Loading...
03-22-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH221' 2022 INDEX Site Plan No.15-2021 Paul Derby 1. ONE YEAR EXTENSION Tax Map No.2S9.17-1-22 Site Plan No.51-2021 Brett&Pamela West(Main House) 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.226.15-1-17 Site Plan No.16-2022 Northway Self Storage,LLC 2. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-31.112 Site Plan No.10-2022 Marc Garvey 9. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-3 Site Plan No.13-2022 CKT Enterprises 13. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-1S Site Plan No.17-2022 Foothills Builders(Terre Majestic Holdings,LLC) 22. Tax Map No.296.5-1-17 Site Plan No. 9-2022 Ronald Seguljic 37. Tax Map No.226.19-1-41 Site Plan No.11-2022 Katharine Seelye 39. Tax Map No.239.15-1-10 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 03/22/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22ND 2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY JOHN MOLLOY BRAD MAGOWAN WARREN LONGACKER JACKSON LA SARSO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,March 22 d 2022. This is our second meeting for the month of Marchand our sixth meeting thus far for 2022. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency, those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interrupt the proceedings, and we ask also that when we get into the agenda,other than at the public hearing if you wish to converse if you would go out to the outer lobby to do that we'd appreciate it. And with that we'll begin. Our first section is Administrative Items of which we have two items. The first is Site Plan 15-2021,Paul Derby. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 15-2021 PAUL DERBY REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-So Mr.Derby hasn't been able to start his project due to COVID,cost of materials and such. So he's asked to be tabled to,extend his approval for one year. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you say one month or one year? MR. TRAVER-One year. MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I read. It sounded like month. MR. TRAVER-All right. Does anyone have any questions or comments about that request? Okay. In that case,do you want to entertain a motion? RESOLUTION TO EXTEND FOR ONE YEAR SP#15-2021 PAUL DERBY The applicant submitted an application for: Applicant proposes a 639 sq. ft. upper level addition to an existing single story home with a 2,044.5 sq. ft. footprint and new floor area of 2653.9 sq. ft. The project also includes the removal of concrete to be replaced with permeable pavers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040,179-6-065,179-13-010&Chapter 91 of the Zoning Ordinance,new floor area in a CEA,expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and a variance for a septic system in a flood plain shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval The Planning Board approved this site plan on March 25,2021. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 15-2021 PAUL DERBY. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 22 d day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Valentine, Mr. Longacker MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next under Administrative Items Site Plan 51-2021 for Brett& Pamela West. SITE PLAN 51-2021 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) TABLED TO MARCH 29,2022 MEETING MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOO RE-So they need to be tabled because the Zoning Board hasn't completed their review yet. So that will happen potentially tomorrow evening. We'll know more tomorrow. MR. TRAVER-All right, and I see that the agenda has already been amended next week to accommodate that. Any questions,comments on that tabling? Okay. We're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#51-2021 BRETT&PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE) 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 5,670 sq.ft.where the maximum allowed is S,6S7 sq.ft. The project includes site work for newlandscaping 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&z PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE). Introduced by Michael Valentine who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jackson LaSarso: Tabled until the March 29,2022 Planning Board meeting pending Zoning Board of Appeals review. Duly adopted this 22 d day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section being tabled items, and on that,as a tabled item,we have Northway Self Storage,LLC. Site Plan 16-2022. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 16-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, LLC. AGENT(S): EDP (B. RAGONE). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 162 CAREY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW SELF-STORAGE STRUCTURES, ONE 4,000 SQ. FT. AND ONE 6,000 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT FOR NEW BUILDINGS. THERE ARE 4 EXISTING SELF- STORAGE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE WITH A TOTAL OF 24,000 SQUARE FEET. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-9-020, SITE PLAN FOR NEW STORAGE BUILDINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 46-2020. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MARCH 2O22. SITE INFORMATION: CAREY ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK. LOT SIZE: 2.77 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-31.112. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9- 020. BRANDON FERGUSON&WILL BORSHERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application was tabled last week to provide the applicant an opportunity to do some research about building facade. As explained in some of the narrative they propose additional plantings and a solid green background. They explained to you that the cost of materials is more expensive than they thought they could pursue. So the applicant's back before the Board with this view shed and then the plan itself. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. Hello,welcome back. MR. FERGUSON-Hi. Brandon Ferguson with Environmental Design. I'm here tonight representing Northway Self Storage. Obviously we were here last week and the concerns were on the aesthetics of the building,especially the one that's closest to Carey Road that runs perpendicular with Carey Road. So the applicant went back the next day, reached out to the building manufacturer they've been dealing with. It's the same manufacturer of the existing buildings on site to discuss some viable options with them, as well as the cost that would be associated with those and they looked at a stone veneer. They looked at different siding materials and essentially the stone veneer was too expensive for what the price point they're trying to meet on the rental of these facilities are. So then they looked at other options,other siding options require quite a bit of maintenance, painting and stuff like that, as well as an additional cost of construction,labor and materials. So talking to the manufacturer, one thing I guess they've done in the past is used a more natural color on that side and then it's a little springy. So they're proposing a forest green color to that side of the road, and then we're proposing I think 49 plants along that side, of varying heights and types in order to try to break up that side of the building and improve the aesthetics. So the image that Laura had pulled up there,so this is a wintertime photo. Sothis is kind of a worst case scenario. I want to point out a few things on this. One is this is actually a Google Earth image,or not Google Earth, Google street image and that street camera is actually S.2 feet above the road. So we're looking at it from higher than you normally would looking kind of down at the site,and it's wintertime,so it's kind of worst case scenario. It's a little hard to see this new lighting on here,but the plants that they picked out included bayberry and serviceberry and chokeberry that have different colors in the wintertime as well to give it some color throughout the year. It would be green in the summertime. This is blended with a new siding color, and then we wanted to try to do some color to break things up. We'd also be proposing to re-plant those hemlocks that did not make it in the front of the site as well. So one thing to point out,and I know I gave Laura pictures in a weird format, she wasn't able to open them. We had some photos of a summertime,it was last summer, of that site, kind of standing on the road, taking a look at the site, and that building actually sits about four and a half feet, four feet lower than the road itself. So that you are looking out there. That building does sit lower. You don't really see the full building when you're on the road, as this picture shows, that kind of pointed out as well, and showed what it looks like when it's greened up. So that's what we're proposing at this point. I'll turn it back over to you guys. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well you,in your narrative just now,you mentioned the option that you looked at you thought was too expensive and paint would be something that would require maintenance? MR. FERGUSON-So some of the different other siding materials, I mean you're not going to go with a cedar siding,it just doesn't last,and so the metal siding is relatively maintenance free. You put it on there. You don't have to paint it every few years. MR. TRAVER-And that's what this is? MR. FERGUSON-And that's what that is right there. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay,and I did see the,Staff was kind enough to send us the updated information that you had submitted, and I saw where,in your comment,you had said that you felt that the, I guess it was the stone was at least the one thing that was mentioned,was too expensive,but you didn't list any price. MR. FERGUSON-I was hoping Will would be here tonight. MRS. MOORE-He is here. He just walked in. MR.TRAVER-I was just curious what too expensive is. I mean,you're talking,how much money? We're only looking atone side of the building. It's not facing the street. So how expensive would it be? WILL BORSHERS MR.BORSHERS-So the metal material is maybe two dollars a square foot,and the stone material is closer to five or six dollars a square foot. MR. TRAVER-But you have to use the metal material anyway,right,so I mean the difference between the two would be an additional expense? MR. BORSHERS-It would be an additional expense, and the difference between two dollars and five or six dollars may not sound like all that much,but it adds up very,very quickly. MR. TRAVER-Sure,okay. All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Would you consider half and half,metal and stone? That'll cut your cost. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. BORSHERS-We did consider that, and that would lead to its own set of issues. We would have to install a drip edge and deviate from the standardized metal panels to more of the custom metal panel, so then that raises the cost of the metal panels. MR. DEEB-And how many square feet is it,do you know? MR.BORSHERS-Well,it's about 10 feet by,is it 200 feet long. MR.FERGUSON-1 think that that particular wall is about 2,000 square feet,but we're going to check this. Yes,it's 200 feet long by 10 feet tall,so 2,000 square feet. MR. DEEB-So it's$6,000 difference. Right? MR.BORSHERS-On the cladding material,but then there would be additional materials I don't know the price of. MR. DEEB-Well,if you went all stone you said it's$5 a square foot? MR.BORSHERS-Five or six,probably. MR.DEEB-And you've got 2,000 square feet. So$10,000 dollars versus,you said,how much was it for the metal? MR.BORSHERS-About two dollars. MR. DEEB-All right. So about$6,000 difference. MR.BORSHERS-So that is accurate for rawmaterials,but then we would have to install a different system beneath the stone, a backer. I don't know how much additional cost that would be, but I'm sure it's something,and that there would be substantial labor to put it in. We would have to go to a mason rather than the steel erector. MR. DEEB-So to recoup that cost would take too long,my guess is. MR.BORSHERS-It would take too long. It's sort of a smaller scale. MR. DEEB-Well how many units in that one building? MR. FERGUSON-There's 76 total new ones. Twenty-seven units in that building. MR. DEEB-I know the cost is,we're not here to drive up your cost. We're here for the aesthetics and to help Queensbury look a little better, but if the stone is a little too expensive to recoup your cost, you're looking at straight metal,how about colors? Have you considered different colors other than forest green? MR.BORSHERS-So we have a range of colors we can choose from and we're happy to use. I thought the forest green would be nice because it blends in with nature,but if there's a different color that the Planning Board would prefer,we're happy to use anything. MR. DEEB-Your doors are green on the other side. MR.BORSHERS-The doors are green. They're forest green. MR. DEEB-So I mean you don't have any doors on that side. So you're not going to see the contrast,but are there any other colors anybody else would consider? MR. TRAVER-I mean I would be open to any sort of natural color, I guess, it doesn't have to be green I guess. I also thought green might make sense if they're putting basically evergreens. MR. DEEB-As long as it's a deep green. I mean. MR.MAGOWAN-Yes,it's the same color as the doors. To me,you know,you have that solid green panel, and I understand the cost and some of the other things that I looked up would be like a vinyl,you know, that you could screw on over,but then you'd have to get that special lip that would clip on to the other siding,because you're going to use the siding. So I appreciate your efforts in going and looking into it,and I understand the costs. I like the fact that that solid green would pick up the background up above with the green trees and such especially with all the pines that are in there. So,you know,looking at the picture there, and I like all the plantings. Now are all those plants or shrubs that you're putting in,are they non- invasive? Are they on our planting list? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. FERGUSON-Yes,I believe so. We can double check that and make sure that they are. MR.MAGOWAN-Make sure. Because we've had a problem in the past. They look great in the wintertime but we don't need them all over Queensbury taking over. Another thing I was looking at,you said shrubs and things. If you do,some of the trees that you took out,you have a lot of pine in that,I'm thinking,you know,maybe some maple trees and some birch,you know,kind of stagger them out,because they'll be tall enough to block the wall as the hemlocks, the big hemlocks that you're getting or the shrubs and have a chance to grow up. That's an option,kind of a compromise. I'm not trying to put you over your budget, but it's just,this is a new park and it's really taking off and just really trying to keep the aesthetics is really what we're trying to do. MR.FERGUSON-So I guess what you're saying is doing some deciduous trees kind of between that front building and those hemlocks. MR.MAG OWAN-Right. Stagger them. That would bring you like,in the fall,especially if you've got the birches and the maples you'll get more of the reds and the yellows, you know, the oaks. If you kind of stagger them. The hemlock will give you the nice low cover for years, and then once they get up higher, and the trees will get up higher and they'll go together. MR. FERGUSON-Kind of a mix of some hardwoods in there. