Loading...
03-29-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING THIRD REGULAR MEETING MARCH29Tr,2022 INDEX Site Plan No.17-2022 Foothills Builders(Terre Majestic Holdings,LLC) 1. Tax Map No.296.5-1-17 Site Plan No.51-2021 Brett&Pamela West(Main House) 13. Tax Map No.226.15-1-17 Site Plan No.15-2022 Sharon Serini 14. FWW Permit 2-2022 Tax Map No.240.9-1-16.12 Site Plan No.IS-2022 Harris Bay Yacht Club 24. Special Use Permit 1-2022 Tax Map No.240.-1-23.1 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 Meeting 03/29/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING THIRD REGULAR MEETING MARCH 29TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN JACKSON LA SARSO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN MOLLOY MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'll go ahead and get started. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,March 29`h,2022. This is our third meeting for the month of March and our seventh meeting thus far for 2022. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency, that is your way out. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device if you would turn it off or silence the ringer we'd appreciate it,so as not to interrupt our proceedings. We also ask that aside from the public comment portion of the meeting,if you wish to have a conversation amongst yourselves,if you would go to the outer lobby for that part of your conversation we'd appreciate it. We do record the meeting and keep the minutes and so on. So we appreciate the silence. And,let's see,with that we'll get started. This evening we have no administrative items. So we'll move right to our regular agenda. The first item first section is Tabled Items and the first item is Foothills Builders (Terre Majestic Holdings,LLC) Site Plan 17-2022. OLD BUSINESS: 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 2022. 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? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, after last week it has been brought to my attention that I might be a little bit closer than I should be. I would like to recuse myself from sitting up here and be able to join for public comment if I may. MR. TRAVER-Yes,sir,you certainly may. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thank you. So noted. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry,Laura. Go ahead. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MRS. MOORE-That's all right. So we had tabled this application last week in hopes that the applicant and neighbor could come to some agreement and so we're back at it with the development of the driveway. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,and I'll note that we did,there was a motion made to approve this at the last meeting and we had insufficient votes to pass it. So our option,the option at that point was to table it,and we decided to table it to this meeting. So I'll welcome the applicant back. Good evening. MR. MEYER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again for the record my name is Jeff Meyer with Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell on behalf of the applicant, and with me is Tom Center, the engineer who designed the drywell. So again,yes,we're back here to review and hopefully consider approval of a driveway that has been constructed or designed based on guidance from the original subdivision approval from the 90's. It is on property that we have an easement and rights to cross. It's not on property that we don't have an easement or rights to cross. It is Code compliant. We agreed to address the engineering comments that were raised. There was extensive discussion,we'll say,about the existence of the easement,parties coming to some kind of an agreement,and I know that you had opinion of Counsel and I see that Town's Counsel is here. You've obviously of the opinion that the municipalities jurisdiction lies in whether the application complies with the municipality's rules and regulations. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. MEYER-And we believe it does. To the extent that there remains an opportunity for a settlement, we are pursuing that. We received a counter offer to our proposal Monday afternoon. We also countered to that,but as often in these instances,you know,the last yard is always the hardest yard. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, again, as I did last week, I would point out to you as well as the public that commented that the civil issues are beyond the purview of the Planning Board. We really are not in a position, nor should be consider that. We have to confine ourselves to the application before us and to the Site Plan Review. I mean that traditionally is our role and this is a good example of why we operate that way. We can't get involved in civil issues. It's fortunately uncommon that there be litigation between various landowners and objectors and so on,and we're simply,that is beyond our purview to get involved in. So it sounds as though you're in essentially the same situation you were when we reviewed this application last week in that you've been in ongoing discussions to try to avoid the necessity of building this as an alternative to getting permission or whatever to use the driveway that's there now. MR. MEYER-We're still pursuing. In good faith the one piece of information is that we did confirm the location of the septic on Lot 10 on the side of the easement area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think that we basically as far as the application itself,other than the engineering issues which you are in the process of resolving and signoff from the Town Engineer is required as you know. So I think that all of those issues as far as that part of the Site Plan has been largely resolved. So if you have nothing further,I'll open it up to members of the Planning Board for comment or questions. Does anyone have any additional questions for the applicant with regard to the Site Plan? MR. DIXON-I don't have any additional questions,but I do have a statement that I'll make. So one of my concerns at the last meeting was really as far as where the stormwater runoff was going to be. I know we had the engineering comments. I did go out there,whatever day we had the rain. So at quarter of seven I went out there to observe the area and I didn't see any issues. So from that perspective my concerns were addressed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think our next step is to again consider a motion to approve this application. There is a public comment. We had taken public comment, closed the public hearing, but then we re- opened it again when we ended up tabling the application to this evening. So the public hearing is in fact open again on this application and I will ask again in the audience,is there anyone that wanted to make public comment to the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir. If you would come up and get on the microphone because we do record the minutes for the meeting. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED T.J. CLANCY MR. CLANCY-Good evening,Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is T.J. Clancy. This is my mother Liz Clancy. We are co-residents of 21 Highpoint Drive where Lot 23 is depicted on the land plot,basically at the very bottom of the hill that abuts the easement in Lot 10 that we're talking about,or ground zero as we sometimes refer to it. Last week to your credit I understand the issue of saying civil issues are outside the purview of the Board,but it's not a perfect world and there's no way to consider this without at least,you know,your situational awareness of this going on,and there's a few comments that I would like to make in regards to that,how it affects us as a community in this neighborhood that I do think are within your purview. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Well,I can respond that the Board is certainly aware that the applicant,should they get an approval,is hoping that it isn't necessary to build this driveway as it's proposed in hopes that a resolution can be reached with the neighbor,but again that's extraneous to our,we have to look at the engineering, the site plan itself. MR. CLANCY-And I have thoughts on all of that if you'll indulge me. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go ahead. MR. CLANCY-My first thought on that is I understand that they made a comment that they hope to not have to do this,but this has been months,and months of ongoing impasse kind of coming to a conclusion. You also gave them an additional week,even though there supposedly is some sort of progress,they're still at an impasse. A decision hasn't been made and I think reasonably looking at this I would have to assume as a person that lives there that it's not likely going to be resolved. The likelihood of this,if you were to approve this driveway application, of that being their course of action, I think that's highly likely. From many,many years of doing these sort of things in the military,I can tell you that the solution is always path of least resistance,the one with the least friction,the one that avoids conflicts and also often favors the one who has the most resources involved, It's my belief that if it were approved I believe the engineer made the comment last week that their plan is simply to pave the existing gravel that's there. That wasn't graded or prepared in anyway. It was just put down so they could access it. Their solution would be just to pave that,close on the house and ultimately move on. I think this is problematic because as it exists,the existing driveway acts as an aqueduct. It delivers all kinds of water and refuse and runoff to the neighborhood and it causes detrimental problems that have been addressed in the Jones' letter that I'll give it to you. Mr. Magowan has pointed out a number of the issues, and I'm here also to kind of capitalize on that as well. One of the problems that we have is that the existing easement as it is,if I may. One of the primary issues is if you can see where,that existing driveway is in this vicinity. All of this area up here is,for all intents and purposes,permeable ground. It's, I