over the last six months receiving numerous comments by neighbors. A full letter has been submitted to Ms. Moore for your packages for both the Main House and Guest House. The comments being read into the record have been abbreviated and address only the Guest House as the Main House has been tabled until March. The two houses, though separate applications, have not been designed for each to be a standalone project. The grading, drainage, construction entrance, and concrete wash area are elements interconnected between the projects. If the ZBA does not vote to pass the Main House application, the following integrated elements would need to be revised on the Guest House application. • Grading along the north side of the Guest House will need to be adjusted including altering further the interior lot line from what is shown today on the plans to keep grading on the Guest House parcel. • Drainage from the Guest House garage and driveway would need to be changed as the drainage for this area is carried through three surface water control measures before reaching the lake. • The construction entrance and concrete wash area would need to be relocated potentially requiring the Applicant to change the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, i.e., siltation fencing along Lake Parkway. As these projects are so integrated, I request the Planning Board table this application until both projects are before you for review. The Town Engineer's review of the Applicant's Stormwater Narrative was received by the Planning/Zoning offices after hours this past Thursday. It is unclear the Planning Board members have received this review document and been able time assimilate the depth of the Town Engineers comments. These comments may require additional adjustments to both projects. Again, I ask the Planning Board to table this Application until both projects can be reviewed for the stormwater design comments. As this project responds to the Town's requirements for Site Plan and Zoning submittals, we found several areas where information was lacking. The Town's Code requires under:” This is where I’m going to pull information out. They identify specific sections of the Town Code, and as we typically mail the applicant’s packet to the Town Engineer, I’m just going to read the sections of Code where she feels 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) it’s lacking. “A review of the SWPPP by the stormwater management officer. She’s asking who is the officer. It’s Craig Brown and this one didn’t necessarily require a SWPPP. “● 147-8 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ● (A) A review of the SWPPP by the Stormwater Management Officer – has there been a review of the plans? Who is the Officer? ● (B)(1)(b) “Site map/construction drawing(s) for the project>>>At a minimum, ….drainage patterns that could be affected by the construction activity or development; ….locations of off-site material waste, borrow or equipment storage areas…” – this does not appear on the drawing 6 for the Guest House or 5 of 8 for the Main House. The stream on the West/O’Keefe joint property line and locations and size of storage material areas on both parcels is lacking. If the information were shown for each site I wonder if the disturbed area of each site would increase? • (B)(1)(d) showing the location of " ...utility and infrastructure installation ..." Only storm drainage is shown, Cable, Telephone and Electric are not shown. Are these utilities underground? What is their routing? • (B)(1)(i) "erosion and sediment control practices, including the siting and sizing of any temporary sediment basins ..." - no sediment basins are shown on either site and this is important in a critical environmental area. Where will these sediment basins be located and how will they affect the amount of disturbed area? How does this affect the amount of disturbed area? • Planting Plans and Tree Preservation: Trees are not noted which are to be removed and which are to stay. There is also no Tree Protection shown on the plans. • (B)(1)(d) showing the location of " ...utility and infrastructure installation ..." Only storm drainage is shown, Cable, Telephone and Electric are not shown. Are these utilities underground? What is their routing? • (B)(1)(i) "erosion and sediment control practices, including the siting and sizing of any temporary sediment basins ..." - no sediment basins are shown on either site and this is important in a critical environmental area. Where will these sediment basins be located and how will they affect the amount of disturbed area? How does this affect the amount of disturbed area? • Planting Plans and Tree Preservation: Trees are not noted which are to be removed and which are to stay. There is also no Tree Protection shown on the plans. • Guest House: • Tree Removal of Mature Trees is not noted on the Plans. The lot line reconfiguration and regrading along the walk to the lake will remove 9"-12" of soil around the base of the 2 mature trees - these will not be able to survive. Within the house footprint is another tree which will be lost. At the Guest House's garage and driveway there is 1 mature evergreen. The earthwork for driveway pavement will eliminate this tree. This is a total of 4 trees lost due to construction activities. • (B)(1)(d) showing the location of " ...utility and infrastructure installation ..." Only storm drainage is shown, Cable, Telephone and Electric are not shown. Are these utilities underground? What is their routing? • (B)(1)(i) "erosion and sediment control practices, including the siting and sizing of any temporary sediment basins ..." - no sediment basins are shown on either site and this is important in a critical environmental area. Where will these sediment basins be located and how will they affect the amount of disturbed area? How does this affect the amount of disturbed area? • Planting Plans and Tree Preservation: Trees are not noted which are to be removed and which are to stay. There is also no Tree Protection shown on the plans. • Guest House: • Tree Removal of Mature Trees is not noted on the Plans. The lot line reconfiguration and regrading along the walk to the lake will remove 9"-12" of soil around the base of the 2 mature trees - these will not be able to survive. Within the house footprint is another tree which will be lost. At the Guest House's garage and driveway there is 1 mature evergreen. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) The earthwork for driveway pavement will eliminate this tree. This is a total of 4 trees lost due to construction activities. • Excavation for the southern underdrainage pipe: If the pipe were redirected well north of this group of trees, the two trees adjacent to the outfall would have less root damage leaving the trees with a better change of long-term survivability. • New Trees: There is a row of White Spruce trees noted to screen the garage from Lake Parkway. These proposed trees would be right under the power lines resulting in National Grid topping these trees, and their location would be in the right of way for Lake Parkway's. The result is the trees would be heavily impacted by road salt spray and the plow truck breaking branches. I recommend as a Landscape Architect a shorter stature tree be selected to eliminate the butchering of the trees by National Grid, and selecting ones which are not prone to road salt damage. The White Spruces along the Lake Parkway at my house are testament to National Grid's and road salt damage to the trees. Without the evergreens, there is only one tree being planted on this site. Amelanchier's, especially in clump form, are not considered a tree as they will only reach 12'-15' in height. • Utilities: There is no notation about Utilities, i.e., telephone, cable, and electric. Are lines being put underground? If so, when the West's removed the Ross house, they chose to leave up the utility pole on our joint property line. The pole is located on the West's side of the property line but they chose to put the screen planting on the far side of the pole. If this pole is not being used to carry service into the new house. I request that the West's be directed to remove it and the yellow cabling which secures the pole. • Lighting: The drawings indicate lighting to be down cast residential fixtures. Are any flood lights being put on the buildings? If so, how will these be shielded from the neighbor's property especially second floor bedroom windows? I would like to request there be a timer on all exterior lights so they do not burn all night? In the past the West's existing exterior lighting has been left on all night including their string lights surrounding the dock decking perimeter which do not have shields on them. • Outdoor Speakers: The West's have outdoor speakers on their dock which they control remotely. In the past, the West's have chosen to have the speakers blaring at 9:30pm at night when there is no one on the dock. The volume levels of the speakers have been played allowing the sound to be clearly heard 6 houses away. 1 would request the Planning Board place a volume level on these outdoor speakers and with hours of operation defined, especially at evening hours. Thank you for your consideration and again I request the Main House and Guest House applications be tabled until all drawings are updated, and a review is done by Staff and Town Engineer.” And the rest of the package includes comments to the main house. This next one is addressed to the Board members and Mr. Traver. Again a lot of this is relevant to both houses. I’m going to try to pull out the information that she has specific to the guest house. Her main concern is the issue with the stormwater management plan. “This plan needs a stormwater management permit and a review by the Town Engineer. She believes that the main house and guest house stormwater plan should be considered as one unit, not allowing one unit to be approved ahead of the other, thus allowing for construction to start, and I think that’s the primary focus of the information that she shared, and this is from Lorraine Ruffing The rest of the information is for the main house. MR. TRAVER-And is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we’ve talked pretty extensively about the issue of looking at the guest house alone, and although theoretically we are, it would be subject to change, as we’ve already discussed, should there be a non-approval or an approval with changes from the ZBA on the main house. So we’re not approving anything in the dark. We’re approving, hypothetically, something that’s sort of conditional on the original plan, and we’ve also talked about the engineering comments that we’ve received and you’ve acknowledged those need to be resolved with the engineer prior to any approval and you have to get signoff from Town Engineer, which includes stormwater and all the rest of it. So we’re kind of back where we started from as far as those comments are concerned. Did you have anything you wanted to add? MR. KEIL-No. Almost like what you just said, I think like those bullets about the grading, drainage and construction entrance, I mean I think those are all solvable issues that we can work through with the Town Engineer. I think that, in general, we’re very close to that point as well. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-Yes, there were quite a number of comments, but they appear to me to be, you know, errors in calculation or moderate to small changes in design and then a re-submittal for the, or re-evaluation by the engineer. Obviously stormwater on this, lakefront properties anywhere of course, but especially here, is critical. So that’s going to all need to be resolved, and we understand that. All right. Well we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-How do Board members feel? I know there’s some concerns about considering it in this particular manner, but I think once we’ve, in my mind, when I’ve worked through the fact that we would look at this again should essentially, anything change, I am not, any longer, I guess, uncomfortable with proceeding on this application alone. How do other Board members feel? MR. DIXON-I think we’ve done individual reviews on both. MR. TRAVER-We have, although it’s always been understood that it’s been kind of a package. MR. DIXON-And the comment I would make again as far as the driveway, maybe we limit it to no more than, if I calculate it out, it’s about a 40 yard setback from Bay Parkway. I mean it’s just kind of a safety measure that they’re not going in and building all of the driveway and saying that’s part of the guest house when it’s really associated with the main house, but I’m not sure if everyone agrees with that. MR. TRAVER-I see what you’re saying. So any feature on this parcel that is related to the main house would not, no construction would begin on that until they get approval on the main house. MR. VALENTINE-That’s a good condition. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. Good catch. Anything else? MR. DIXON-Because I think the grading and everything, I realize the letters that were read into the record, but we did, we evaluated this site on its own merits. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the engineering comments, I mean there’s multiple items that just need clarification. They’re largely technical. There might be some changes in design elements, but it looked to me like a lot of it was the math and that type of thing, but that condition that no construction related to the main house be undertaken until there’s a clarification as to whether those elements are approved at the main house. MR. VALENTINE-Particularly with the driveway, like Mike was saying. If you start construction on the guest house, then the access for all construction activities should be right directly in front of it, coming off of Bay Parkway, but I’m assuming in the time that you get your drawings, you get your paperwork, you get your construction, you’re going to be back here. MRS. MOORE-Can you repeat that condition that you’re proposing again? MR. TRAVER-Yes, basically what he’s saying, Laura, is that there are elements on this parcel that relate to the existence, that are tied to the existence of the main house, and the concern is that although they want to start construction on whatever they can on this guest house to get something going, and we know that the main house is going to be reviewed again just next month, but the concern is they’re saying they want to start construction as soon as possible. So the one concern that Mike pointed out is that we should add a condition to any approval that none of the elements on this parcel that relate directly to the main house design be undertaken until the main house has been approved. So like the elements of the driveway, for example, that wouldn’t be there necessarily, or in that form, if it weren’t for the main house, they shouldn’t start putting that driveway in until the main house is, and we’re thinking just in terms of the calendar, that that’s not likely to happen anyway, but it seemed like a reasonable addition to put in there, and I didn’t think of it. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I was thinking, so there’s currently the access driveway that’s there, so we don’t muddy up their plans, if we say the access driveway not to exceed 40 foot yard setback from Bay Parkway, that should put them right about that circle. They’re probably not going to go that far anyway because they’ve got their. MR. TRAVER-Well wouldn’t it suffice the original statement to just say no elements, because what if there are other infrastructure elements that are related to the main house, too, they might want to get started on. MR. DIXON-Well that’s what I’m thinking that the cut off would be right there in the driveway. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think if we make it a general statement. I mean they certainly understand, you know, it looks to me, from the calendar, that they’re not likely, or not very likely to begin major work until after the main house is at least heard again next month. MR. DIXON-No construction elements associated with the main house. MR. TRAVER-Right. Until, if and when that. MRS. MOORE-I would say the driveway only, so that it’s specific, because it’s specific to the shared access, specific to the driveway access. MR. DIXON-So, I guess, how do we see that? So if I was driving my car in, the guest house, so I’m driving in, I’m going to take a hard left. I’m going to go in there. So we’re going to allow them to work on that section of driveway if they choose. Is that correct, and not go any farther beyond that circle. MRS. MOORE-No. You’re not allowing them to do anything until it’s been resolved. MR. TRAVER-Because you can see the property line. So they can’t do anything beyond that anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-They can get a temporary access for that lot, for the construction access. They can get a temporary driveway, and it’s really, not even 20 feet to where you’re going to have the paved driveway, and then if the other gets approved, then that temporary access would go away after construction and then they do the main house and bring it in. MRS. MOORE-Your current temporary access isn’t off Bay Parkway. It would be from the main house lot. MR. KEIL-Currently it’s the main house, yes, but to me it’s almost like a wash, the piece where your hand is right now. That would get switched to the Bay Parkway side and that’s where that temporary construction access would be. MR. TRAVER-It would just be a construction access. MR. KEIL-Exactly, and if, and hopefully the larger project is approved, that would be reclaimed. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. So I think that original language, that general language will work. That covered everything, even if we haven’t thought of it. The driveway’s obvious, but there may be other elements. MR. DIXON-So it’s not construction elements associated with the main house until final approval. MR. TRAVER-Yes. And it probably will turn out to be a non-issue because of the time factor, but you never know. It was a good catch. MR. VALENTINE-Laura, just for me to process, the lot line adjustment is not a subdivision? MRS. MOORE-Because there’s no change in lot size. That’s why. MR. VALENTINE-Towns have the option to, all right. So it’s administrative through Craig or somebody? Who signs off, Craig? MRS. MOORE-Craig. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I do have one other comment letter that was identified for the guest house. So I apologize, there’s been letters in both. MR. TRAVER-So we’ll re-open the public hearing for purposes of one letter being read into the record. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MRS. MOORE-So this was written back in September. So I’m just giving it its due diligence. “The Assembly Point Water Coalition has attended numerous Zoning Board hearings over the years. We have an expert limnologist on our team, and in addition, a number of us, as informed lay people, have diligently reviewed the specific setback, size, permeability etc. of the various rebuilds and new constructions on the Point, including present proposals by the Wests. This proposed project is just too large for those pieces of land. As a neighbor it is uncomfortable to challenge another neighbor's plans; this should be your job; while 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) I approve and value that the Town alerts us to these hearings, the various Boards must now be the ones setting a higher bar in curbing such oversized development, and project engineers and agents need to believe that the town will increasingly require adherence to its already established limits to growth. Supervisor Strough appointed several of us from Assembly Point (including also Mr. Traver and other town officials) to sit on Chris Navitsky's (Lake George Waterkeeper's) excellent LID (Low Impact Development) committee for almost an entire year in 2020; we gave our time and focus to review town code, suggesting protective new standards for lessening impact. If our boards continue to make exceptions out of habit, ease or in the name of hardship why did we even bother to spend all that time looking for better ways to minimize impact? Increasingly larger and more pretentious projects undercut the urgent need to lower, not allow, damage from impact. So called mitigations such as raingardens and new tree plantings on properties with overly large structures don't restore the natural protection. We all worry about further Lake George occurrences of harmful algal blooms as water quality slips from oligotrophic to mesotrophic. Our local roads strain under daily overly large heavy truck fleets of construction, garbage, septic disposal and landscaping/sealcoating companies, and gas powered tools, from ubiquitous power mowers, to leaf blowers and backhoes, roar with noise pollution (in addition to the Donzi's) and spew carbon emissions into our air. Pesticides seep into the water table. Damage is happening daily and year round with these large projects and will affect quality of life and degrade the water over the next years as these projects continuously get their exceptions. We need to trust that our Boards will be the ones to hold to the highest standards in the name of preservation and restoration. Neighbors should not have to come make a case against neighbors, as each new project or rebuild asks for more indulgence, perhaps out of not understanding impact, perhaps out of entitlement. The board needs to consider carefully what the hardship argument actually means. We possibly have reached a tipping point locally and globally; it seems unethical to allow exceptions which contribute to ecosystem degeneration. The town boards, the engineers, the construction companies, the realtors and the residents all see that our lake is changing and is in peril; nothing short of strong limiting and consistent regulation and enforcement in the areas of construction, septic and land management is acceptable. Lisa Adamson 128 Lake Parkway, Lake George, NY 12845” And as we know the application has had many iterations before the Board. So they were granted the variances for setback for devices and setback to the property lines. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. So we will re-close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I think that’s a new one. All right. We have a motion ready. Let’s see where it goes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 52-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: (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. 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 2/15/2022; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 2/16/2022; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/22/2022, 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 2/22/2022; 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 52-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE); Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) 1) Waivers requested granted. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal and considered reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) No construction elements associated with the main house will begin until final approval (on the main house) is given Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’ll see you next month. MR. KEIL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next under Old Business we have Francis & Erin Steinbach, Site Plan Modification 70- 2021. 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 CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1995 ADDITION, SEP-0657- 2019, SP 15-2020, AV 74-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021; FEBRUARY 2022 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) (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. ANDY ALLISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The application is to raise their existing home to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 square feet. The new floor area ends up being 2,632 square feet. Originally the proposal was 30.5% floor area. It ends up being 28.8%. The relief was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for setbacks from the deck to the shoreline, the house to the property lines and floor area and there’s no permeability relief requested because the applicant is removing the existing hard surface driveway area and installing permeable paver product. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. ALLISON-Good evening. I’m Andy Alison with AJA Architecture representing the clients who are here tonight. MR. TRAVER-We’ve looked at this actually a couple of times and made a recommendation to the ZBA. You went before the ZBA, received your approval for the variances. Were there any changes to your project as a result of your meeting with the ZBA? MR. ALLISON-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what we have before us is what we looked at before. MR. ALLISON-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on Site Plan Modification 70-2021 for Steinbach? I’m not seeing any. Laura’s checking for written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. DIXON-Laura, just a refresh. This one was triggered because the deck came off? MRS. MOORE-Correct. So it would have required, even if they were to re-build it, it would have required, would have ended up coming for a shoreline setback anyway. So they happened to remove it, thinking that raising the, they needed to do some adjustments to the house because they were raising the house itself. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sounds like one of those situations where they were, did you ever try to cut a paper circle out of a piece of paper? So they were before us and they wanted to repair, or they wanted to add like a mudroom and like a small deck or whatever. We spent a lot of time reviewing that and approved it, and then they decided well if we’re going to do that let’s improve it a little more, and a little more, and they ended up coming back with this project to raise the facility. MR. DIXON-I think the deck had to come off for them to raise and that’s why it just spiraled out. MR. TRAVER-Right, and then to make matters more complicated, we found after an initial review that there was an additional variance that was needed because of the shoreline setback. So we saw it yet again. So now they’ve had all their variances approved. We’ve looked at the plan, not for site plan, but we’ve looked at it, well actually we did look at it for site plan for a previous design and then we looked at it for the recommendation and now here they are. MRS. MOORE-So let me, I’ll start with the comments. These were written back in November. We now know that some of the adjustments that are being identified here have occurred. This is addressed to Craig. “My name is Chris Carte. I’m representing the Carte family, neighbors of the Steinbach’s, at 213 Assembly Point Rd. While increasing the size of the existing (nonconforming) structure, in any way, on such a small parcel of land , seems somewhat inappropriate, we have no strong objection to the proposed plans for the back of the house, provided that , if possible, a stipulation is recorded that there will be no cutting or trimming of the natural tree/hedge buffer that exists between our properties. Nor do we have any objections regarding the raising of the house for the installation of the basement. However, the proposal to more than double the size of the deck on the front of the house is very concerning. To take an already nonconforming structure, with respect to the 30’ setback from the front property line, and greatly reduce that setback even further, seems very inappropriate, especially given the lakefront setting. I believe some of the criteria for considering variances include matters such as a negative effect on the character of 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) the neighborhood, adverse impact on neighboring properties and whether or not the relief sought is substantial. As much as we wish to remain good neighbors, this request to enlarge the front deck checks all of those boxes, and we request that the Board deny this portion of the plans. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Sincerely, Chris Carte” Addressed to Mr. Brown. “I live seasonally at our home on Assembly Point, Lake George, just a few houses from Frank and Erin Steinbach who reside at 211 Assembly Point Road. They have been good neighbors. They have shared with me their 8/21/21 site plan application submitted to the Town to make additions to their home. I understand this matter may be heard by Queensbury next week. I have no objection to the plan or the Town approving a variance to allow them to improve their home as provided in the plans. Sincerely Yours, Scott B. Dubin” Also addressed to Craig. This was also in November. “My name is John Owen. I live at 202 Lake Parkway Lake George NY 12845. I have lived on Assembly Point, where the subject property is located, for over 50 years. I have seen camps torn down with mega mansions appearing. It’s nice to see someone taking an older camp, updating it, and giving it a fresh start in life, with a few modifications. This will be a great example for the rest of Assembly Point. John H. Owen” And then one, another one from November. “Dear Mr. Brown: I am a homeowner on Assembly Point, and I have reviewed the plans for the Steinbach property. It is my understanding that a variance(s) is required for this project. As a previous adjacent landowner and still a neighbor, I support the project. It is an existing building and appears to request minimal modifications/additions but needs the replacement of a compromised foundation. Based on the plans and discussion, I support the variance (s) requested by Frank and Erin Steinbach. Thank you and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. John Graziano 195 Assembly Point Rd. Formerly of 2 Sunset” MR. TRAVER-And that’s it? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I guess, Mr. Chairman, based on the one letter, that was a reference to trees and plantings on I believe it’s the north side of your property. It sounds like your neighbor was looking for re-assurance that that buffer will remain in place. FRANCIS STEINBACH MR. STEINBACH-Yes, there’s no plans on taking those out. MR. TRAVER-Well, if there’s nothing else, then we can entertain that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 70-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: (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. 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 2/15/2022; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 2/16/2022; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/22/2022, 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 2/22/2022; 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) 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 MODIFICATION 70-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal and considered reasonable to request a waiver as the primary project is lifting the home to install a foundation/basement/garage area and replacing the front deck in the same location. 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. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. ALLISON-Great. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Adirondack Trust Company. This is 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 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) 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. 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. DEAN COLLIGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a modification to an approved plan to install their 45 square foot freestanding monument sign. The project was before this Board early in 2021. When they went to install this there was a traffic control box that ended up being in the way, and so in turn Main Street zoning code requires all new signs come back for review if they were not identified in the original site plan. So Main Street has its own criteria for signs unfortunately, or fortunately. In this new location does not interfere with other utilities and it can be, it’s not in the way of the traffic control box. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. Hello. MR. COLLIGAN-Hi. Good evening. My name’s Dean Colligan. I’m a Vice President at the Adirondack Trust Company as well as the Director of Facilities and Security. So as Laura mentioned, that’s what we’re looking to do. I’m sure many of you have driven by and seen the temporary sign that we have out there. It is just shy of scale, but it is in the exact location which we’re proposing for this to be placed right now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, when we were looking at this for the recommendation to the ZBA we had quite a discussion about it, and the presence of the traffic control box. So, just for the record, when the ZBA looked at this, did they make any changes to the proposal? MR. COLLIGAN-Not that I’m aware of. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. Well we saw this before. It was relatively straightforward, but we’ll open it up for questions and comments from members of the Board. MR. VALENTINE-I’ve got to bring mine up again. There are two signs, Dean, I don’t think you put them there, okay, coming off of Main Street, in the driveway entrance into the Bank site, there are two no left hand turn signs, right there, on either side of the driveway, which is telling me, when I come on Main Street and if I want to turn left into the site, it’s telling me I can’t do it. They’re there, and so I told my wife one Saturday while we were going down to recycle the trash, I said, come on, let’s go make a deposit instead of up at the other bank and so I asked the woman up at the window, I said do you have any idea why those signs are out there. What signs? To them they’re there. They’ve been there since whenever. She didn’t have anything. So I let it go and I was back there about a week and a half later during the middle of the week. So I go back again, and there was the same woman in there and I didn’t know it was the same because you’re talking into that little t.v. thing there. So I asked her and she said, yes, I went and asked. MR. COLLIGAN-I hope she gave you the right answer. MR. VALENTINE-Well here’s the thing. It’s the house across the street from the Bank and Subway. Their driveway comes out to Main Street. It’s telling those people in that driveway, they cannot take a left onto Main Street. And there’s a center turn lane on Main Street. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-It’s like, okay, they’re really senseless, and they’re also indicative of saying, to somebody that’s going to come in there, you can’t turn into the Bank. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that is odd. Maybe you could reach out to somebody and try to get some clarification on that. MR. COLLIGAN-So I can tell you, Mr. Valentine, that you are correct in the fact that we did not put those signs there. Those signs were there prior to. That’s the first that I heard that rationale behind it. Because I had asked Mr. Faden, Russ Faden who’s the Subway property owner, and Russ, to his recollection, and he didn’t recall it extremely clearly, but he said to the best of my recollection it was, they were looking to try to force traffic coming east on Main Street to not take a left in between, right, because they knew that that parcel was going to be developed, and rather have them take a left turn at the traffic light. MRS. MOORE-And that’s my recollection also. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but unfortunately you’ve already passed the traffic light when you come to that left turn. MRS. MOORE-But if you use the traffic light correctly, there’s obviously an entrance past the drive thru. MR. VALENTINE-Right. MRS. MOORE-That everyone should be using. That’s what I use. I wouldn’t even attempt to cross left between the Bank and the Subway. But that’s why that’s there. MR. VALENTINE-To me it doesn’t matter, but I’m just bringing it up because it’s an oddity. MR. COLLIGAN-I can tell you who followed those signs. There was a tractor trailer this August that followed those signs and when he did his loop through the parking lot he took out the corner of my drive thru, and he went through the right way. MR. VALENTINE-I’m heading east, first time ever, I’m going in there and I drove laps, and I said I can’t turn in there. So I just kept going. MR. TRAVER-That is weird. So we’ll open up the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience? Sir, did you want to comment on the sign for the Bank? Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is there any further discussion on the sign? If not, we can entertain that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MODIFICATION # 4-2022 ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. 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 2/15/2022; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 2/16/2022; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/22/2022 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 2/22/2022; 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 MODIFICATION 4-2022 ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY; 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, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) disposal s. snow removal were considered reasonable to request a waiver of these items as they have been addressed in the previous site plan approval and this application is only for the sign. 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. nd Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. COLLIGAN-Thank you, everybody. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Fritz & Mary Stefanzick. This is 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. 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 applicant proposes a 233 square foot second story addition to their existing 1,434 square foot home. Their variance for the south property line setback was granted at the Zoning Board of Appeals and there’s no additional information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. So you went before the ZBA, after your chat with us, and they approved your variance that you needed. Were there any changes to your project as a result of that? MR. STEFANZICK-No, there were no changes. The Chairman mentioned that he thought it was a good project and that it was pretty straightforward, no changes to the property. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? This is the second floor addition that was made with the picture window that we looked at last week. MR. STEFANZICK-I did look into the glare element. MR. MAGOWAN-What did you get? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) MR. STEFANZICK-Well, first of all, it is facing north. So you’re not going to get any glare from it. However, if I was to put the glare protection on just two of those small windows, knowing that there’s like six or seven other windows, just those two windows would look different than all the other windows. Those are two smaller windows that wouldn’t make any sort of impact. MR. TRAVER-Well the issue, in my mind anyway, was the glare. So if that’s not an issue, then you’ve looked in it and we asked you to do that and we appreciate that very much. There is a public hearing on this application, and since we don’t have an audience I guess there must not b anybody who wanted to comment on this. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are two written comments, and this is addressed to the Board members, “As the owner of the property directly across, and northeast, of the Stefanzick home, I offer my full support for their proposed upgrade plans. In the past 10+ years that the Stefanzicks have lived here, they have significantly enhanced their property and have made a positive impact on the overall appearance and character of our community. All of their past improvements have been made with consideration to both the surrounding environment and neighbors. I believe that their future upgrade plans will further enhance and add to the overall desirability of our community. Sincerely, James Valastro 48 Hanneford Road” The next one is also addressed to the Board members. “Regarding the subject upgrade being proposed by Mr. Stefanzick, I am the neighbor directly across from their property. I fully support Mr. Stefanzick’s proposed plans and believe that it will continue to provide a positive impact to the neighborhood as he has displayed in all of the upgrades he has made in the past 10 years. Sincerely, Harold Smith 44 Hanneford Road” MR. TRAVER-All right. Thanks, Laura. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is there any other discussion or questions from members of the Planning Board for the applicant? If not, I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 7-2022 FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. 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 2/15/2022; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 2/16/2022; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/22/2022 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 2/22/2022; 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 7-2022 FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK; 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, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval and considered reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/22/2022) 2) 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. nd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 22 day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. STEFANZICK-I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? If not, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY ND 22, 2022, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On resolution meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 41