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. It brings a little bit more in the fall for fall cleanup. MR. TRAVER-So where are we at with the color? MR. MAGOWAN-I'm happy with the green. MR. DEEB-If you're all happy with the green,it's a deep green, and a compromise with the plantings and the trees. I'm sorry you had to be the one to bear the brunt of these storage sheds trying to make sure they blend in,because we're going to get more applications in the future and you're kind of the test case I guess, I would say. MR. TRAVER-So the same color green as the doors. MR.DEEB-Which I'm okay with,but the trees and the plantings are going to offset that,and that's a good compromise. MR.TRAVER-And that way it would be the same. They wouldn't have to buy separate paint and all that. MR. DEEB-I'm happy with that,and I appreciate your efforts to work with us. MR. TRAVER-How do you feel about that? MR. MOLLOY-So could we just go back to the photo you had up real quick. Sothis says in the new plan there'd be 49 plants. You're going to be adding 49 plants,or there would be 49 plants total? MR. FERGUSON-We'd be adding along the building. MR. MOLLOY-Okay,and how many of these are here right now? MR. FERGUSON-On there? MR. MOLLOY-Yes,like just ballpark for me. MR. FERGUSON-Well this is not existing. This is what we're proposing. MRS. MOORE-These trees are here. MR. FERGUSON-Some of those hemlocks are there. We filled in with the ones we'd be planting. MRS. MOORE-I think he's proposing additional deciduous trees in here,too? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We need a number. How many of the deciduous trees would you be proposing? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR.FERGUSON-1 would say with that we would probably want to evenly space them kind of along that, behind the evergreens, kind of keep them a little bit lower on the slope probably. Right? So that way you're kind of looking through them initially. What do you think? Evenly spaced. MR.BO RSHERS-There's a couple of maples and oaks in there now. MR. FERGUSON-Maybe five or six? Do you think that would? Five or six evenly spaced through that area in between. MR. TRAVER-Say six? MR. FERGUSON-Yes,six. MR. DEEB-Two hundred feet. So you're going to put six in there. So it would be 30 feet. MR. TRAVER-Are you all right with that? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. MOLLOY-So we should probably count on at least a couple of them dying. Right? MRS.MOORE-So if they're part of this plan,if they do die then the applicant is responsible for,and we do have Code Compliance that will periodically go around and check that,if that's your question. MR. MOLLOY-That was my question,yes. MR. DIXON-So we'd alternate these six between the. MR. TRAVER-They'd be between the evergreens and the building. MR. DEEB-Could you go eight? MR.BORSHERS-We could probably do eight. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. DIXON-Do you think we're going to crowd it too much? MR. DEE&Well it's 200 feet. So you divide eight into two hundred and you've got about 20 something feet. MR.DIXON-And since we're talking about plantings,I know you're going to replace the hemlocks we had discussions amongst the Board regarding hemlocks and the disease that's out there. Would it be appropriate,instead of asking for all hemlocks,to alternate that with some other species? MR. FERGUSON-We could do like spruce. Spruce would have an equivalent kind of look to it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well these are a wilderness tree and he's able to treat them on his property,and if they die he's got to replace them. MR. DIXON-If they die he's got to start over again and you'll see that building until the new species gets. I'll open it up for the Board. MR. LA SARSO-Do you folks have a preference between spruce and hemlock? MR. FERGUSON-The cost is about the same for either one. What we can do is we can switch them out. MR. MAGOWAN-We just had a thing today on the sponge moth. It went from gypsy to sponge moth. I hope you all knew that. I actually looked it up and found out they changed the name,but they're saying this year might be another tough year. It all depends how much rain we get,but there are things out there, but they do eat hemlocks when nothing else is around,but they prefer oaks is their number one meal, and then the maples,but it's interesting,but we are able to treat out own trees on our property. That's why I brought that up. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this? Are there any written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is also under SEQR. This is an Unlisted action. So we do have a SEQR resolution to consider. Does anyone have any environmental concerns other than already have been discussed with the expansion of this self storage facility? MR. DIXON-1 do have one question, Mr. Chairman. On the plans it's talking porous pavement.. What type of porous pavement material are you using? MR. FERGUSON-The porous pavement? MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-That porous pavement, all new parking area around the building is going to be porous pavement. MR. DIXON-Is it going to be the porous blacktop? MR. FERGUSON-Porous blacktop,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that what you have around the other buildings? It looks pretty porous. MR. FERGUSON-The existing buildings? No. MR. MAGOWAN-No? MR. FERGUSON-The existing buildings all drain into the stormwater area outside. We're going to do all the new stuff is porous. MR. DEEB-Which requires maintenance. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or concerns regarding the SEQR resolution? If not,we can hear that I guess. RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. RE: SP#16-2022 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE,LLC The applicant proposes construction of two new self-storage structures,one 4,000 sq.ft.and one 6,000 sq. ft. Site work includes additional pavement for new buildings. There are 4 existing self-storage buildings on the site with a total of 24,000 sq.ft.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-9-020,site plan for new storage buildings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 16-2022 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE,LLC, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, and then with the resolution of the, or I believe the resolution of the visual impacts,does the Board feel comfortable moving forward? Okay. Can we have that resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#16-2022 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE,LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes construction of two new self-storage structures, one 4,000 sq.ft. and one 6,000 sq.ft. Site work includes additional pavement for new buildings. There are 4 existing self-storage buildings on the site with a total of 24,000 sq. ft. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-9-020,site plan for new storage buildings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/15/2022 and continued the public hearing to 3/15/2022,when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 3/15/2022; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 16-2022 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, LLC; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) 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. 1) Hemlocks to be replaced with hemlocks and alternated with evergreens. m) Include eight deciduous trees between the evergreens and the building. n) Color to be the same as the doors listed as forest green on the western side of the building. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 2022 by the following vote: MR.MAGOWAN-I just want to thank you for making those concessions and doing the due diligence that we ask. MR. TRAVER-I think it's going to be a better,more attractive project. MR. FERGUSON-I hope so. I think those trees will really help to make it look more natural. MR. TRAVER-More desirable place for people to store their stuff. Right? AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR.BORSHERS-Thank you very much. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business and the first item is Marc Garvey,Site Plan 10-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MARC GARVEY AGENT(S): EDP (B. FERGUSON). OWNER(S): GARVEY SISTERS, LLC. ZONING: Cl. LOCATION: 257 DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 8,000 S.FT.ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING,23 ADDITIONAL PARKING, DISPLAY CAR AREA, SITE WORK, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 15,395 SQ. FT. BUILDING WILL BE REMOVED WHEN THE ADDITION IS CONSTRUCTED. THERE ARE ALSO PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO THE FACADE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-9-020,SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR PLAN AND FACADE ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 55-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2O22. LOT SIZE: 697 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-3. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-020. BRANDON FERGUSON&ETHAN HALL REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes an 5,000 square foot addition to an existing building and 23 additional park space for a display car area. Site work includes stormwater and some landscaping. A portion of the existing building will be removed when the addition is constructed, and then I've noted some items. The Board may request clarification of landscaping,lighting and signage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you. Good evening again. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design and Ethan Hall from Rucinski Hall Architecture. So the project site is 257 Dix Ave. It's a 6.96 acre site located on the north side of Dix Ave. The current site is a car dealership. Their existing building is going to mostly remain. The display area for the new and used cars is all up front along Dix Ave. The service center parking is off to the east of the building and then employee and customer parking is on the west and in the rear of the building. So this plan right here is actually the proposed plan. So the existing building right now has a little over 15,000 square foot footprint. What they're proposing to do is expand that building. The total footprint of the new building will be a little over 21,000 square feet. So they're going to improve and renovate that building and I'll let Ethan get more into that in a minute. Other site changes are going to be some modifications to the parking area. Because of the expansions to the building they are losing some of their existing parking. So we're going to expand that parking area to the north,the rear of the building. That'll be their new employee and some of their service parking. There will be a new dumpster location back there, as well as some minor modifications to the other parking spaces, a few painting lines and adding some spaces in here to the existing pavement. There's no changes to sewer or water to this site. Stormwater management is going to be handled with the existing infiltration basin that's on site now with some minor modifications to that. We've been going back and forth with Chazen. They've already given us some comments and we've already responded to those, and then other site changes,there's going to be a little display area near the entry off Dix Ave. A little concrete pad that will meet the display area setbacks. And I'll let Ethan kind of get into some of the building. MR. HALL-So most of this is being driven by Hyundai Motors. They're re-branding all their dealerships throughout the United States. So most of this is being driven by that, and the changes that are being required. Pretty much they're facade changes and some service things that are being done. The existing service drive,the drop off canopy that's there will become and enclosed canopy so that service people can come up,drop their car off. They're going to be inside the building instead of outside the building,and the service techs will take the cars from there and take them out and park them or take them into the service bay to be done. They are adding some detail bays. That's the portion along the north side of the building. That's all getting added for additional detailing of the cars and cleaning up and things like that, and then there's, with the influx of electronic vehicles, electric vehicles that are coming, there's some electronic vehicle charging stations that are being added. There's also a new covered delivery area and some additional parts and storage areas for the electronic car service. All that has to be kept separate from the rest of the stuff. So that's really the expansion of the building. The facade itself is only going to change very minimally. The colors are already in. The new system that they put in about four or five years ago is the new color scheme thank God. At least they're not going to have to change the color of the building for the third time,but we do have to expand it. MR. TRAVER-And what about signage? MR.HALL-So the signage on the building stays. Everything that's on the front of the building stays. The pylon signs stays. That meets the new GDSIQ. There are some directional and minor signs that are low that won't be anything big. So all those will be Code Compliant. We'll make those within the right of way of the building itself. MR. TRAVER-And landscaping? MR. FERGUSON-There's no modifications proposed for landscaping on site. Right now you have landscape beds out front. The plan is to leave those right now. MR. TRAVER-And I think if I recall the area where the expansion is taking place would not disrupt any existing landscaping? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. That existing landscaping in front of that building will stay the same as always. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.HALL-All of our expansion goes towards the back of the building. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and lighting? MR. FERGUSON-The site lighting stays the same in the parking lot. Those lights are LED lights now. MR.HALL-I think back when we did the first GDSI one that was done. Everything was upgraded to LED lights. MR. TRAVER-Right. That was one of the first projects we had I think with LED. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR.HALL-It was,and so the only other modifications will be wherever there are overhead doors now that have lights over them,the new lights or the new doors will have lights again. They're all building mounted downcast lights with cutoff fixtures. There won't be any new pole lights. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.DEEB-Driven by Hyundai. Subaru was in here a while ago. They did the same thing. They did that. MR.HALL-Unfortunately it's a constantly changing thing,and in the discussions we had with Mark,you know,a lot of this stuff,again,is being driven by the ownership group. It's not like the Garveys are saying, hey,we want to go back in and re-do our building. No,that's not the point,but unfortunately it is being driven by Hyundai and they're looking for brand recognition. It's the same as any mass marketing thing. They want all of their dealerships to look the same, and unfortunately what we have to deal with is the group that sets this up is out of California, and what works in California doesn't work here, and so we do have to go back and we have to do some bargaining with Hyundai North America. It's going okay. MR. MAGOWAN-It didn't seem that long ago the last branding was for the car part to go on there and make some changes. That's what they wanted to do because they wanted to get the people under cover. Now they want to drive them in,put them in the lounge chair,give them a cup of coffee and a donut,you know. MR.HALL-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I saw it and dealerships all over are changing and that means good growth. So thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this project? I don't see any takers. How about written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we'll also close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman,I want to make one comment. I will say for full disclosure I've done work on that property in the past. It has no impact with the Garveys,but I'll throw that out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Sure. That's noted. Under SEQR this is an Unlisted action. So we do have a SEQR process that we need to consider. We've talked about stormwater. They're working with the engineer with regard to that. It looked as though generally the concerns typically were technical and they are required to achieve a signoff. Does anybody have any environmental concerns with the expansion of this facility? Okay. Then I guess we're ready for a SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION RE: SEQR NEG. DECLARATION SP#10-2022 MARC GARVEY The applicant proposes an 5,000 sq.ft. addition to an existing building,23 additional parking,display car area, site work, and stormwater management. A portion of the existing 15,395 sq. ft. building will be removed when the addition is constructed. There are also proposed alterations to the facade. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-9-020,site plan for a new floor plan and facade are subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 10-2022 MARC GARVEY Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 22n'day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is the Board ready to move forward or are there additional questions or comments for the applicant? All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#10-2022 MARC GARVEY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes an 5,000 sq. ft. .addition to an existing building, 23 additional parking, display car area, site work, and stormwater management. A portion of the existing 15,395 sq. ft. building will be removed when the addition is constructed. There are also proposed alterations to the facade. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-9-020, site plan for a new floor plan and facade are subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 3/22/2022,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 3/22/2022; 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 10-2022 MARC GARVEY,- Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted however no waivers were requested; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) 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 Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 22 d day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. FERGUSON-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-The expansion at the KIA dealership,is that still on hold? MR.HALL-That's a separate group. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes,we don't have ownership in the KIA store anymore. So we don't know what's going on with that project. MR. TRAVER-We'll probably find out soon. The next item on our agenda, also under New Business,is CKT Enterprises, Site Plan 13-2022. SITE PLAN NO.13-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CKT ENTERPRISES. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE(ETHAN HALL). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 11 LA FAYETTE STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING BAKER FUNERAL HOME—WEST 1,008 SQ.FT.WITH AN UPSTAIRS ATTIC ACCESS,EAST 756 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ENCLOSING EXISTING POLE BARN WITH NEW OVERHEAD DOORS AT THE FRONT AND A 436 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR ENCLOSURE. MINIMAL SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER AND SITE PREPARATION FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE MAIN BUILDING ON SITE IS 4,630 SQ. FT. AND THE POLE BARN IS 2,627 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-9-020, SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS AND ENCLOSURES OF THE POLE BARN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 36-99, SP 37-2020. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MARCH 2O22. LOT SIZE: 1.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-18. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-020. ETHAN HALL&STARR MOWRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are two projects occurring on this site. I'll start with the funeral home itself. The west side, there's a 1,00E square foot addition with access to the attic for a two story, one and a half, and then on the east side the same,756 square feet. The project also includes enclosing the existing pole barn with new overhead doors and an addition of 436 square feet to assist with the closure. Minimal site work for stormwater and site preparation for construction. I did note that the Board may ask additional 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) questions in regards to the buffer between a business and a residential use and the landscaping,lighting, elevations and floor plans of the funeral home with full views of the existing and additions together. In reference to the pole barn issue, this project was before the Board quite a while ago, maybe a year and a half ago,about a year and a half. It has since expired. So the applicant has to go through the same process again and that's what brings this also to have questions in regards to the buffers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.HALL-Good evening. For your records Ethan Hall principle of Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Starr Mowry. She's the owner of the funeral home. I'll start with the pole barn, the project that was in front of you about 1S months or so ago,was approved by this Board at that time. Shortly after that prices went out of this world. The initial price that she got was $150,000, something like that, to enclose it. At that point it would have been cheaper to tear it down and start over again. So prices have come back a little bit. Who knows right now,but obviously the approval had expired. So we need to get that part re-approved. So we're back here for that. The second portion is the office space at the funeral home is very small, very cramped where they work. Their business obviously has expanded fairly significantly. They need to get more office space and more display space for the stuff inside the funeral home. So that gives us the two expansions on the east and west of the building. The idea is to kind of match the look of the building with the hip roof and bring it to a peak so that we can get some space in that upper area, some additional storage space. This building is a slab on grade. There's no basement underneath it. So the only place we have to go is up with storage. The additions will not be taller than the existing building. We've tried to keep in keeping with it. One thing that I did mention to Laura that shows up on your plans. We looked at the brick facade to try to match what was there and we got some prices on brick. It's about three times the cost. So we're looking at some kind of a horizontal siding to match the front gable and that will make it,it will at least blend in with the rest of the building. It won't stick out. MR. TRAVER-Can you speak to the question about the buffer? MR.HALL-So the buffer is along the south side,it would be the southeast side. There is a fence line that runs along the property. It's a split rail fence. So we had a pretty significant discussion about it when we were here before. We made an offer to the neighbor. I sent several certified letters that were rejected and sent back to us. So the proposal that was in front of you was we would reach out to the adjoining property owner to do that. If there was no response, then what was submitted was accepted. So we made our attempt and I know that the neighbor is here. So we made the attempt and go nowhere with it. So we went with what was approved. MR. TRAVER-And to review the history, the pole barn was part of the previous approval. The office expansion was not. MR.HALL-Correct. It's two separate projects. MR. TRAVE R-Right. Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS. MOORE-Before you continue, I know Warren's in the audience. I would rather have him come up so you have seven members on your Board. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Welcome. Okay. So I know not all of us were here when the first project was reviewed and approved for the pole barn,and the office expansion is new. So let's look at it again and we'll open it up for members of the Planning Board to have questions and comments. MR. DEEB-I know we had a lengthy discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOWRY-I didn't realize it only lasted one year and then COVID hit,and it's just like, do I want to spend the money? Do I not. That's why,I would have renewed my permit if I had known. MR. DEE&Well you know now,don't you? MRS. MOWRY-I know now. MR.TRAVER-So to that end,there is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes,ma'am. State your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EVELYN SHEERER 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MS. SHEERER-My name's Evelyn Sheerer and I'm the resident that's behind the funeral home. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. SHEERER-We had a good relationship until it seems like right now,but I would like to have privacy in my backyard, and the business is expanding. They're getting more parking. They want to put another showing room. They want all this. I did put some,in back I put in some sheds. Her father told us where the property line was. We put the sheds on there. There wasn't a problem. Understandably, I have it too close to her property line. I did not know that. It was a simple mistake. I was talking to her father. We bought the house from her brother. Loved her father. Great man. And he helped us do things on the property. It was a great situation, and she took over and at that time we put up another couple of sheds. We made a property,that was giving us some privacy,but now I found out I have to move the sheds, get rid of some things and move the other one. Okay. I'm willing to do what I'm supposed to do. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me ma'am. Where did you get that information that you had to move your sheds? MS. SHEERER-From her. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. SHEERER-She came up and she complained about the sheds and then we were told they had to be moved. MR. TRAVER-Did you, you were aware, some time ago when the original project for the pole barn was approved,that there was talk about a split rail fence. Were you aware of that? MS. SHEERER-What happened was they did send me notices. I will admit that. They did. I was out of town. I'm not from here originally. My two aunts passed away. I was down making funeral arrangements in Poughkeepsie,Hyde Park New York. I now am the matriarch of my family. I'm the oldest member. MR. TRAVER-So at this stage. MS. SHEERER-When I came back,I found these. I ran to the post office to get it and they said they had returned them. I had no idea who was on that paper. I came running down here and I asked the Town, did you send me this because I was out of town. They said we don't have any idea who that is from. So there was no way for me to go back and find and retrieve it. MR. TRAVER-I guess my question now, ma'am, would be are you willing to discuss with the applicant the idea of the split rail fence as originally proposed? MS. SHEERER-She wants me to move everything out of the side,which I'm willing to do. I will clear the side yard. There will not be anything there,but she wants to put a split rail fence up. That's not going to give me any privacy at all. In fact, me moving these sheds and everything is taking away privacy I gave myself. MR. TRAVER-So what you would prefer would be to leave the sheds where they are. Is that what you're saying? MS. SHEERER-I wouldn't be able to leave the sheds because I was told I had to get rid of the sheds. MR. TRAVER-What I'm asking if you were able to leave the sheds where they are, would that be your preference? MS. SHEERER-I just asked her a little while ago about that. MR. TRAVER-I'm asking you now,ma'am. MS. SHEERER-She said no that she wanted me to move them. MR. TRAVER-I'm asking you now, regardless of the conversation you had with her earlier, if you were able to leave the sheds where they are, would that satisfy your privacy concerns? You mentioned before that you put in. MS. SHEERER-Yes,I put in,and it helped. It did,because before I had the sheds up,kids were coming in my backyard playing all the time. They didn't know where the property line was. In fact, I don't even know where that property line is on that side because on the other side of my property,I can show you all my stakes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-If I may. If you were able to leave t e sheds where they are, with the addition of the split rail fence to determine the property line,would that be helpful as well? MS. SHEERER-I've got to move the sheds anyway. MR. TRAVER-No,I'm saying if you could leave them where they are. MS. SHEERER-I wish my partner who has the house with me were here. So we could discuss it. At one time,earlier,I don't know what would be better for me,for them to put a privacy fence up and not have to deal with anybody looking in my backyard anymore. MR. TRAVER-But now that you're back in Town you'd be willing to discuss options with the applicant to satisfy your privacy concerns,including possibly leaving the sheds where they are? MS. SHEERER-Possibly,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MS. SHEERER-But I want a privacy fence. I definitely want a privacy fence and I think you're supposed to have a privacy fence between a business and a residential. Am I wrong on that? MR. TRAVER-Well, I would say you're not completely correct in the sense that that there needs to be a buffer of some kind. MS. SHEERER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And you work with the applicant, as was the original plan, to come up with a plan to achieve that. I think what they had originally proposed was this split rail fence. What you offered to the Planning Board tonight was that the sheds that you put up were your solution to your privacy concerns. MS. SHEERER-Before I put them up, and we didn't have to go through any discussion because I wanted to be a good neighbor,but I never expected her to go up,and you know when was putting the sheds up,to be very honest, I didn't know that those two other ones,because they're plastic,they couldn't go up, and she even came out to me as I was putting them up and said they look great. They're really nice. They look really good. Next thing I know she was up here questioning the Town if I had a right to put them up,and I thought that was underhanded. If she had said to me back when I first put them up. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am,you need to address us,not the applicant. MS. SHEERER-I'm sorry. If she had said that,now I just feel I'm being,you know,where's my little bit of rights on my property is what I'm saying. MR. TRAVER-At this point, however, you are willing to have discussions with the applicant regarding this issue. Correct? MS. SHEERER-If the Town would let me keep them. MRS. MOORE-So let me just give a little bit of input on this. So the buffer requirement is typically on both sides,but it is at the discretion of the Planning Board to accept the information from the applicant. Yes,you can ask the applicant and the neighbor to discuss this. I'm not certain that's where you're going to get a resolve. So the Board could indicate to the applicant that this is what we would perceive as a buffer and provide that information. At this point the Board would be evaluating the split rail fence. Is that a sufficient buffer between two properties? And one's a business and one's not. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you,Laura. All right,ma'am. Thank you very much. MS. SHEERER-So. MR. TRAVER-We're still having discussions on the application. We're not through yet. MS. SHEERER-Okay. I just want a little privacy. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. MS. SHEERER-And I don't know if they would allow me to keep that fence. I can't agree to something that later on I have to be told that no,you're not allowed to have it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this issue? I'm not seeing any. Are there any written comments,Laura? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Actually we'll leave the public hearing open for the moment. So you heard the discussion. I guess the lady did not receive,for whatever reason,the material that you had sent here. You heard the public comment regarding some storage buildings or sheds or something that were on the property line. They were put up by the lady to resolve her privacy issue and is under the impression that she cannot. She has to move them. Do you have any comment or response to that? MR. HALL-That came from Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement went out to look at it and said that there were more sheds there than what were allowed by Code. I guess you're allowed two and there's four. Again I don't think Starr really cares if the storage sheds are there or not. They are too close to the property line. That is the problem. For us to put a fence up they'd have to be moved. MR. TRAVER-I see. MR.HALL-That was the whole point. MR. MAGOWAN-Actually there's two. Two are on,over. MR. HALL-There's also several vehicles that are parked there between the sheds. That's the additional buffer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.HALL-Again,I don't think that Starr cares if those are left there. MRS. MOWRY-I believe you should have the right, within reason, to do what you want with your own property. If that would make her happy to have that buffer,along with she's planted some beautiful plants. MR.HALL-Evergreen plantings that are on there. MRS. MOWRY-Right on the line. MR.HALL-So again,I think Starr's okay with leaving things the way they are. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.HALL-We don't care whether they move them. MR. DEEB-So you wouldn't need a fence. MS. MOWRY-In order to do a fence on the line,then she would have to move them. MR.DEEB-If you leave them there you wouldn't put the fence up because there's nowhere to put the fence. MR. TRAVER-Well, you couldn't put the fence up if the sheds were there. MR. DEEB-Right. So if the sheds stay there,that's the buffer. MR. MAGOWAN-Technically you could. You could put the fence up to the shed and then, you know what I'm saying,leave the shed open. MR.LA SARSO-But are the sheds allowed to stay because the Code Enforcement said they're only allowed. We can't,because that's how we're deciding. MRS.MOO RE-You're accurate. We can't approve the shed location,because one,there's two things. It's not part of this application at this point. The applicant potentially would have to come in,most likely to the Zoning Board, to maintain the sheds and then they also have to determine the size of those sheds because there's a certain square footage of a shed where it doesn't. MR. TRAVER-But that's not this application. MRS.MOORE-Correct. That's not this application. In reference to,I'm just going to go back to the buffer. Typically each side should maintain a buffer. So that buffer is a certain width typically. So in that width each side could maintain, put either landscaping or a berm or fencing within that buffer area. So it's a width. It's not just the property line. I just wanted to make you aware of that. is (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR.TRAVER-But in this case the applicant,the application before us can't do that because of the distance of the sheds. MRS. MOORE-What I'm saying is that fence doesn't necessarily have to go on the property line. The buffer is a width. It's not just the property line. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Don't sheds have a 10 foot setback on property lines? MRS. MOORE-Depending on the size and so on and so forth, yes. So that if the Board said that the applicant needed to place a fence on that property line then the neighbor would be obligated to re-locate those sheds or communicate with the Code Enforcement office. MR. DEEB-So if we say we don't need to have a fence erected and we could leave things as they are. MRS. MOORE-So the point is would this Board be satisfied with the buffer that the applicant has proposed? MR. DIXON-I don't recall from last time. Were you able to put any plantings in there and use that as a buffer? So something that's going to achieve some height to it. MRS. MOWRY-And then I planted like six trees with the split rail fencing that is there, but I plan on doing more,but I said with the construction and blacktop and,you know, finishing the pole barn, doing the addition,I would like to add some kind of,so there's something there year round that just. MR. DIXON-I think,my opinion only, I think that is probably one of the better solutions to maintain a buffer at this point,because I don't think that we're ever going to see resolution between yourself and Ms. Sheerer as far as what's going to happen with that property line. I think we might be kicking the can down the road and we're not an enforcement body here. What's in front of us is to either approve or deny the plans. MR. TRAVER-So if you were to put up a buffer, then you'd have to obviously put it on your side of the property line. MR.HALL-Correct. MRS. MO WRY-There's only maybe this much distance. MR.HALL-There's about four feet of green space between the edge of the blacktop and her property line. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You would be prepared to do something with that four feet? MR.HALL-Yes. We'd be prepared to put in some evergreen plantings along that south side. MR. DEEB-And that would give her some privacy. MR. TRAVER-Yes, Okay MR.HALL-And we can even place them so that they're in between the sheds. MRS. MOWRY-And that also gives us privacy at the funeral home. Because we're looking at an old van and some things that have been there for quite a while. MR. TRAVER-Is the Board all right with that proposal? MR. LA SARSO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Let's let Mrs. Sheerer have one more shot at us. MS. SHEERER-I do appreciate this,because this is my privacy. MR.TRAVER-So if you understand what's being proposed,and also there's two things to understand here, actually. One is that the applicant is now proposing to use the little bit of green space that's on their side of the property line to add some buffering to increase their privacy and yours by adding some plantings. That does not resolve, as it turns out,the issue of the sheds, which is a separate issue that you have with Code Compliance, and we don't have anything in front of us with that. MS. SHEERER-And as of today I am willing to move everything from that side out of there,the van,which I was allowed to have one unregistered vehicle in my yard. I will move the storage sheds. They will be 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) gone. Now I have a totally open area, and she'll be happy because I got rid of everything on the property line that she requested. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am,we're not here to discuss that tonight. You can offer that to the applicant,but we already have a proposal for the application that we have before us tonight. We don't have anything about your property in front of us tonight. We're simply looking at the buffering aspect of it. MS. SHEERER-Okay. And the buffering aspect,can I have a privacy fence put up? MR. TRAVER-No,what they're proposing is plantings. MS. SHEERER-Okay. Well what they already have up is a split rail fence with tiny little trees, six little trees. There is no buffer. MR. TRAVER-They're talking about adding to that. MR. DEEB-They're going to add evergreens to that buffer. So you will have a buffer year round. MS. SHEERER-All the way down? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-In between the sheds. MR. DEEB-Well she's going to remove the sheds. So now we've got to re-address the issue. MR. TRAVER-And what we would suggest that you do is reach out to the Planning Office,to the Town, and you can explain to them that you're going to move the sheds or whatever you wish to do,but there's evidently an issue that you have with Code Enforcement with the Town,which has nothing to do with the applicant that we have before us,but you'd be wise to just reach out to them and let them know what you'd be willing to do,which again has nothing to do with the application before us and that would resolve that, but the applicant is proposing and will likely be approved to add some plantings and some buffering along the property line,because they have some privacy concerns as well. All right. MS. SHEERER-Okay. But I would still have to move the sheds,then. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am,that's up to you. MS. SHEERER-You were saying before if I left the sheds where they were and they put plants,would they accept that? MR.DEEB-They're going to put the plantings in the four foot buffer on their side of the property,not yours. MS. SHEERER-And if I left the shed there,that would be privacy. MR. TRAVER-That is out of the purview of the applicant because we found out additional information that you've been contacted by the Town. So you have an issue not with the applicant,but with the Town of Queensbury that you need to resolve. MS.SHEERER-I had an issue where she wanted me to remove the stuff and I removed the stuff and showed it to them and they approved that it's okay. That issue was taken care of and the other guy said my sheds, they were two sheds,they would still be legal on my property. He did tell me that. MR. TRAVER-Then you should be able to resolve that with the Town without any problem. MR. DEEB-My suggestion would be to work with the applicant to help you solve this problem with your sheds and maybe coordinate. Say I'm going to move this shed here, out of here. I'm going to move this shed out of here,and the other one has to be moved within the setback. Then you can resolve that privacy issue with the trees or whatever you're going to use. MS. SHEERER-Until everything grows I'm not going to have privacy. With the sheds there I would. MR. DEEB-Okay. That's up to you,ma'am That's up to you,but it's between you and the Town. MS. SHEERER-I understand about the legal part about me having the sheds. That's why I said to you,I can't make an agreement with you tonight either. MR. DEEB-Well,we're not asking you for an agreement because you're not before us. You decide what you want to do and we'll go ahead with the project here, and what you do after is going to be up to you. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-Thankyou,ma'am. MS. SHEERER-And the lighting. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am,we'll ask them about lighting. MS. SHEERER-Okay. Because my bedroom is on that side. MR. TRAVER-Okay. With that we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I'll ask the applicant to come back up. So obviously your neighbor has some issues to resolve with the Town. I don't know, I mean if you see some movement there or some changes along the property line,obviously you'll need to reach out to her and figure out how best to proceed. In the meantime you're proposing a four foot wide buffer of evergreen plantings. Is that correct? Okay. Any other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Did we address lighting? MR. HALL-So all of the lighting that we've got. Laura,can you grab the floor plan real quick? We have two doors that are in the back of the building that are egress doors. Those will have pole mounted lights that shine down. MR. TRAVER-They're downcast. MR.HALL-They're all downcast. MRS. MOORE-Are you looking at the pole barn? MR. HALL-No, no. Right here. That's the elevation I'm looking at. So we've got one door that comes out right beside the two existing garage doors that are there. And then on the other end of the building we have a very similar exit door and comes out into the small viewing room that's on the east end of the building. Again,those both have downcast and they can actually be mounted up underneath the soffits. MR. TRAVER-Downcast and recessed. Okay. MR. DEEB-They won't shine into Ms. Sheerer's bedroom. MR.HALL-Correct. And that's the only lighting that's on the back of the building. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? MRS. MOO RE-So in regards to the plantings, I'm just curious. You went through an exercise with the previous one to identify numbers. MR. TRAVER-Yes. How many evergreens would you propose along that? MRS. MOORE-Are you talking in reference from the edge of the current property line to the other pin which is like 267. MR.HALL-That's the total width. MRS. MOORE-That's the total from here to here? MR.HALL-That's the total from there to the front property line. It's about 132 feet. MRS. But she already has like between that one where the hand is,that one that's right there. She already has planted like some really good sized apple trees,some of the rose of Sharon. MRS. MOORE-I understand,but it's on your property line,on your side. MR. TRAVER-Yes,for the resolution we need to know what. MR.HALL-I'll put a dozen out there. MR. TRAVER-A dozen. All right. Thank you. Anything else? All right. I guess we're ready for a resolution. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#13-2022 CKT ENTERPRISES The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes additions to the existing Baker Funeral Home-west 1,00E sq. ft. with an upstairs attic access, east 756 sq. ft.. The project includes enclosing existing pole barn with new overhead doors at the front and a 436 sq. ft. addition for enclosure. Minimal site work for stormwater and site preparation for construction. The main building on site is 4,630 sq.ft. and the pole barn is 2,627 sq.ft..Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-9-020,site plan for construction of additions and enclosures of the pole barn shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 3/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 3/22/2022,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 3/22/2022; 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 13-2022 CKT ENTERPRISES;Introducedby Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted as the buffer is described as part of the condition no other waivers were requested; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) Applicant to plant a four foot width buffer of 12 evergreens along the southeast property line. m) To add full elevation plans to the final plans. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-A four width along the property line. MR. DIXON-Okay. I can amend that. MRS. MOORE-And just to follow up. Right now I only have pieces of the building. I need the full elevation view. MR. TRAVER-So full elevation plans to be submitted with the final plan. MR.HALL-Okay. Yes,I can do that. AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Foothills Builders, Terre Majestic Holdings,LLC,Site Plan 17-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS (THRRE MAJESTIC HOLDINGS, LLC) AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING (T. CENTER). OWNER(S): RUSSELL THOMAS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: HIGHPOINT DRIVE. THE APPLICANT OWNER OF LOT 9 OF HIGHPOINT DRIVE PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 3,200 SQ.FT.DRIVEWAY WITHIN THE DEEDED EASEMENT AREA ON THE PARCEL OF 23 HIGHPOINT DRIVE,LOT 10. THE DRIVEWAY TO BE 10% PLUS GRADE. THERE WILL BE TWO DRIVEWAYS LOCATED AT 23 HIGHPOINT DRIVE, LOT 10, THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TO BE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. LOT 9 IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ALONG THE NEW DRIVEWAY AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-9-020, 179-6-060 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRIVEWAY AT A 10% GRADE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-1993,SUB 4-1993 MOD.(2006). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2O22. LOT SIZE: 1.17 ACRES (LOT 10),1.39 ACRES (LOT 9). TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-020,179-6-060. TOM CENTER&JEFF MEYER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for construction of a 3,200 square foot driveway within the deeded easement area on Parcel 23 High Point Drive,Lot 10. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center from Hutchins Engineering. Jeff Meyer representing Foothills Builders. As Laura stated we're proposing to add a driveway that is within the deeded easement,would run alongside the existing driveway, come around. It's a little bit different than the one you have. We were able to get the surveyor to put the actual easement line on here. So this one that's above goes out a little bit around that point which that's the corner of the easement, and then along the line and ties into the new house location. We've been working with the neighbor in regards to the driveway, and we have, we have been unable to come to an agreement to use the existing driveway because the existing driveway is not within the easement bounds. We did a lot line adjustment for the existing driveway. The easement never carried over to the new south boundary line. So we're held by the deed to stay within that deeded area. So that's why a second driveway is being proposed,but we are still in continued negotiations to try and resolve this to use the existing driveway, but we would like to widen, if we cannot come to an agreement to install this. MR. TRAVER-You basically would widen the existing driveway? MR. CENTER-We would widen it except for just that one little pinch point it would actually go outside that one little area and then back into the,across the existing driveway. So we maintain the driveway,the new driveway within the deeded easement area. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-So basically your application before us tonight is to expand this driveway so that you'd have access in the event that you're unable to reach some agreement with the neighbor. MR. CENTER-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman,I would like to be able to state that I do live in this neighborhood. As I stated the first time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I am actually very familiar with everything that's been going on over there and watching, along with my site visit. I don't feel that will jeopardize my decisions,but that would be up to the pleasure of the Board. Otherwise I'd recuse myself and sit out on the floor. MR. TRAVER-So you're declaring a potential conflict of interest but you don't feel that it impacts your judgment on this application? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I'm comfortable with continuing to allow you to sit for this application. Do other Board members feel comfortable with that? Okay. Thank you for acknowledging that. Let's see. Board, you've heard what the applicant has offered as explanation. Do you have any questions, comments? MR.MAGOWAN-Well,I do. I don't knowif anybody had a chance to do a site visit and drive up or walk up. Living in the neighborhood I heard it was stated that the driveway was notable to be used. I believe there was a certain period of time, and I believe at the previous first meeting when this all started, I kind of stated that being a civil matter that I was hoping maybe that they would have an agreement before a building permit was issued, and a building permit was issued before any form of agreement came on and looking at the print here,I see the easement for the benefit of Lot 9. Now the way I'm looking at this,this is a property owner's front yard that goes down,and the existing driveway that goes up there now actually flows better for the new lot. Otherwise the other driveway is going to come up,swoop out around,which is going to push on the other neighbor's lot. MRS. MOORE-So, Brad, this has been explained that they can't, right now that driveway, the existing driveway,is not in the easement area. So they're not allowed to use that,utilize that in the sense that it's a deeded easement. MR. TRAVER-They don't have permission. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-And you're trying to reach an agreement to use that. MR. CENTER-Correct. MRS. MOORE-At this point. MR.TRAVER-The other bit of information that we can offer the Board as well is that Town Counsel,there was an effort by Town Staff to reach out to Town Counsel for some guidance on this, and the Counsel rendered an opinion that it was permissible for the application to construct a driveway in this easement area. That doesn't resolve,obviously,the civil matter,but just to offer some guidance for this Board,since obviously we're not going to be able to adjudicate a civil matter,the guidance from Town Counsel is that this is permissible,what they're proposing. Now they're also,the applicant is offering that they're hoping they don't have to do this construction, but what's before us tonight, as an alternative to some other arrangement with the neighbor,we are informed from Counsel,is something that is permissible. MR. DEEB-It might be permissible,but I feel very uncomfortable getting in the middle of this litigation, making a decision. I would much rather see a resolved issue come and say this is what we need. MR. TRAVER-So would they. They would like to see it resolved as well. MRS. MOORE-So you're looking at a driveway that's being constructed due to its profile because it's greater than 100/o. It's no different than any other driveway that meets the requirements of Site Plan Review. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. DEEB-Right. It's just uncomfortable. We get in the middle of things. MR. TRAVER-It's a strange situation,but it's not our situation. MR. DEEB-I know,but it's just. MR. MAGOWAN-Can I ask a question? How close are we to an agreement,are you to an agreement? MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry,but that's not the purview of the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm just wondering because if we're close why can't we just table this? I don't feel comfortable doing this. MR.TRAVER-We can't table this based on something that's out of our control. It's a civil matter. I mean we've had applications before us that were involved in civil matters. That's outside of our purview. We have an application before us we either have to approve or deny. MR. MAGOWAN-So we're going to create a road going up. MR. TRAVER-No, we're not. We're simply looking at an application for a potential road that in the absence of an alternative arrangement with the neighbor would never be built. MR. MAGOWAN-And then it becomes a road. MRS. MOORE-It's a driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-It's widen enough to be a road and we already have stormwater issues in that neighborhood in heavy rains. MRS. MOORE-This driveway,unlike other driveways, actually was reviewed by the Town Engineer. So it's a civil matter between those two parties. This Board is being given direction about reviewing a driveway that's being constructed. MR. TRAVER-Now whether it's actually ever constructed or not is outside of our purview, and again we've had applications where we've approved plans that were never actually built. The question for us is, is what is proposed something that we can approve, outside of the civil matter. I know that there is the background of the civil issues. That's outside of our,we can't adjudicate that. We're simply looking at a proposed driveway. MR. DEEB-How much of this easement is not recognized? It's probably just a little piece. MR. TRAVER-It's marked right on the. MR. CENTER-If you see right here,the easement line runs,the heavy shaded is the new driveway. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR.CENTER-This edge is the easement. This edge with the heavy shaded is the easement. The easement continues right to that circle right there, and then comes here. So this location of the driveway that runs all the way here,this whole piece is outside the deeded area for use of Lot 9. So this area right here,this is the existing driveway that runs up and runs in here. The edge, the southern edge of the easement runs right down this line to this point right here and then changes and comes in this direction. So this portion of the driveway is outside of the easement,of the deeded easement. So that's why we're proposing to keep this road,as much as we could,in the,right on the edge of that deeded easement,comes out. So this small piece right here would go back to grass and then we're coming and crossing the driveway here, coming in and into the house on Lot 9. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're going to leave the other driveway? MR. CENTER-Yes. The other driveway is not on a parcel that we have any control over. MR. MAGOWAN-And the new driveway that you're proposing is going to drive up and the lights are going to shine right into the neighbor's house. MR. CENTER-At the top of the hill you say here? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,on Lot 10. MR. CENTER-They would if they were coming up the other driveway also. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Not as bad,because that driveway comes up and it's right in between the two houses. MR. CENTER-The driveway is within the deeded easement. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand that. The problem is when the driveway was put in, the deed didn't follow over. MR. CENTER-The deed was never carried over. When the driveway was put in outside of that property line a lot line adjustment was made,but the easement was never changed,the description of the easement was never changed to match the new driveway. MR. DEEB-That's what you're working on? MR. CENTER-Well we're working on trying to get permission to use the existing driveway. Is there a public hearing for this? MR.TRAVER-There is. I was just going to say. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SHEA MR. SHEA-Good evening. My name's John Shea. I'm an attorney in Saratoga Springs. I'm here to represent Russell Thomas who is here today and the other co-owner of the property who is not listed on the paperwork,his wife Tammy. MR. TRAVER-So you're representing the neighbor that has been spoken about regarding this? MR. SHEA-The Thomas'are the owners of Lot 10. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you for clarifying that. MR. SHEA-Basically there have been negotiations about this whole process since last March. Nothing has come to a resolution which is why the petitioner or applicant is here tonight. My clients cannot agree with what is being proposed. Basically you're asking,they're asking you to have a second driveway created on my clients'property, easement aside,that's going to cross his driveway. I have never seen that in any property in my life where there are two driveways on one parcel with a cross. Any time there's a cross there should be a red light,a stop sign,whatever. You've got potential safety problems in something like that. Again, you're correct. There are some problems with headlights going in and out being into the windows of the house that is currently owned by the Thomas'. I respectfully disagree with your Counsel. There is case law in New York out of the Court of Appeals and out of the Third Department that would say that you cannot put a paved driveway on an easement. MR. TRAVER-Well I can appreciate what you're saying, and we have had applications, a long history of applications where there are civil matters to be adjudicated, and we are not in a position to be able to adjudicate that. The best that we can have is advice from Town Counsel. You heard me repeat the information that we received. That's the only thing that we have to go on. The applicant before us tonight has indicated that there are ongoing negotiations, that the application that they have before us tonight they're hoping not to execute should it be approved,but they do have a right to make the application and we have to go, we have to abide by, or we have to consider the information that we have received from Counsel that this application is something that can be approved. Now the other aspects of it, subject to Planning Board approval, is a separate matter, but as far as the issue that you point out, it's making the driveway in the easement, the only information that we have is guidance from Counsel that says that in Counsel's opinion it is something that can be done. Now if you disagree with that obviously you have additional civil resolutions that you can pursue, but that's outside the purview of the Planning Board. We're simply looking at a driveway application. It's just as simple as that. I mean there are all these background unfortunate issues about the neighbors struggling to come to some agreement,but that's,we can't possibly get involved in that. That's something that's far beyond the purview of the Planning Board. I'm sure you appreciate that. MR. SHEA-I do appreciate that. There's also pending litigation regarding this property right now. Terre Majestic has sued the Thomas'. The Thomas'have cross claimed against Terre Majestic. The Thomas' has to do with damage to their property as a result of the building that was being constructed on Lot 9. MR.TRAVER-So theoretically anything that this Board would approve would be subject to a halt through the litigation that you're talking about. Correct? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. SHEA-I don't think you can approve it with the litigation pending. You could cause further damage which is also subject to the counter claim with the Thomas'and Terre Majestic. MR. LA SARSO-That's their right,though,to do that. I mean it's not been proven, right? That's just a claim. That's not been substantiated. We can't do anything with that. MR. TRAVER-That's beyond, again,beyond the purview of the Planning Board. MR. SHEA-I understand it's beyond the purview of the Planning Board, but an approval is going to be met with,unfortunately,litigation because there is nothing else that can happen. The case is currently in front of Judge Auffredou. There is discovery to be had. I won't explain the litigation process to you because it's not necessary,but the bottom line is. MR.LA SARSO-Are you saying that we shouldn't approve this because of that? Is that what you're saying? MR. SHEA-I'm saying you shouldn't approve it. MR. LA SARSO-Because there's active litigation. MR. SHEA-That's part of it,yes. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. MR. SHEA-Have you ever seen a driveway cross on a front yard in your life? MR. LA SARSO-That's not the question. Is your claim that we shouldn't approve this because there's ongoing civil matters? MR.SHEA-That's part of the reason I say you should disapprove it. Yes. You shouldn't approve it because of that reason as well. There's a safety reason. MR. LA SARSO-You haven't really spoken about the safety reason and, no offense to you, but you don't really have the experience to talk about the safety reason. You haven't given any evidence to that. Right? MR. SHEA-I believe I have practical experience in that regard. MR. LA SARSO-Could you speak to those safety problems that you've got,then? MR. SHEA-One consideration would be the fact that my client's septic system is located at least partially where they want to put this driveway. MR. LA SARSO-That would be a Board of Health issue,right,Laura,or would that be under our purview? MRS. MOORE-That would be under Building and Codes. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. So not us? Okay. MR. SHEA-But it's an issue that would have to be resolved at some point by some Town Board,whether it's this Board or someplace else. MR. TRAVER-Well it appears to me that there are a number of issues that need to be resolved and the applicant has already indicated, at least to us,and apparently to you at some point,that they're hoping to resolve it without having to construct this driveway,but what we're looking at is just a simple driveway application and these issues that are beyond our purview,that we are not involved with,and know little if anything about, and understand that you're representing and you're speaking for your client,but we have no way of appreciating the background of what you're saying or can be involved in a civil matter between litigants. I mean that's up to you to resolve. MR. SHEA-The original plan for this subdivision called for what was called a common driveway, one driveway,split,not crossing,split. I don't know where that's ever been changed or ever been approved for a change except for now, and in that respect I don't see how it makes any sense to approve it. MR. TRAVER-Well,we appreciate your opinion. MR. DEEB-Let me ask you this,where that driveway crosses,that's in the easement,where the white part goes into dark parts. That's part of the easement. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. SHEA-That's probably in the easement,yes. I'm not exactly sure,to be honest with you,looking at it. MR. DEEB-If it wasn't then you couldn't cross it. MR. SHEA-No,but I'm saying I'm sure it probably is. My point is that I don't know exactly where the easement is on that document. I'm presuming that he is correct. That's where the proposed driveway is laid out is within the easement. MR. MAGOWAN-What you said,though,you know,in the original plan there was a common driveway. Now we're talking two driveways,all right,a greater width and more stormwater and really it's the highest point in the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Well we're hoping it doesn't come to that. MR. MAGOWAN-That's why I'm asking if we could table this and put the pressure on the two to come up with an agreement. MR. TRAVER-That's outside of our purview. MR. MAGOWAN-I can't approve this. MR. TRAVER-Well,you don't have to approve it. You can vote the way you feel. That's why we have a Board. MR.MOLLOY-I would feel that if we were to defer on this that we would be deferring to what these folks want and that might be fine but that's making a choice, too. If we don't vote tonight that's making a choice,too,in the matter. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I agree. I understand. MRS. MOORE-I mean the applicant,you still do have,there's engineering. We haven't had the applicant address the engineering comments that came about. So you have to have the applicant discuss engineering. MR. TRAVER-Did you have any other public comment? MR. SHEA-I know that this says that it's greater than a 100/o grade. I'm just curious what the actual grade of this driveway is. It's not on the paper. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. SHEA-Not right now. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments, Laura? The applicant can return. MRS. MOORE-So this application,or this comment is,"To Whom It May Concern: We are writing this letter to go on record at the upcoming March 22 d public hearing regarding the proposed installation of a second driveway located at 23 High Pointe Drive,located at the highest elevation of the street. High Pointe Drive has experienced multiple episodes of flooding at the lowest elevation end of the street, located in front of 4 and 7 High Pointe Drive, where there are 2 dry wells that easily become overwhelmed by heavy rainfall. Many of the flooding episodes have been reported to the Town of Queensbury employees John Strough,Thomas Van Ness,and David Duell. The most severe failure of the dry wells occurred on February 25,2016 resulting in thousands of dollars of damage to our home,for which we were not reimbursed. The Town of Queensbury has made no improvements to the stormwater management on High Pointe Drive. This despite Mr. Duell acknowledging on July 1,2017 that there was"not adequate drainage",the current drainage is of"poor design", and"something needs to be done" after a heavy rainstorm flooded the street and, again,part of our property that day. We are not opposed to the installation of a second driveway at 23 High Pointe Drive,however,we are concerned that the additional impermeable hardscape will worsen the recurrent flooding at the low end of the street due to failure of the stormwater system. At a minimum, an additional dry well should be placed at the base of the proposed driveway adjacent to 21 High Pointe Drive. Additional stormwater mitigation should also be completed for the street as a whole as it is long overdue. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,McKenzie and Timothy Jones" MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well,let's close the public hearing,then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So with regard to the, I mean you heard our discussion with the public comment and you understand,I guess you've been involved in litigation or discussions with the neighbor,and we're obviously hoping that you're able to resolve this, or it sounds as though any approval on our part or potential construction on your part has potential to lead to further litigation, although perhaps in some ways an approval of this application might lead to putting more pressure on the parties to resolve the issues because I'm sure you don't want to build this driveway that you're proposing tonight if it can be avoided. Is that correct? MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I also, I see we have information from Hutchins Engineering about additional stormwater, again, for this new driveway should it be constructed. Do you want to talk about that,the stormwater concerns? MR. CENTER-The first one doesn't need to be addressed. That's a statement from the Town Engineer. The ones regarding 25 year design storm, we'll provide him the documentation that he needs for that. I had some questions for him. We provided the lower level of stormwater design and a basic plan with the 25 year design storm. I just wanted to see exactly what he's looking for,whether it's a whole lot. This is a little different. It's not like we're doing a single house on one lot. There's a house that's not in that. So I can provide the 25 year design for the trench and the driveway. That's what we're proposing,because we also have the existing driveway that's there that has no stormwater management. The other questions are in regards to providing an eaves trench and soils information which we would provide at the time if we did install the driveway. We'd do a test pit and a perc test, an infiltration test. We know we have deep well drained soils there. So that's not an issue. And the fifth one is in regards to erosion and sediment control providing silt fence which of course we would maintain that,and the last one is in regards to wells and this is Town water in this area so there are no wells. MR. TRAVER-So let me ask you this. Should your application for this backup plan for a driveway be approved,what kind of window of time do you have to continue negotiations before you actually have to begin construction of this,if you're not,in other words,how long do you have,what would be the window for coming to some kind of an agreement and still be able to avoid going ahead with this construction? MR. MEYER-We're in a situation where we're entering the building season, we're entering the paving season. So time is not necessarily on our side. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MEYER-We're certainly motivated to get done. We did put a stone construction entrance for folks that did visit the site. That's what's there. Were the pavement to be used,that would be kind of scraped and re-seeded whatever,but in terms of settlement and moving forward,if a settlement isn't possible,then we'd be kind of looking to improve the gravel that is there and provide a suitable base based on the stormwater controls and concerns, but we're probably, you know, in all honesty we'd like to have this wrapped up in a month. If there is room for an agreement then it shouldn't be overly complicated. I prepare easements every day,as does Mr.Shea. It's really up to whether the parties can agree to otherwise agree to terms. MR. TRAVER-Well, I understand that. I'm just kind of wondering, in terms of the potential for an agreement. So you're saying that there could be say a month,maybe until sometime next month,for which an agreement could be made and then after that you're going to have to say well I guess we have to go forward with construction. MR.MEYER-Yes,and that is possible,but I guess to Mr.LaSarso's point,whatever this Board decides,up, down, table, nothing, is the decision, and it could impact those negotiations quite frankly. We're here because there were no real honest discussions for extended periods of time but again we are re-hashing civil litigation before a Planning Board which is inappropriate. MR. TRAVER-Yes,no,we're not going to do that. No, I'm just wondering what the window was for an agreement. That's all. MR. DEEB-My insight here,I don't know if it's accurate or not,is if we act on this and we approve it,we are tipping the balance of the scales, because that put more pressure on the opposition to come to a settlement. I would feel a little more comfortable if we tabled this and gave you more time. I'm not saying for a long period of time. A short period of time, so that you could really get intense negotiations to try and settle this, and then if that didn't work,you'd come back with,whenever we table it to, and then we 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) act on it,but that would give us a little cooling off period to see if this can get settled, and if that doesn't happen,then if we have to act on it,we act on it. MR. TRAVER-Well my concern is that this is not the only application,nor is it likely to be,where there's a civil matter, and if we table something based on potential litigation,we're acting against the applicant I believe unfairly and we're also setting a practice that somebody can come in and say,well I think I'm going to do a lawsuit because I don't like this project and then are we going to table that again? MR. DEEB-I'm saying just the opposite of what you're saying. I'm saying it the opposite way. If we go ahead and approve this,this puts the all the pressure to get settled. There's really no reason to get settled and they can just go ahead. They're approved. They can do it any time they want and no settlement at all. I'm just saying I'd like to take us out of this for a week or two,or the next meeting,see if that can get done. If it doesn't get done,then it comes back and we act on it again and we're back,nothing's changed. MR. TRAVER-You're talking about one week,until the 29`h? MR. DEEB-No,I'm saying maybe next month. MR. MAGOWAN-He says he's out a month or two. MR.MEYER-Right,but you are changing things. Because the property is under contract. The CO is going to be issued shortly, and every day after the CO is issued that my client can't close you're costing them money. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I think that's unfair to the applicant. If we get involved by tabling this,we're getting involved in the civil matter. MR. DEEB-We are involved. Even if we approve it,we're involved in a civil matter. MR. TRAVER-No,we're not. We're just looking at a straight,we've gotten guidance from Counsel that we do not have to be involved in a civil matter. They have to settle that,not us,that the application that we have before us is within reason for us to look at on its own merit, and to table it because of a problem with the application is one thing,but to table it because we want to put pressure on the applicants,I think we're setting a practice. MR. MAGOWAN-This is just a ridiculous application, and it's two people that can't sit down and come head to head. MR. TRAVER-That's not our problem. MR. MAGOWAN-I've got to think for the neighborhood,the aesthetics of the neighborhood,and to drive up there and see a highway going up to the hilltop,to the two houses where it crisscrosses is just ridiculous when there's already an existing driveway to me that just works perfectly, and I drove up that driveway. Instead of walking up I drove up the existing driveway, all right, and then turned around and came down the other one, and I'm worried about the stabilization of the bank. MR. TRAVER-That's an engineering issue that they need to resolve with the Town Engineer. MR.LA SARSO-And if you don't approve that you're going to tilt the scale. What you're saying right now is essentially you support what those folks are saying,that their plan makes more sense, and if that's what you believe that's fine,but that's taking a side here in the civil matter. If we approve this all we're doing is giving them another chance to go sit down again,re-hash this out,with the stakes having changed. If we go back,we're going to just tilt it back in their favor. MR. DEEB-I feel if we do act on it we have taken sides. Either way,either side you're taking a side,either way you do it we are choosing a side. Okay. MR. LA SARSO-Absolutely. MR. DIXON-So I know the concerns over litigation. I have a couple of questions specific to the site plan, too. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DIXON-So it was brought up as far as where septic or leach field was in relation to the driveway. I don't have that on the plan. For Lot 10 it sounded like there's some level of septic that's going to be near the road. So I do have concern that. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. CENTER-I don't believe the septic goes down the slope, but that is easy enough to, if you want to make that condition, we can research with the Town Building Department to get the as built location. I tried to look it up on the phone and I can't see that. I would accept that as a condition of approval. We will confirm that the septic system nor will it be affected by the proposed driveway. I believe the house is further back. MR. TRAVER-Well that would certainly be a reasonable condition. MR. DIXON-And what do we normally have,I mean with driveways we don't normally get into setbacks from septic. MRS. MOORE-So I think the engineering is, I could be inaccurate about this, but in reference to the drainage pattern that's being proposed, what's the proximity to the septic system, and that's probably what Chazen,or LaBella is looking for. MR. TRAVER-And engineering signoff is required for any approval. So are there any concerns regarding the specifics of the driveway? I understand and I've heard concerns about the potential impacts on litigation or whatever,but if we can confine our discussion at this stage to the specific application that's in front of us. We heard a concern regarding the potential impact on septic. That's going to be a condition. Are there any other concerns with regard to the driveway itself? MR. LA SARSO-Does it need to be 12 feet? Is that set in stone? Could it be 10, S feet? Is there a reason for it to be that wide,I guess? MR. CENTER-The standard vehicle is eight feet. MR. TRAVER-To accommodate the vehicle. MR. CENTER-You've got to be able to get a vehicle up there,be able to navigate the curve. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. MR. DIXON-At the top of the driveway where there's going to be contention, where the two driveways cross,how is that. MR. CENTER-Actually we're coming out now different than the original. We're coming out a little bit and then you make that turn around the corner. So I mean obviously it's a driveway. People are going to be able to see each other. You're talking about a 12 foot wide driveway with a car coming down. There's plenty of sight distance at the top that you can see somebody coming down. Somebody at the top coming down into the driveway is going to be able to see anything coming up towards them and the same thing at the same level at the top. Somebody comes from the house area. MR. TRAVER-Again,the fundamental irony of this whole thing is you have this application before us,but you're hoping not to have to build it. MR. CENTER-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-And I was just looking with all the asphalt there as far as would there be consideration for something more permeable? In my mind I'm trying to think, it's obvious there's already contention between the two driveways. MR. TRAVER-Well there is,we did receive comment on stormwater. MR. CENTER-We have the infiltration trench. We are grading into drainage to the outside, to the infiltration trenches . We have deep well drained sands to capture that. If we have to enhance that, I think near the bottom we can make a small turn near the bottom,we can talk with the Town Engineer and work on that. MR. DIXON-All right. And snow removal? That was one thing when I went out on the site it was one of our warmer days which was actually nice to see. So what I had noticed,if the driveway is going to follow where the crushed stone is currently,so for snow removal,if anything goes off to the side,if I was the owner of Lot 23, it just looked like everything was going to tumble down in there. So that was probably one of my concerns as far as,how do we keep the stormwater truly on the property,winter,spring.,summer and fall? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR.CENTER-The snow will go obviously on the driveway that we're proposing. The snow will go to the north along that side of the driveway. You have the infiltration trench underneath it. Again there'd be snow there just like there would be on the lawn. MR. DIXON-Do you think there's enough room for it? MR. CENTER-There's probably about, at the bottom there's probably eight to ten feet that gets wider as you go up the property so there's more room. MR. TRAVER- MR. DIXON- That's a lot of snow, and it didn't seem like there was that much space. I see where the property markers are and when I did the site visit the property marker was actually downhill. MR. CENTER-I believe that there are some stakes out there for the easement area for the crushed stone that that was laid out. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you have a length of the original easement? MR. CENTER-A length? Yes. MR. MEYER-It's 164 feet. You can actually see the dimension at the top. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought that was the property line,164. MR. MEYER-Right,and those two lines are parallel. MR. MAGOWAN-And that's the right of the easement. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And that 164 feet goes up to where that 30.00 mark is? Is it that pipe or is it to the bend? That first bend right there underneath the end. That's 164 feet. MR. CENTER-The property line is 134.49 to a rod,then it turns slightly another 52.5 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-That's on the existing driveway side. I'm talking on the north side. MR. MEYER-The north side is 164 feet to that point. MR. MAGOWAN-To the first bend. MR. MEYER-Correct. The south side it's 179.17 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-That I see. So your easement right is for 164 feet. MR. CENTER-On the north side. MR. MEYER-On the north side. MR. MAGOWAN-So that would bring you to the first bend. MR. MEYER-Our easement right is everything within that. MR. MAGOWAN-So that would bring you to that first angular bend there. And then you have it coming across the front yard and the crisscrossing. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So actually this driveway is longer than your easement,from what I'm seeing. MR. MEYER-No,the driveway is than the easement. MR. MAGOWAN-You only have 164 in length. MR. CENTER-That's on the north side. MR. MEYER-That's on the north side. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. CENTER-It's not on the south side of the easement. MR. MEYER-Laura pulled up the original subdivision from 1993 that shows the driveway. It shows the original easement. MR. CENTER-I believe the original plan also said for two vehicles to be able to cross. Correct? MR. MEYER-Yes,it talked about a 20 foot wide driveway, wide enough for two vehicles to cross. That was what this Board said in 1993,or 1995. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I was looking at prints for what was filed in Warren County and all the houses on Round Pond were supposed to be shared driveways and there's not one over there. Now we've got ponding. MR. CENTER-I'm working with Mr.Hajos on that. MR. MAGOWAN-I know you are,pal. So can you go back,Laura. No,not that one,the one you just had up. Can you enlarge that? Okay. So you look at that driveway now. See this is what's so, since there was a lot line adjustment,and I look at this. So you're following the original print of the driveway. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. MEYER-Correct. That's what we have rights to. MR. MAGOWAN-And you guys can't come to an agreement to,if anything, get that driveway to follow the. MR. TRAVER-Well now we're getting back into the civil thing again. I mean we have to look at what we have before us. MR. MEYER-The owner on Lot 11 won't allow us to cross his driveway, either. We just don't have the right to do it. We don't have the right to mandate it. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't think you have a right to go on someone's property and just rip it all up either, in my opinion,but me and law,I sometimes just don't understand it. You've got put on a different hat for that. MR. TRAVER-So they need to come to an agreement. That's the bottom line. MR. CENTER-And discussions are ongoing. They have been ongoing since the beginning to try to come to an agreement to use the existing driveway. It's not like we came, it's not like we said no agreement. We're just going to build our own driveway. Discussions were started. Things were contention as you know,and we are here as kind of a last resort to have the right to do this,not to say we are going to do this, but to have the right to do this,but continue negotiations,because I believe our client does not want to have this continue to have this drag on but also would not want to have a big large driveway going up to it. That would have to be maintained. So it behooves both to sit down,but we do have a right to have a driveway to have access to Lot 9. I guess that's what brought us here. We weren't able to come to an agreement. We have this proposed. I'm not saying that we're stopping negotiations and walking away from this,but we need to know that we have the right because we can't get a CO to access the house for these folks that are under contract. The house is almost completed. Will be completed within a month. MR. TRAVER-That's why I was asking what kind of a window you had, again, asking to have this approved so that we have the right to do this,and then move forward with negotiations and hopefully we maintain the existing driveway,repair it,move on and be done of this matter without having to build the second driveway. MR. MEYER-This is the third time we're here for this house. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MEYER-If we had felt we needed this the first time. MR. TRAVER-So you can understand some concerns and why the Board is not unified on this. Usually we have pretty broad agreement and I think in many respects we do tonight,but there are some concerns and they're legitimate. Where, as an individual Board member,where are you coming from sort of as you look at this application. So I think perhaps a reasonable step would be for us to consider the resolution, the approval resolution,and see where we're at as far as votes go. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR.LONGACKER Just one more question,sir. You mentioned the road,the new driveway would be like 110/o, and that's the existing. You also mentioned you're going to grade to the infiltrating trench there north. I don't see any new grading lines on there,so I guess your intent would probably be to just maintain the existing grade. MR. CENTER-Our intent is just to maintain the existing grade, but when we do it to pitch it towards, because we can't disturb the existing driveway because it's out of our control. So the attempt with the arrows is when we grade this is to flow arrows to shed and to drain into the trench. MR.LONGACKER-Okay. So I'm just looking at say Elevation 4S9 down to High Pointe Drive there,those right there, obviously your flow arrows are perpendicular to your contours. They're not just going to go straight down the hill from 4S9 down. MR. MAGOWAN-Your flow is going to go to 93. MR. CENTER-The intent is to grade,to give is a slight pitch,to grade towards the trench and capture it. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't see a trench there. MR. CENTER-It's on the scale. There's the detail with stone trench at the edge of the driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got to maintain that otherwise it's going to go down to Lot 23 that has an open basement where we've had water issues there going all the way down to the neighbor down below and then the one at the bottom where it floods. MR. CENTER-There are no stormwater controls on the existing driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-I believe there was stone that was put down along the, at the time it was built I was told. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well,let's hear the resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-I have one more question. When did it change from Birdsall address to High Pointe? MR. CENTER-I believe it's always been High Pointe. MR. MAGOWAN-No, it's funny because Verizon and the marketing people were looking for such and such a number on Birdsall, and I said well the only new construction is up there on the hill. MR. CENTER-It's a High Pointe address. MR. DIXON-What's the overall length of the driveway when it's all said and done? MR. TRAVER-You mean just the new driveway? MR. DIXON-The new driveway. MR. CENTER-I don't have the exact length of it. MR. DIXON-It doesn't require Fire Marshal signoff? MR. CENTER-It's shorter than the existing driveway. MR. DIXON-I'm just wondering if any of our standards or codes have changed that require Fire Marshal signoff. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS.MOORE-When applications are received in our office we share that information with other entities in our Department and that includes the Fire Marshal. I didn't hear any comments from the Fire Marshal. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-And the last question I have,I thought I saw an engineering comment regarding a perc test. MR. CENTER-Correct. I said we will address that. MR. TRAVER-They need to resolve that to get engineering signoff. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. CENTER-We'll perform a perc test and provide that information,but again we know that this area has deep well drained sands. MR. DIXON-So the only stipulation or item is proximity of the driveway to the septic. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. DIXON-And requires engineering signoff. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-I'm ready if you are. MR. TRAVER-Yes,let's hear it. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#17-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: The applicant owner of lot 9 of Highpoint Drive proposes to install a 3,200 sq.ft. driveway within the deeded easement area on the parcel of 23 Highpoint Drive,lot 10. The driveway to be 100/o plus grade. There will be two driveways located at 23 Highpoint Drive,lot 10,the proposed driveway to be adjacent to the existing driveway.Lot 9 is currently under construction for a single family home. The project includes stormwater management along the new driveway area.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-9-020,179-6-060,development of the driveway at a 100/o grade shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 3/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 3/22/2022,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 3/22/2022; 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 17-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS (TERRE MAJESTIC HOLDINGS,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; 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; 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) 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 1) Driveway's proximity to the septic is identified and will need to be reviewed by Town Engineer prior to construction. Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 22 d day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb ABSENT: Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-So we have not approved the resolution. So we have not voted to deny,but we have not voted to approve. So you've heard some discussion about potentially tabling,and I know that for the most part, as I recall the discussion, a lot of the concern and the no votes are because the feeling was that they wanted to be able to get a resolution on the existing driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-You're putting words in our mouth. We might have other reasons why. I personally totally wrong,that two grown men should be able to get together. It's just ridiculous. MRS. MOORE-I guess I'll interject here,in reference to recusing yourself. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I was able to stay. MRS. MOORE-I understand that. MR. MAGOWAN-I have concerns with this driveway and the way it's been designed. MRS. MOORE-So, Mr. Traver,if the Board decides to table the application, or the applicant requests to be tabled further to evaluate negotiations,then there is room on the April agenda,either meeting. MR.TRAVER-That would be within their one month maximum window. If we were to table this to April 19. MR. MEYER-Could I ask why? Based on a Code? MR.TRAVER-Well,right now,a motion to approve was not approved. So we have two choices. We can either table it,consider a motion to table or consider a motion to deny. Right now we have taken no action. MR. DEEB-If we table it,it would give you some more time to negotiate. If it comes back again, and you have not gotten anywhere,I would re-consider my decision. MR. TRAVER-Yes,you might be in a much better position to get approval. MR. DEEB-I would certainly re-consider. It gives you a little longer time at this point. MR. MEYER-In terms of design considerations,and the authority of this Board to review a site plan,.for a residential driveway in the Town of Queensbury, what are we working with? Should we just pay the $30,000 that my client. MR. LA SARSO-Brad,you have concerns. Can you speak to those? Do you not have concerns? MR. MAGOWAN-I don't think I need to speak out on my terms on this side of the table. My concerns were more of the design and the need for not,for a driveway. MR. LA SARSO-What design concerns? Is there a design concern that they could get,irrespective of the civil lawsuit here that you'd be able to get to a yes on? Is there some design here you think you could get to? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-I think if we come to a better design of the layout of the driveway that conforms with an existing driveway,yes,I can get a yes out of that. MR. MEYER-We can narrow the entrance. MR.MAGOWAN-No,I'm not changing my mind tonight. You said we've got a month or two. I'm hoping you can do it. MR. MEYER-You're literally taking money from my client. MR. MAGOWAN-Why are you looking at me? I'm not the only no. MR. MEYER-I understand that. You were the one talking. I was responding to you. MR. MAGOWAN-You're right I'm the one who's talking, but I'm looking out for the benefit of the neighborhood and the stormwater and the flooding that occurs there that nobody else sees because I live there. MRS.MOORE-There's another meeting next week. I'm just,I don't know where to send you at this point, either. MR. TRAVER-Well, I don't think that we have the votes for a denial. So we're basically, I believe, left with a tabling. I don't know,you know,it's a very uncomfortable situation because I'm concerned that we're setting a practice,if somebody objects to an application and comes in they can simply threaten to sue, and then we have to stall the application,which is what the people opposed to the application would want and I don't think that's a position that the Town should be in. I can understand some latitude if it's the Board's desire, extreme desire, that the applicant reach out to the neighbor one more time to try to grant,to try to get a resolution,but I don't think that it should go on indefinitely. That's not fair to the applicant. So what if we table this. I mean it sounds like the positions are pretty firm of the two parties. Why don't we table it to next week. We have another meeting on the 29`h and let them have some conversations between now and then and if they can't get a resolution,we'll re-consider it. MR. DEEB-I'm fine with that. MR. TRAVER-Would you consider a tabling until next Tuesday, a week from today? MR. MEYER-That's acceptable. MR. TRAVER-How do Board members feel about that? Give them a week? All right. Do you want to put together a quick motion for one week until the 29`h. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#17-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS The applicant owner of lot 9 of Highpoint Drive proposes to install a 3,200 sq. ft. driveway within the deeded easement area on the parcel of 23 Highpoint Drive,lot 10.The driveway to be 100/o plus grade. There will be two driveways located at 23 Highpoint Drive,lot 10,the proposed driveway to be adjacent to the existing driveway. Lot 9 is currently under construction for a single family home. The project includes stormwater management along the new driveway area. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-9-020, 179-6- 060,development of the driveway at a 100/o grade shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 17-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS (TERRE MAJESTIC HOLDINGS, LLC.). Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled by the Planning Board until the March 29,2022 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 22 d day of March 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I do have a question,whether you're going to keep the public hearing closed? MR. TRAVER-I actually closed it already but I will re-open it in view of the tabling. Thank you, Laura. so we'll re-open a public hearing. We'll leave it open until we re-hear this application assuming the tabling motion passes. So we'll re-open the public hearing. AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Molloy 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) ABSENT: Mr.Valentine PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you next week. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business,and the first application under Old Business is Ronald Seguljic, Site Plan 9-2022. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 9-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. RONALD SEGULJIC. AGENT(S): EDP (MAC ELROY,KEIL). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 32 FOREST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALTER THE EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 276 SQ. FT. ADDITION,A 156 SQ. FT. PATIO AREA AT THE REAR,AN 84.5 SQ. FT. COVERED FRONT PORCH,AND A LOWER LEVEL FOR A GARAGE AND LIVING AREA OF 1,237.83 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, WELL, DRIVEWAY AREA, AND SWALE AREAS. THE EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT OF 965 SQ.FT.WITH A 190 SQ.FT.PORCH/DECK. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 965 SQ.FT.AD THE PROPOSE IS 2,592.71 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MARCH 2O22. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: .26 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-41 SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is in reference to constructing a 276 square foot addition to an existing home,156 square foot patio area to the rear,an 54.5 square foot covered front porch and it will improve the lower level with a garage and living area. Their variance was granted on 3/16/2022 and that was in reference to floor area and setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Thank you. Yes. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Ron Seguljic, the owner and applicant of this Site Plan Review application. As Laura indicated, we did receive, obviously, the variances that were requested in this and it's now for Site Plan Review. The Seguljics would like to consider this in the near future for their retirement home. It's basically a seasonal property right now. It's located on Forest Road which is an interior property on Assembly Point in the Shore Colony Association area. They would propose to remove the existing foundation crawl space. That's all that it amounts to,and raise the house. Larman Brothers would come in and j ack it up and put a full foundation constructed beneath that that adds some floor area,living space, a garage,an attached garage. So that's the basic improvements to the house. As a result we're providing a replacement absorption field for the septic system. The existing tank is inadequate shape. So this D Box and Elgin Geotextile sand system would be installed and stormwater management areas as well to now have some formal stormwater management on site. It currently is served by the Shore Colony water district which is a seasonal district as you know. So a new proposed well is included in the northeast corner of the lot. So those are the site improvements that would be included with the house. MR. TRAVER-So when we looked at this for the referral last week, and you went before the ZBA, were there any changes to your proposal as a result of the ZBA meeting? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. TRAVER-No. Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.DIXON-I think the one question that I had goes back to the original as far as the trees. The trees that were on the property weren't noted as far as which ones were staying and which ones were going. Are you able to comment on that? MR. MAC ELROY-I saw that in the Staff Notes. Yes,there aren't any trees that would be removed on the site that don't exist now. MR. DIXON-All right. So it's safe to say that any trees that are there,they're going to remain. 3S (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. It's a fairly open lot except for right around the perimeter of the home. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. I don't see anyone in the audience,I don't think,that wants to comment. Are there any written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are. I think there's several. So I think I can group all these together. Okay. So the following are in support. I'm just going to read their names. They did have other comments about knowing the property owners and are familiar with the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-This is Frederick C.and Mary Ellen Tedeschi,and they're at 12 Forest Road. An individual, Jeff and Zoe Greenwood of 222 Lake Parkway. David Wilcox and Vicki Zeldin of 26 Forest Road. Jennifer and Steven Kitchen at 40 Forest Road. And Patricia Kileen of 15 Forest Road. This one's also for this. Sharon and Jack Overton of 20 Forest Road. And then the only other comment,and Dennis can respond to this as well, is We were provided with information in regards to a well being drilled that was nearby, and it's not impacting this applicant's septic system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. I will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any questions, comments from members of the Board? No changes to this after the ZBA review. I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. DIXON-Before we do that motion, Mr. Chairman, do you want anything in there as far as existing trees on property to remain? MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's good. Thank you. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#9-2022 RONALD SEGULJIC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to alter the existing home to construct a 276 sq.ft.addition,a 156 sq.ft.patio area at the rear,an 54.5 sq.ft.covered front porch, and a lower level for a garage and living area of1,237.53 sq. ft. The project includes a new septic system, well,driveway area,and swale areas.The existing home footprint of 965 sq.ft.with a 190 sq.ft.porch/deck. The existing floor area is 965 sq.ft. and the proposed is 2,592.71 sq.ft.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179- 6-065,site plan for a new floor plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 3/15/2022-1 the ZBA approved the variance requests on 3/16/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 3/22/2022,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 3/22/2022; 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 9-2022 RONALD SEGULiIC;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, 1. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details, ,q. soil logs,r.construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these are reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) 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. 1) Existing trees on property will remain. Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 22 d day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda, also under Old Business,is Katharine Seelye, Site Plan 11-2022. SITE PLAN NO.11-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE IL KATHARINE SEELYE. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE(ETHAN HALL). O WNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 14 CROOKED TREE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND STORY DORMER OF 136 SQ.FT.AND INTERIOR ALTERATIONS. THE DORMER ADDITION IS TO BE OPEN BELOW AND THE EXISTING LOFT WILL BE ENCLOSED FOR A BUNK ROOM. THE PROJECT INCLUDES FACADE CHANGES WITH NEW WINDOW INSTALLATION ON THE MAIN AND UPPER FLOORS. NO SITE WORK IS PROPOSED. THERE ARE TO BE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING HOME'S FOOTPRINT OF 1,209 SQ. FT., 700 SQ. FT. DECK/PORCH AND FLOOR AREA OF 2,778 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179- 13-010,179-6-050,SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 22-2003, SP 59-2007,AV 29-2001,AV 17-2003, SP 55-2017,AV 53-2017,AV 70- 2017, AV 9-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2O22. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-10. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-13- 010,179-6=050. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-This application is for a second dormer,a second story dormer of 136 square feet,including interior alterations. The application went before the Zoning Board of Appeals which granted the relief for setbacks to the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back again. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records I'm Ethan Hall, I'm a principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture,here tonight representing Katharine Seelye. The project is basically as we had discussed at the referral meeting. We did get the needed zoning variances at the Zoning Board the following evening and we're back here tonight just for final Site Plan Review. There's obviously no changes to the building footprint itself. This is really just a volume change to the building. MR. TRAVER-Yes. No site work proposed. No changes to the site. MR.HALL-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There is a public hearing on this application as well. We don't have a public anymore. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we will open and subsequently close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-1 have a question. So the windows that are going in,you said that they're anti-glare? MR.HALL-They're non-reflective glass. MR. DIXON-So we ran into that with another applicant. Is that a coating that's applied after the fact or is it ordered that way? MR.HALL-No,you can order the windows,they're called glare resistant glass. MR. DIXON-I just want to file that away for the future. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That's not the Low E is it? MR.HALL-Yes,it's the emissivity that they add to the inside of the glazing so you have insulated glass. MR. TRAVER-So it's the same as Low E? MR.HALL-Yes, anything that's a Low E glass is basically a non-reflective. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR.HALL-It's the coating that goes on the inside of the glass so they can't be scratched off on the outside. So it's the air space between the glass. MR. MAGOWAN-All those films and there's not an air pocket in any of that glass? MR.HALL-There is. Actually they are starting to make,Harvey Windows are starting to make. It actually comes right from Cardinal Glass. Cardinal has three different plants around the United States that they make float glass and we actually went to the plants to watch float glass being made. It's pretty intense. It's called float glass because it floats on liquid tin. When the molten glass comes in it floats on top of liquid tin and that's what gives it the flatness. It almost looks like ribbon candy when it comes out. It's Pretty intense. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else on the Seelye application from the Board? All right. I guess we're ready for a motion. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#11-2022 KATHARINE SEELYE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a second story dormer of 136 sq.ft. and interior alterations. The dormer addition is to be open below and the existing loft will be enclosed for a bunk room. The project includes facade changes with new window installation on the main and upper floors. No site work is proposed. There are to be no changes to the existing home's footprint of 1,209 sq.ft.,700 sq.ft. deck/porch and floor area of 2,77E sq.ft.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010,179-6-050, site plan for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 3/15/2022-1 the ZBA approved the variance requests on 3/16/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 3/22/2022 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 3/22/2022; 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 11-2022 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted:g.site lighting,h.signage,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping,n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal are reasonable to request as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/22/2022) MR. TRAVER-Let's see, is there anything else before the Board tonight? Just a reminder, we do have a third meeting this month. Laura and I were kind of having a discussion about whether we actually needed it or not. It turns out it's a good thing we did. If there's nothing else,we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 22ND 2022,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael Dixon: Duly adopted this 22 d day of March,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks,everybody. We'll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 43