would like to say grass but it's not maintained. So it's more of like weeds and sticks and twigs and such,but it's organic material that absorbs a lot of the rain,the runoff. Now for lack of any kind of adequate irrigation to help,we kind of got lucky in that this acts as sort of our only natural line of defense when it rains. That absorbs a lot of that rain water,okay. Not all of it. A lot of it comes down that hill and still dumps into our backyard and over the years it's caused a lot of damage. A few years ago we have to replace our deck to the tune of$15,000 because over the last couple of decades all the runoff that does come down has eroded the foundation of our deck. Mr. Charles Fry had to come out. I had an extensive conversation with him about how to mitigate this problem and he said all you can do is re-build it because the situation is not optimal,without some irrigation solution it's going to happen again. MR. TRAVER-I can offer, and I don't know if you have seen the engineering analysis of this application that's before us this evening,but I can offer that the Town Engineer is very concerned about stormwater. There are pretty extensive and strict regulations within the Town for stormwater,and the applicant,if this were being constructed as proposed,is adding additional stormwater management features. So it might actually improve your situation,ironically, should this be built,but in any case the engineering has to be such that it is approved and signed off on in terms of design and function by the Town of Queensbury engineer. MR.CLANCY-Okay. Now my understanding is in 1993 engineers,planners,developers all came together and put together a pretty amazing plan that would have worked very well. When you put up that diagram and I compared it to what I know to be true out there,that's not a world that we live in out there. When you say that there are engineers that are planning to do this,you know,track record would indicate that doesn't inspire very much confidence,not to mention that the entities involved that would be responsible for that are the same entities that were responsible and failed, and they're the same entities that just recently built three new properties over the hill that has resulted in catastrophic flooding on Round Pond Road,even in modest rain. We have to drive into oncoming traffic or through the rain waters,completely circumvent Round Pond as a result of that. So I understand that,but as a resident who lives out there who's kind of looking at this and saying,you know,what's really going to happen,that doesn't inspire very much confidence. MR. TRAVER-So do I understand essentially your comment, because we do need to move on. Do I understand essentially your comment is that you oppose this proposed driveway on the main grounds that it's going to exacerbate the stormwater runoff situation? MR. CLANCY-Absolutely, and I can show you. I can bring out Adam York from York Enterprises to talk about all the damage control we had to do. We had to rip the back side of our house off and have basically like a pool lining put on the back of our house to deal with,and this is as it currently exists. This is before putting in,my concern,if I could go back to address the permeability issue,is if a driveway were to be put in,it would remove a predominant amount of that natural barrier that we would have,and if you sit on our deck,I don't know if when you went out and had the site survey and said you didn't notice any problems, but did you go up along that barrier between the two houses behind us and look at the damage That's done? If you sit on our deck and look over,it's like looking at a wall where the driveway,where the gravel, 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) where the driveway would be. It is pitched so severely that it's just a ramp and that would end up acting as an aqueduct that would just dump metric tons of snow and ice and water not only down that,right now it kind of follows the driveway. If you put a new driveway and it's pitched, all of that's going in our backyard. I believe Mr. Deeb made a comment to that effect last week. His concern was if the snow was, how are we going to handle the snow on that? Are you going to plow it all to that north side and it's just going to come down. MR. TRAVER-I appreciate what you're saying. I can only reiterate that this is subject to engineering review and a major portion of that is stormwater and snow is a part of that and,you know,we do not make evaluations over the head of the Town,if you will,over the head of the Town Engineer,but we do require, as part of any hypothetical approval we might make,that the applicant is required to get a signoff saying that the engineering has passed the approval. Now that doesn't say that what happened in 1993 or some other unrelated stormwater issues that you speak about, I can certainly understand your concern about that,and again we're looking at a very specific application for a driveway. We're not looking at the entire neighborhood if you will. MR. CLANCY-Okay,but with all due respect,though,when you make a comment like it's not within our purview,that's for engineering to look at,that's for the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-We have to consider it. We have to consider it as it relates to this driveway. Much of what you're describing is not related to the driveway and if you speak about a concern because hypothetically if this driveway were to be built,it would add to the stormwater. I can tell you that part of the regulations say that cannot happen, and it needs to be proven and documented in the engineering plan, the stormwater management plan, for the application. So if this were to be approved and passed engineering muster,if you will,by design and by regulation it cannot add to a pre-existing problem with stormwater. It doesn't necessarily solve an old problem,but it cannot contribute to anew problem. MR. CLANCY-Right,but I would assume that these similar conversations have had the initial planning and people were assured that it wouldn't be a problem because engineering would sign off on this solution that was supposedly been enacted. MR. TRAVER-I don't know the answer to that because this Board didn't exist in 1993 or whenever you're describing. MR. CLANCY-I understand,but my question, though, was if,you made comments about this is an issue for engineering and planning. What are the criteria under which you are judging whether or not you're going to approve or disapprove this driveway? MR. TRAVER-Well with regard to stormwater management,there needs to be a plan. There needs to be plans submitted that are subject to review by the Town Engineer and we receive feedback from the engineer regarding their analysis of the stormwater management for any application,and this would simply be another application where the engineer looks at the stormwater issue, how does this impact stormwater, how would this project, if approved, manage stormwater in such a way that it doesn't any impact offsite. MR. CLANCY-Okay. I guess just a couple of last comments I'd like to make. MR. TRAVER-Yes,please,because we normally limit the amount of time that we take from individuals. Go ahead. MR. CLANCY-I understand. Thank you for taking the time to hear me out. I'll tell you what I used to tell all my troops in the military. If someone said came to me and said I have a problem based on a decision that was made by a previous commander,I wouldn't look at them and say,sorry,that wasn't on my watch. I would look at them and say you're my responsibility now. I've accepted that responsibility as a leader. You are our representatives,representatives of us as constituents in this Town. We have a severe problem out there that already exists before adding this. It doesn't take an engineer to know this is going to make the problem worse. When the letter was read by the Jones, no one even talked about it. They were significantly impacted by it. The letter was ended and you went right back to talking about the litigation issues,which the irony of that being as much as you don't want it to colorize anything,it was all we talked about,or you guys talked about for nearly an hour. So that's why I'm here trying to address the issues of the impact on the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-We understand and appreciate your concern. Thank you very much. MR. CLANCY-All right. Thank you very much for hearing me out. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience? Yes,sir. BRAD MAGOWAN 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Thankyou,all. Brad Magowan, Town of Queensbury. Boy,first time sitting across. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman,could I make a comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I think it's extremely important,Mr. Magowan, as you say first time sitting across. I think it's extremely important that you state that although you're a member of the Town Planning Board, you are making a comment not as a Town Planning Board member. I think it's very,very important that you state that for the record, and I need to tell the Planning Board that it's not unlawful for a member to sit in the public and make a comment. It's not generally recommended,and one of the reasons is you need to be careful to not give additional weight to one of your fellow member's comments just because she or he happens to be one of your fellow members. I'm sure in this case the member doesn't disagree with that, but it's very, very important that's in the record and that the member states for the record that he's appearing as a member of the public and not as a member of the Planning Board. It's extremely important that that be in the record. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'll rescind what I said and start all over. Thank you,Brad Magowan, Town of Queensbury. I am a Planning Board member,but I am not sitting on this. MR. TRAVER-You have recused yourself. MR. MAGOWAN-I've recused myself on this application for living in the neighborhood and seeing and following what has been going on, and I have to comment, T.J. really was spot on in what he said. Mr. Dixon,I'm sorry you missed after the storm of the runoff and the storm that was down the road and really in between,just on the road itself in between the two houses across the street from me. T.J. was very correct in stating the problem. I knew of the deck issue that was replaced and that is, that whole area slopes all down. I'm not going to re-hash what T.J. said because he's absolutely right, and this is why I was very adamant before in stating that I think there's a stormwater issue here and we're going to be adding to the issue that we already have in the neighborhood and I was protecting the rights of the neighborhood and our fellow neighbors. I'm glad to hear that there is a meeting of the minds and both parties getting together and coming to an agreement, and I hope,I see that the other party is here and I hope maybe they might be able to shed some light on the decision,but I won't go on much further because I don't want it to be a long evening for you all,but my neighbor T.J. really spelled it out very nice and I hope you listen to him because he really said it very well, and I'll leave it at that right now. So thank you for your time and really listen to T.J. MR. TRAVER-So your concern as well is stormwater. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. This evening I was over there out walking the neighborhood and, you know, looking across at the base of that driveway it doesn't look like much,but right now it is stone from one edge all the way over. So what it does is it looks like a road, and all that stormwater from there, and then like I said,that whole lot,that lot line right there butting up to the neighbors there,that goes right down into a ravine. It all travels and the road goes over there. So now you're going to take all that stone from both driveways. You can't put it the other way because you have the fence. The fence is right there. So you can't push it to the right. It all has to go to the left,and that's not fair for everybody that lives down below. Because it is a sloping neighborhood all the way down and unfortunately the people down at the bottom really take the brunt of it,especially in the wintertime. We all are out there shoveling our storm drains. A lot of times I shovel the one across my street and veer it back in to grab that stormwater and then I keep the straight line out from the snowbank. I keep that straight down so the rain comes down and hits that bank and then goes, it's a drain to help alleviate from down below. So I hope that you'll just listens to the comments that have come out tonight. Thank you. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir. Good evening. Welcome back. JOHN SHEA MR. SHEA-Good evening. Good to be back. Again,my name is John Shea. I'm the attorney for Tammy and Russell Thomas who are the landowners as you know. First initially it was my understanding when this subdivision was originally planned there was one driveway going up that hill to access these two lots. MR. TRAVER-Nine and ten,right? And nine is the. MR. SHEA-Nine is the lot being built now. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. TRAVE R-Right. Sothis hypothetical driveway if needed would be for the access to Lot 9. MR. SHEA-But originally the plans were that one driveway would access both,not two. MR. TRAVER-Right,and we looked at those last Tuesday. MR. SHEA-Right. So this is a drastic change from what was the plan from the last 20 some years because this was originally put together before the Planning Board I think in'97 or something along those lines. I'd have to agree with the comments made by the other members of the public regarding drainage. That's one of my client's biggest concerns. It's hard for me to tell,based on the engineering drawings,but if there's going to be two driveways there has to be some sort of separation between them I would think and there would have to be drainage in between them, and I don't know if the width of both driveways is going to be a problem,specifically with respect to the slope of that land, and if you've been there you'll know what I'm talking about, and just exacerbating the conditions that exist now. I know you don't want to talk about the civil matter,but I just want to make the Board aware that my client,even before the last meeting, was on board with just keeping the one driveway and having the applicant build what would be an off ramp so to speak to Lot 9. That's not the problem as far as my clients are concerned. I just wanted to make that clear. Obviously as a result we don't want two driveways, and I think you've already heard enough about what maybe the potential problems with having two driveways. Someone,I can't remember who it was, asked me at the last meeting about what was going on between the parties to try and get this thing resolved. Attorney Meyer and myself are the ones that were involved in that. There are letters going back and forth between us,if you would like to see them that's fine,but bottom line is where we are now we have serious problems with having two driveways on what would essentially be the front lawn of one property. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. I think, as I explained, and you seemed to understand last week, although we certainly appreciate and want neighbors to get along and these types of issues to be resolved, that is outside the purview of the Planning Board. We have to look at an application that's before us, including the one that we have. We talked about concerns about stormwater and again, we look at stormwater generated by this particular application and we look at comments and the official review by the Town Engineer, and we have to rely on that,obviously,from the engineering standpoint,but as far as, you know,your coming to an agreement and so on,you mentioned letters going back and forth,that is not relevant to our evaluation of this particular application. We have to look at the Site Plan Review and the engineering,stormwater management and so on. We're really limited to that. MR. SHEA-You make reference to the things that have to be done prospectively,after you make a decision here. Is there some sort of timeframe that is required for that or is there some general timeframe that this engineering process usually takes? MR.TRAVER-Hypothetically if this application were approved,they would have one year to complete the entire process without granting an extension on that approval, and the approval would not be valid just from a hypothetically approval from us as a Planning Board. As I mentioned a requirement,and there are a number of conditions on the hypothetical approval by this Board,including engineering approval,which is,one of the major concerns with that is stormwater. MR. SHEA-Well that was actually my question. Is there a normal timeframe that that process takes that you're aware of,like two days,two weeks? MR. TRAVER-It varies, depending on the nature of the project, but since the applicant can't complete, can't finish their project without that engineering signoff, it's generally something that's resolved as quickly as possible,just in the best interest for the applicant. They don't have an approval until they get that signoff and if they can't get it then the project is not approved. MR. SHEA-Yes,I understand that. I just didn't know how the process works in the Town of Queensbury as far as if there was any timeframe. MR. TRAVER-It varies. I mean some projects are relatively simple. I mean, we have some cases where somebody is just repairing or replacing an old set of wooden stairs or something and they need approval because there hasn't been a review in a certain period of time or because of a setback issue,but it's actually a very,very small project. And then we have others where there are compounds,large homes being built, sometimes with,you know,extensive driveways and requiring a lot of stormwater management and so on, and that's a much more involved process, but as far as the engineering approval is concerned, that is a requirement before the project can be considered formally approved. So generally as with any other approvals that might be required, the applicant usually will pursue and get that engineering signoff as quickly as possible. MR. SHEA-It's my understanding that when you're building a driveway in this Town, you have to put an application in with the Building Department to build that road. Is that correct? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Well,that's a question for Staff. MRS. MOORE-For a permit. MR. SHEA-For a permit. Right. Exactly. MRS.MOORE-Typically it's a permit for Building and Codes in reference to building a house construction, if it needs a construction entrance. I know that's something that's part of this, this Board previously approved a site plan for the house construction. So in turn we identified that, or Bruce identified that a construction entrance would be required. That's how we proceeded. So it's a Building and Codes permit to build a house. MR. SHEA-Yes,but inside that permit there is also an application for a permit to construct a driveway. Is that correct? And you can say,yes,I'm going to,or no we don't need one. MRS. MOORE-That may be relevant to highway to do a curb cut. Is that what you're asking? MR. SHEA-No,right in the application for a building permit there's references to,do you need a driveway permit. MRS. MOORE-Then that's part of that application process. I'm not part of Building and Codes. I handle Planning and Zoning. So that would be reference to the Building and Codes Department. RUSSELL THOMAS MR. THOMAS-Why was the construction entrance put on to the private property? MR. LA SARSO-Could you state your name for the record. MR.THOMAS-Russell Thomas. I'm the owner. Why was the construction entrance put on 100 feet from private property,into private property? MRS. MOORE-That's part of the project to access the site. MR. THOMAS-No,no,no. On the property line, on Lot 9 onto my property. The original construction entrance is 100 feet away from the easement,off the easement. MRS. MOORE-That's something that you would address with Code Compliance. MR. THOMAS-I did. They still can't answer me. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I don't have the answer that you're looking for either. MR. TRAVER-Sir,it also is not part of the application that we're looking at tonight. I understand that you want to review the history I guess of something and that information is out there somewhere. We don't have it before us tonight. We're looking at this driveway. MR. THOMAS-Well,basically like you just said,you come to the Building Department where you need a driveway permit,okay. They've already constructed this driveway,okay. A construction entrance,if you look it up,is 20 to 25 feet by 50 feet deep,okay,of Number Three stone. Now none of that is there. It's all Number Two. MR. TRAVER-That's not part of what the Board is looking at this evening,sir. MR. THOMAS-So we don't need a permit,then,to do things. MR. TRAVER-They have an application before the Planning Board to create this driveway, and if they need any additional permits to make that happen, the only one that I have been discussing before this evening is the engineering, There's a concern about stormwater runoff. I'm not aware of a separate permit for a driveway. I think the only permit they need is a site plan review and approval and an engineering approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I add to that? MR. TRAVER-Please. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm Mark Schachner. I'm the Board's Counsel. It sounds like I, like Staff and the Board members,have no prior knowledge of what you're asserting happened in the past,but what you're asserting amounts to, from our perspective, to potential violations of the Town Code. If there have been S (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) violations of the Town Code,we have a substantial enforcement personnel that deals with the violations, and you can make those claims to our enforcement personnel, but none of us sitting up here, not the Planning Board,not the Staff and not me as Town Counsel,are involved in the enforcement issues and it's not actually lawful for the Planning Board to get involved in enforcement. That's not part of the Planning Board's role. So none of us here can really help address these allegations you're making and I don't think any of us are saying they're true or false. They're just not relevant to the site plan application that's pending before the Board. There are other avenues to pursue if you want to pursue them,but these are not the avenues. MR.SHEA-I don't mean to be a problem,but you're wrong,because this Board approved that construction entrance. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-You can tell me I'm wrong and I respect your opinion,but I also respectfully disagree. I actually kind of know what I'm talking about,and this Board is not involved in enforcement. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. THOMAS-Yes. In this application there's 3200 square feet that's going to be disturbed. Okay. Stormwater, it's running towards Lot 23, okay. Now he has the two driveways tight together. He only has the square footage of the new driveway,not of the existing one that is there. When it's that tight you've got all that other square footage of water coming down,going down over into Lot 23. There should be a buffer with stone on that side that should be put in,because that's only compounding the water runoff. MR. TRAVER-Well, I can basically only repeat what I explained before in that part of the application process for this proposed driveway is to receive an engineering review of stormwat44er issues and the Town Engineer has to sign off on the proposed design stating that this does manage stormwater for this application. If there's pre-existing stormwater problems on this property or nearby property or something, that is not something that we're looking at this evening. It might have been something that was looked at years ago when this was originally built. We have no knowledge of that at this point. We're looking specifically at this application that we have before us this evening. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman,could I add to that? MR. TRAVER-Please MR. SCHACHNER-That comment you just made is potentially extremely relevant to what the Board's concerned with, but the Board is not going to make a final determination on stormwater management. The Town Engineer, among the other materials they receive, will be the minutes of this meeting, and the comments you just made, and, again, none of us have the faintest idea whether,in fact, there's a negative impact on stormwater management based on what you've said,but that's a very relevant,potentially very relevant comment that presumably will be taken into account by the Town Engineer because that is about stormwater management. MR. DEEB-Mr. Thomas,could I ask you a question? MR. THOMAS-Sure. MR. DEEB-You just made a statement as to what stormwater management mitigation should be. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. DEEB-If the applicant agreed to that,would you agree to the access? MR. THOMAS-Say that again? I'm sorry? MR.DEEB-If the applicant agreed to do that,would you change your stance and then come to a settlement? MR. THOMAS-I did try to come to a settlement. MR. DEEB-No, I'm just saying you just stated what you needed, what needed to be done to solve the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. I think the stormwater that you're discussing and the applicant was referring to is outside the purview of this application and not in the. MR. DEEB-It's a hypothetical question. MR. TRAVER-A hypothetical question? Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. THOMAS-I'll go one better. I've said they could use the driveway for how long rather than wrecking my property. MR. DEEB-We don't know that. MR. THOMAS-That's correct,but if you want to read the letters that have been going back and forth. MR. DEEB-We can't get in the middle of a civil matter. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'm also willing to fix the stormwater off of mine,as long as it's only one driveway. I am willing to do this. I'm not getting any response back from them. I don't want two driveways. That is correct. Okay. I want one. I'm willing to let them. Their biggest problem is that they want to do the work and they're not qualified. MR. DEEB-So that's something you'd have to work out,and that's good. It sounds like progress. MR. THOMAS-And I've been willing to do this. Okay. But that's wrong. MR. DEEB-Again,it's hypothetical. MR.THOMAS-I'm saying I've been willing,and I'm willing to even go for the stone against mine so it's not going over the hill if it is causing that problem. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR.THOMAS-Okay,because it will. There's more driveway on existing than there is new because it goes up and around. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, maybe when the applicant gets back up here again they can describe the infiltration trench that is proposed along the north side. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We did discuss that last week as well,but you're right. We can review that again. Do you have anything else specific to this application? MR. SHEA-No,sir. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir,again. MR. MAGOWAN-May I? Brad Magowan, Town of Queensbury. I've been looking into the engineering and I've asked our Administrator how do we get that engineering signoff that we've always talked about, that I've heard for years. So I was told that the building engineer signs off and says that we have followed everything that I have designed,our,or the Town Engineer,you know,reviews that and signs off on that. There is no going out to the site and testing,measuring,checking is out. They're going on the basis that it has been designed correctly. MR. TRAVER-Actually the Town does monitor site applications. Laura, can you offer some additional comment? MRS. MOORE-So once an application is approved and it has received the Town Engineering signoff,the applicant meets with our Code Compliance Officer,does a pre-construction meeting with that individual or individuals, and goes through the process of if you have any changes through this process you need to contact our office immediately and then in reference to ongoing work,if there's checks and balances,Bruce will coordinate with that person that's installing that project and coordinate when that time schedule occurs. If it's something that they both come to an agreement that it will be investigated at the end of the project and that the engineer will certify that that project has been designed as approved,then that's the process that occurs. MR. SCHACHNER-For the benefit of the public,Bruce being? MRS. MOORE-The Code Compliance Officer of the Town. MR.MAGO WAN-Well,that's not how it was explained to me by the Zoning Administrator,Craig Brown, but that's reassuring but they're still, they're not measuring,they're not setting up drains or whatever to make sure that it flows, and the other thing is, like I said, on the stormwater, we're just looking at the stormwater as it's stated,you're looking just at the stormwater for this application,but remember there is a second driveway there. So there are two areas of possibly non-permeable pavement that's down which does increase on such a small area going down a major slope. So thank you again. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Laura, are there written comments? MRS.MOORE-There are no written comments,no additional written comments. We read one last week. MR. TRAVER-Right. Right. Understood. Thank you. Well, let's see. Last week we considered an approval motion and that motion failed. We'll ask the applicant to come back up to the table. Let's see where we're at. There was a lot of discussion again this evening about stormwater you've heard. Do you have any comment or any additional information you want to offer regarding your project, your application? MR. MEYER-Sure. I guess I'll start the conversation and turn it over to the engineer because I am clearly not an engineer, but essentially to those points, the proposal is still a single point of entrance. It is addressing the stormwater to a point where it's not going to make the problem worse, and a lot of the comments that we've heard are based on the current conditions which we have no control over. It's not our driveway. What we have done is designed our driveway with stormwater controls that will handle the additional runoff that may result from the pavement,and I guess with that I'll turn it over to Tom. MR. CENTER-With regard to the first comment, regarding the construction of the driveway, there's details for driveway construction that the stone that's there now would be removed. It would be graded according to these grading plans which they didn't have when they constructed that as a construction entrance to access the parcel. So that will be re-graded to these plans and then the stone trench will be installed and then the asphalt on top of that. With regards to the construction entrance,the construction entrance originally as designed,when,if the driveway that's there was used,the construction entrance was between the end of the existing driveway with the deeded easement to the Lot 9 parcel to access it. So the construction entrance would have been in that small piece that we have a deeded access and right to,would have been right there. When we were not allowed to use the existing driveway,because it was outside the deeded easement and there was a disagreement, the construction entrance was started at the road within the deeded easement and run all the way up to Lot 9 and that was how access was gained via that way. With regards to the infiltration trench, we are grading the new driveway alongside the existing. Obviously we can't do anything to the existing because it's adjacent. It's not within our deeded easement. We're grading that to drain into the stone trench. When we design stormwater and there's existing impervious surfaces,we're held to the standard that we cannot increase the 25 year design stormwater. So one of the comments that I need to address is the 25 year design storm runoff,and the starting point is the existing driveway stormwater is designed as existing for the 25 year and then we put our additional in there, anything that would go to the infiltration trench would then be designed to be less than or equal to what the existing runoff is. So that's the design parameters that I have to apply to satisfy the Town Engineer. The other comment the Town Engineer is a test pit which we would perform when we're re- grading the driveway and the erosion and sediment controls along the driveway which we would address, and the third is,we already answered that with regards to the septic on Lot 10 and there are no neighboring wells that are observable within 200 feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions,comments from members of the Board for the applicant? MR. LONGACKER-When this subdivision was initially approved, was there any sort of stipulation on width of the driveway? The only reason I ask is because there are places where it does touch., combined into one where it only had to be 15 feet,12 feet? MRS. MOORE-There was no condition placed by this Board,but the previous subdivision identified the easement area and the width of that driveway couldn't be any more than,I think it's in there. MR. MEYER-They were looking at 24 feet in width to allow two cars to pass. MRS. MOORE-Two cars to pass. MR. MEYER-No less than 12 feet. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Okay. Last week we considered an approval motion which did not get sufficient votes. I think to follow that same process,but I think Counsel has made a recommendation that we have a specific draft motion created by Staff. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes,that's correct. I think that while there was a draft motion available to the Board and I think to the Board as well, it's a bit conclusory. From my standpoint as Town Counsel, I'm not brilliant to surmise that there's a possibility of legal challenge here because there are parties with attorneys that have disputes and they're entitled to have those disputes. So you're correct, Mr. Chairman, our recommendation would be to not adopt a resolution this evening,but instead, as you said, direct Staff to prepare a more robust resolution for your consideration at presumably your next meeting. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Do members of the Board understand what we're talking about here? In other words we would have Staff draft a resolution specific to the conditions of this approval,or hypothetical approval, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) and to give them time to do that,unfortunately we would have to table this application again,and we could consider such a motion on the first meeting in April which would be the 19`h. Does everybody understand that? Any questions about that? Okay. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman,do you wish to close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Well,if we're going to table, don't we want to leave it open? MR. SCHACHNER-I mean there's no automatic,that's not a maxim of anything. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good point. Then in that case we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-To the applicant, you understand what our Counsel is recommending and what the procedure would be? MR. MEYER-Yes,Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So it's just a tabling motion for the purpose of drafting an approval resolution which the Board would consider on April 19`h MR. SCHACHNER-And if I could just add,you're welcome to make a motion,but you don't need to make a motion. You have 62 days from tonight in which to make a decision. You don't need to make a motion tonight. You can if you want,but you don't need to. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I was thinking we would. That's how we have traditionally done it and it gets it on the agenda, and I don't know if any notice is needed, again,for that. 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 Jackson LaSarso. Tabled until the April 19`h,2022 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 29`h day of March 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I would just suggest that you include why you're tabling it. MR. DIXON-Okay. I'll amend that,then. MRS. MOORE-Okay. No,I guess not. All right. It's not necessary. MR. DIXON-I'll strike that amendment. AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Molloy,Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-See you next month. MR. DEEB-Before you go,I'd just like to make a statement. My position was made known last week, and I feel that as a Board there's litigation going on outside of this which we are not supposed to be a part of, and my personal feeling is,I'm not sure this is anybody else's. If we take a vote one way or the other,we're going to influence one party or the other out there, even though it has nothing to do with the litigation. The effect of our vote can weigh on that. So my personal feeling is, if it doesn't get resolved, I'm uncomfortable with doing something like this,and I'd have to consider abstaining rather than voting. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Can we ask Counsel to comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I'd like to comment. I can't tell a Board member whether to abstain or not,but what I can say is I'm not sure that's an appropriate position, legally, because if you think about it, that would mean at any time for any application,somebody came along and started a legal action,regardless of the merit or lack of merit of the legal action,and I have no idea how meritorious the legal action is between the parties is or not,because it's none of my business,just like it's none of your business,but I would hate to see a Planning Board or even an individual Planning Board member, feeling paralyzed because there's pending legal action because anybody can sue anybody for anything. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I made that comment last week actually. MR. SCHACHNER-And for what it's worth, it's my considered opinion that the Board's determination will not have an influence on legal action. A court is not going to say,yes, the easement is valid because the Board approved. MR. DEEB-I wasn't talking about the legal action. MR. SCHACHNER-Hang on. Hang on. Well you said it could influence the legal action. MR. DIXON-He meant the parties themselves. MR. SCHACHNER-So be it. I mean,honestly that's part of your job is to make these decisions. So,again, from my standpoint as Counsel,I could not affirmatively recommend,and I'm speaking generically now,I could not affirmatively recommend that a Board halt its decision making process,or an individual member half their participation in the decision making process because there's pending legal action. I could easily envision, I'm involved in situations in other communities where the Board and its individual members would be completely paralyzed because there are,believe it or not,far more litigious communities than the Town of Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-It is hard to believe. MR.SCHACHNER-I know. So,no disrespect. If any Board member,I can't make a decision for any Board member ever whether they participate or not in an application or not,but from a bigger picture perspective I would hate to see a Board member or a Board itself paralyzed because of pending legal action and I don't think,whether this was what your comment was, Mr. Deeb,or not, I'm just throwing it out for the Board to know, I don't think what you decide will have any influence on whatever the legal action is because I don't think a court's going to weigh whether the Board granted or denied site plan review in whatever the court is considering as far as real property rights between the parties. MR.DEEB-I understand what you're saying,but I don't think I was referring to the legal action. I'm saying it could influence either party as to how they should end up resolving this conflict,and I didn't want to get in the middle of that. MR. SCHACHNER-Right,but that's like,so basically, again,from my perspective,which is to perpetuate the business of the Board in the most responsible manner possible without ever telling you approve something or deny something because that's clearly not my role,you know,neighbors sometimes don't get along. Parties sometimes don't get along. Similar to the comments I just made,I would hate to see a Board paralyzed or even an individual Board member paralyzed because there's a dispute between neighbors. It happens all the time. MR. DEEB-Well then it would certainly be nice if it got resolved before it came back. That's all I can say. MR. SCHACHNER-Can't disagree with that. MR. TRAVER-All right. I think we have a motion that's been made and seconded. Maria, can you call the vote for us,please. Or did we do that already? MR. SCHACHNER-I think you voted already. MR. TRAVER-All right. I'm sorry. I'm getting behind myself. All right. So we'll see you next month. MR. MEYER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-I want to thank Counsel for being here and helping us out. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm glad to see everybody. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Brett&r Pamela West. This is for the main house. This is Site Plan 51-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRETT &z PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE). AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 106 BAY PARKWAY. (REVISED I/1812022)APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME 2 STORY HOME WITH A 5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO, INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREAS,A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,670 SQ. FT. WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 8,687 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE,SEPTIC,STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-010,179-6-065,147,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 53-2017 SEPTIC VAR.;AV 47-2007&z SP 39- 2007— BOATHOUSE; SP PZ 89-2016 &z SP PZ 210-2016 &z AV 95-2016 — ADDITION; SP 37-2009; AV 57-2021; SP 52-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021, FEBRUARY 2022 (STORMWATER DEVICE). SITE INFORMATION: APA,CEA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.91 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040;179-6-065,147. MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, I understand there are new engineering comments and the applicant has requested to be tabled in order to respond to those comments. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-That's correct. I received information today that they wish to be tabled further. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and do you have a recommendation for a specific date? MRS. MOORE-At this point it could be April 19`h or April 26`h. April 26`h would work. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Let's see. MRS. MOORE-I provided a draft resolution to Mr. Dixon. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The only other question, again, in regards to public hearing. Should I open that and leave it open? MRS.MOORE-You should leave it open because there's still information,public comment that hasn't been read since September. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We might as well wait until we actually hear the application for that. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we'll leave the public hearing open on this application, and we'll entertain that motion to table. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. DIXON-Did you still want to make an offer if anybody wanted to make comments now? Although it's not. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it makes more sense to make comment when we have the actual, we don't know how the application might change based on the engineering. So why don't we do it on the 26`h RESOLUTION TABLING SP#51-2021 BRETT&PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:(Revised 1/18/2022)Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new 2 story home with a 5,436 sq. ft. footprint with a garage.Also,included is installation of permeable pavers for patio and driveway areas, a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 8,687 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management. Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline are subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 51-2021 BRETT &z PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE)Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jackson LaSarso. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) Tabled until the April26,2022 Planning Board meeting at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 29`h day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy,Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item under New Business is Sharon Serini,Site Plan 15-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. SHARON SERINI. AGENT(S): EDP — CHRIS KEIL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: CLEVERDALE OFF ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 4 BEDROOM HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,445 SQ. FT. AND A DETACHED GARAGE OF 416 SQ. FT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS 3,510 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY TO CLEVERDALE AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, 179-6-060, SITE WORK FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA., SITE WORK FOR A BEACH AREA, SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN AND OTHER ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 8-2000,SUB 2-2008,AV 49-2009,SUB (M) 2-2008(2010),PZ 92-2016. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,L G P C,CEA. LOT SIZE: 2.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 2409-1-16.12. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, 179-6-060. CHRIS KEIL&MIKE SERINI,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application proposes construction of a new home,four bedroom,with a footprint of 4,245. There is no detached garage proposed at this time. The total floor area I still believe is 3,510 square feet. It includes a shared driveway off of Cleverdale Road. It's called Private Road Number One. The project includes installation of a new well and septic system as well as shoreline plantings for site work for the beach area and shoreline plantings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KEIL-Good evening. Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership, along with the applicants, Mike and Sharon Serini. Just a quick rundown of the project. The applicants have done projects, went through planning approval process in terms of projects before in the Town. So they're quite familiar with it, and we started this project with a thorough Code review and understanding of what was possible within that and designed to that throughout the entire process. So a few things just as a point of clarification. The floor area is actually 3,094 square feet, when we removed that garage in that final and we're still not totally sure on the design for that,but the project in its entirety, there's a few things that also came out later in the process that I just want to make everyone aware of. One is the shoreline setback. You note that that's 56 feet, and the reason there is because the property to the south,the existing house, is 62 feet back from the shoreline and the property to the north which is currently vacant we used that 50 foot. So it actually creates a 56,being the average there,56 for the horizontal setback for this house. So we give them a little extra room by pushing the house the 61 feet at its closest point to the shoreline. So just a little bit of clarification there. We've recently received stormwater comments from the Town Designated Engineer. There's 11 comments, but I would say of those 11 nine of which are just kind of housekeeping points of clarification,notation,notes added to the plans. The more substantive ones were, I think in my view, were still pretty minor in terms of adding concrete washout information and pre- seedment which were easy to add in the plans. So we have those revised as well as response letter but haven't yet submitted that. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned pre-treatment. Is this for the stormwater? MR. KEIL-Correct. Yes, and there is ample room on this site to do that,create a vegetative filter strip off slope off the actual raingarden and infiltration basin. MR. TRAVER-That's not reflected in the current plan. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR.KEIL-It isn't on the ones you have. I have a revised set here that we're set to submit back to LaBella. MR. TRAVER-You'll make sure that we get them as well? MR. KEIL-Yes, of course. Other than that it's vacant property. So we're talking a new house, driveway, some shoreline buffer work, new wastewater, new well, new stormwater. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions about the project. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? So some aspects of the stormwater you anticipate will change for the final plan that we get to see, and do you want to maybe take the mic and show us on this. MR. KEIL-Yes. It's really actually something that in the site plan itself we don't really have to make any additions. So basically we have this raingarden right here and these shallow vegetative just depressions as you can see there's plenty of green space up slope of those. So there's, right at kind of the entry point where the swale comes in,these under drain outlet,they'll be gravel diagrams,basically,in those locations. And show that in the details sheet. MR.TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Can you talk about the shoreline buffering? MR. KEIL-Absolutely. So shoreline,the Scrim's would like to have beach area to access the water on the northern end of the property,as Code permits. You have that 300/o that is allowable. So they cleared along their length of shoreline, which is 172 feet, that permits 51 and a half, I believe linear foot of access that's permitted. We're not using that entire area for the beach area. The beach is basically everything,it's zoned from mean high water back. So it's kind of up inland of the existing shoreline. It's a small sandy area with very low 1S inch kind of just boulders at the end. So they can sit and watch the grandkids play in the sand there, and also limit the impact of the grading by just kind of keeping a little edge there. The Scrim's walked the site with Code Compliance Officer Bruce Frank to look at some of the existing trees. I think per Code within the 35 foot shore,during that walk through they identified some diseased and dying trees which are marked on the plan. As part of just the overall shoreline buffer requirements I believe we need eight trees within that zone of that 35 foot setback. Currently within that zone we have 24 existing trees and we're planting another three. At the time we were doing this plan it was snow covered. So we don't really have a firm number on the quantity of existing shrubs and herbaceous plants. I assume that there's, you know, it's undisturbed forest for a good swath there, so I assume it's a pretty intact shoreline buffer, but I mean I think you can see by this plan that we have a pretty robust planting plan in the area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Additional comments, questions from the Board before we go to the public hearing? MR. DIXON-I do have a couple of questions, and it's in regards to the dead, dying, diseased trees. So in here I really didn't see what the trees are that are being removed,but on the cut sheet number five it looks like there's well over 13 trees being removed. Some are denoted as hemlocks, or maybe the majority are hemlocks, and I apologize. With the print and everything I can't read it all,but I see additional plantings going in,which I certainly commend you on,but it would be nice to see some trees in there that are going to achieve substantial height,something minimum,30,40 50 feet high,and it looks like everything in there is hemlock, which is great. The other item, too, as we're looking at hemlocks, because we knew that there's an issue with the wooly algaecide or I'm going to butcher it,but we know that there's an issue with that. So we're also looking at mixed use plantings, so if you do lose the hemlocks, you don't lose your entire shoreline. With that,as I'm still looking at this plan,I saw raingardens on the north side I believe it is, but I didn't see raingardens down low, as you approach the shore, and as we're looking at the shore, that's where you have some of your steeper slopes, too. So I don't know if you can comment on any of that. MR. KEIL-Sure. Or course. So I guess to your first comment first, in terms of tree species,yes, as you noted,the hemlock wooly adelgid has been problematic in the area and those are some of the diseased trees, in fact,that we are removing. The trees that are planted,you know, there's some maple and some witch hazel which admittedly are smaller trees,smaller stature. I mean the condition here is heavily shaded,you know, so that's one problem is planting things that will be suitable for that sort of condition. I mean my hope is maybe there could be some natural recruitment of some of those things like the hemlocks and pines that are already in that area that we would see after the snow melts. Those smaller stature trees provide some screening value,you know,as they're mid sort of understory zone there,but there's definitely quite a few really nice mature hemlocks that will be remaining even outside of that shoreline buffer area, outside of that 35 foot. Basically that whole southern zone as you can see from the plan, I mean it's going to be really dense and intact. Then your second point I guess about the stormwater,that was really by design. I mean and I think it's actually a good practice just generally speaking is that most of our stormwater is diverted away from the lake,in this case to the east. So even though the house design is kind of hip roof, we were able to capture that runoff in eaves trenches with under drainage and rout it towards the back of the house. So there is,behind the wall there area few low points,you know,if you have a really high event 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) that potentially infiltrates some water,we were really responsible in sort of thinking about where that low area is outside of the house. Everything from there inland would kind of go towards the stormwater devices. I hope I answered your questions. MR. DIXON-It did. I mean I was questioning also whether or not you could include maybe some raingardens as you get close to the lake. Still everything that you have up top I think is a wonderful effort, but whenever we look at the lake,I'm always going to ask for more. MR. KEIL-Yes, I can't speak for them,but I think the applicants are really interested in a planting,if it's really about the character of the vegetation and that sort of thing,but landscaping versus the stormwater, they want to make this a really beautiful place to hang out in. So I think there's a lot of will and intent to sort of do that regarding those areas. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. DIXON-I think that's enough,isn't it? MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper, and for the record I would like to say that in the past we have worked with the applicant on other lake protection measures. I just want that in the record that they had replaced a previous septic system and I had worked with them on the grant process. The Waterkeeper is concerned about the extent of disturbance and clearing and the fact that some of this,in our opinion,is not compliant with the Town Code. First there should be no tree removal within six feet of the shoreline, which is a statute of the Adirondack Park Agency. You do have in your regulations,179-6-050,that the Planning Board does have a discretion under cutting plan. The Planning Board may approve such plans only if it finds that such special cutting plans, and Item Four under there states will not violate the land clearing standards of this section or the shoreline restrictions of other governmental agencies with jurisdiction, which is the Adirondack Park Agency. So I feel this is not compliant with the Adirondack Park Agency protection of the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Navitsky,I have a question. In this case the applicant has represented that there area few trees that are diseased and infected. Is there any exemption that you're aware of? MR.NAVITSKY-Yes. If they're dead and diseased and they mark those specifically,but not before an area that they're excavating for. MR. TRAVER-I see what you're saying. MR.NAVITSKY-If they're dead and diseased and they're noted and it was said I believe Staff was out there, no,but if there are trees within the six foot setback of the shoreline, they cannot be removed. Secondly we feel the activity should not alter the natural contours of the shoreline that's under 179-6-050. There appears to be a one to two foot cut in excavation of twenty-five feet into the hillside. MR. TRAVER-That's for the beach area? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. And we don't feel that the shoreline of Lake George should be excavated to construct beaches,especially in areas that we know there are concerns now for harmful algae blooms,and we know that the sand placed here many times ends up in the lake, just naturally erodes, boat wakes, waves. So we don't feel that's the best for the lake. It appears that the well is located within the protective buffer of the wetlands. There's a 75 foot protective buffer. It's in the Town Code. They can put that in there but they must provide a cutting plan and information on existing vegetation as well as a re-vegetation plan,and lastly at your January 25`h Planning Board meeting,the Board expressed concern about extending the disturbance over the 50 foot setback and into that hillside and I appreciate the comments on that, as well as construction on steep slopes. It's showing clearing and tree removal on those slopes, extending, you know,15 or so feet downhill and we just feel that they can achieve their desired goal without clearing and going down that hill,and maybe just tighten that clearing envelope up a little bit. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? How about written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-And I'll ask the applicant to return to the table. So public comment from the Waterkeeper, do you have a response to those? MR.KEIL-I do. I appreciated the comments. Just as a point of clarification. My understanding of Section 179-6-050 B is that Queensbury Town Code allows for a contiguous clear cut in the buffer strip of 300/o. To me it's like if you want to create that access,you need to allow, and this is the case,that 300/o to do some sort of cutting right up to the water's edge and that seems sort of central to the intent of that regulation. MR. TRAVER-How do you reconcile that with the Code and regulation that says you can't cut trees within,I think that was the APA. MR.KEIL-Within six feet. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any comment on that,Laura? MRS. MOORE-In reference to cutting,there's the section of Code that allows that,for that beach area up to 30%. In reference to the APA,if they need additional APA review for that,I'm not aware of it. Typically local regs are the purview. I haven't heard from Robin in regards to that for any other application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. KEIL-Thank you for that. That was our understanding on how, sort of the premise we based the design off of. In terms of modifying the shoreline, I definitely appreciate sort of the concern about doing any changing or grading at the shoreline. In this case as I said earlier, we're pulling back,that it's not in this case a natural shoreline. We're talking about stacked boulders. So we'd be grading that back,laying it back inland. So to me that doesn't seem problematic in that regard. In terms of the well and a cutting plan in that area, I mean we're happy to provide that. Currently that zone right now is just grass. So there's no real important vegetation in my mind where we're proposing that well. MR. TRAVER-So you're saying that the well is not within the setback area for the wetland area? MR.KEIL-Which I believe is permitted,having a well within the setback. My understanding is that what Mr.Navitsky brought up is that cutting plan should be provided as part of that to permit that,and I'm just clarifying that where that well is right now there's no significant vegetation. I mean it's just kind of an existing grass area. MR. TRAVER-Not with regard to vegetation,but what about the setback issue? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant has a Freshwater Wetlands permit as part of this project for disturbance within 100 feet that triggers the Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. I see that. MR. KEIL-Yes. Thank you. Within that area there is grading. It's going to be re-vegetated and there's only a small portion of driveway within the wetlands setback area. There's no structures. MR.TRAVER-With the,to get back to the beach area for a minute,is there any way that you could maybe reduce the size or reduce the impact of it in some way? MR. KEIL-Yes, I mean frankly we're not even taking advantage of that full 300/o that's permitted by the Code,but we want to make something that's usable certainly. I think right now the dimension based on the scale is about 20 feet horizontally. So I don't think it's a really. MR. TRAVER-Twenty feet wide? MR. KEIL-Yes, exactly. And there's an existing tree on, an existing hemlock in fact, that 14 inch one on that little point that seemed like a natural kind of tie in point where there's some boulders. So it felt like a good place to drop it in,and obviously we're leaving a little bit of buffer where the existing dock is there, just to retain that edge. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any follow up questions,comments from members of the Board? MIKE SERINI 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. SERINI-Mike Serini,I'm the homeowner. There is sandy beach there now. It's just overgrown over the years from not being maintained. There is a portion of it that is sand. The sand has the ripples of the water. MR. DEEB-Are you going to add any sand? MR. SERINI-Yes. MR. DEEB-How much? MR. KEIL-A few cubic yards. I mean I think if you look right now it's basically just a shelf with some boulders that steps down and then there's sand within, you know, underneath the water at that point, beyond the shoreline. So the goal would be to sort of grade that back inland so it's a more gradual transition. MR. DEEB-So you're going to pull it from the lake. MR.KEIL-Exactly. So if anything you're expanding water inland. You're not touching. MR. DEEB-You're actually not adding from off site. You're just going to use what's there. MR.KEIL-Exactly. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you do that? MR. KEIL-You can as long as we're working outside of that mean high water line,inboard of that water line. MR. MAGOWAN-Well you're removing from within the lake back. MR. KEIL-Well, no, we wouldn't. I should probably have a cross section or something,but if you have like your,the ground below the water kind of leading up to the edge there and then you have some boulders, you just take out that boulder and continue that slope,that profile of the lake inland. We're not affecting anything from the current water's edge out towards the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're not going to dig and put a beach in. What you're going to do is takeout the boulders which are kind of a shoreline break point for the waves,peel back the grass and that and make a sandy area. MR. KEIL-Yes, like the beach is currently upland, ground area. It's like within the porous understory. There's nothing that's going to happen within that existing line of lake edge. MR. MAGOWAN-I like everything about the project except for the beach. My main concern really is the removal of the trees within that six feet,and even though we might have a Code of 300/o,but you are in the APA,which I would definitely get an okay from them before you do that because they're much worse than we are and punishing,but that I'm not privy to,but removing the trees right up there,I know there's always been, you know, and I always thought it was within 30 feet you really couldn't unless it was diseased. That's how I was brought up on the lake and remember it, and,you know, I'm also looking at, when we grew up we rented a dock for sailing from an aunt,but we swam from the dock,you know, she had the steps,the shoreline,the rocks and everything,but there was no beach. I mean you have a good sized dock that you're coming on to. I just have a concern of creating that,and taking the last defense,when we ask people to have shoreline buffers, and I have nothing against the dream beach. It's just my concern is creating it,you know, is there any way that you could, there's another project up on, in the Village that actually had a seawall. They re-built it,had to go through all the permits,and then they had slate stepping stones that went down into their standing beach. I don't like the fact that we're taking away that shoreline, that natural buffer for erosion, and putting in sand, but the main thing is taking out the trees which are a major contributor to absorbing the stormwater and certain nutrients that have made it down this far. MR. KEIL-I think that's a good concern. I think one point of distinction there is like what we're talking about buffer and the importance of it,you know, hardened shoreline such as boulders, rocks, I mean in some ways that can be more,have a more negative impact on the lake,promoting wakes and wave action reverberating off those things. So I think having more,you know,sand in this case is more of a natural soft scape solution that allows that water to kind of float up and down through that area, and then in terms of the buffer in general,I mean,yes,you know,it's like maybe just from a Codes standpoint we're well above the required amount of trees,but I think that is important. I think that it is a really, I mean if you go out to the site, it's a pretty heavily forested area with a lot of mature trees that we plan on keeping on the site. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So a follow up there, because you're creating and cutting down trees,you know, and is it sandy all along the shore there? I didn't get that,it does get rocky. MR. SERINI Just that one area. MR. MAGOWANJust that one area. MR. SERINIJust that one little area. SHARON SERINI MRS. SERINI-We consulted Mr. Frank and what his opinion is and he told us these are the trees that can go. These are the trees that have to stay. So we marked them and kind of did all this,what we can do, what we can't do. We worked around that. MR. MAGOWAN-So all these X'd trees that I see in front of the beach,they're all diseased and dying? MR.KEIL-No,just the ones that are marked with a D. MR. MAGOWAN-So at the beach area I see seven trees that don't have a D? MR.KEIL-That's correct. MR.MAG OWAN-And then the ones that have a D are off to the side. So I mean you're taking out 13 trees within the 35 foot shoreline? Well,they're taking one out because one's behind that. MR.KEIL-I have 12. MR. MAGOWAN-Well nine within, right on that shoreline in front of your twelve foot, it says twelve, that's a twelve inch elm. MR.KEIL-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that line right there,that goes straight across,right? You've got that many trees in front of that line. How far is that line back? Because you have the 35 foot setback is back here, and a dotted line. MR. KEIL-Right,this is the 35. So we count these 12, those are the 12, and what we were counting,per the Code, is this is our sort of clearing area of about 300/o, and this one is diseased and dying. So this is really the only one we're counting in addition to what our understanding is we're permitted per the Town to remove from that clearing area. MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand what the Town permits,but what does the APA permit? MRS.MOORE-I'm sorry to interrupt you,but in reference to APA,we have a local approved land use plan. So that typically, and I could be incorrect, but my understanding is that takes precedent over what the APA says. So the APA, we work together,but our approved local land use plan is what takes precedent. There are times when there's a variance that's not part of this Board that they can overturn, and that has happened obviously. MR. MAGOWAN-Really? Okay. I thought the APA ruled us. MRS. MOORE-Forever? MR. MAGOWAN-Well,no,but I mean especially on the lake,right on the lake. MRS.MOORE-So,and I'll just jump in,in reference to the cutting restrictions,it's specific. It says general exception to this standard shall be allowance for water access and beaches. So I mean that's specific in our Code. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. All right. I take it back. MR.SERINI-I mean we appreciate the comment. We try to stay and do the best,we'll continue to do that, but we also want to see the lake,too. MR. DEEB-Well,could you see the lake if you removed fewer trees than the ones allotted. MR. TRAVER-The ones they're removing are diseased. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MRS. SERINI-The ones we are removing, they're a bunch of little ones, like toward the beach area, and they are in pretty bad shape,but the bigger ones,they are diseased,but we are keeping all the ones to the south side. There are a lot of trees on the south side of the property that we are keeping. MR. TRAVER-And you're planting some new ones. MRS. SERINI-And we are planting some new ones,yes. I have no problem doing that. MR. KEIL-Yes,if you look up the hill I mean there's a number of like 14 inch, IS inch hemlocks that will remain, and just like Sharon was saying, those ones in that proposed beach area, they're pretty densely planted,you know,they're right next to one another. So they're sort of long term prospects in my mind. They're not probably as good to reach that maturity as some of the other ones. MR.MAGOWAN-Well,I'm just a little confuse when you say small. Because that one in the middle right on the line is a 15 inch elm,compared to the 24 inch elm just up the hill. The one in front of the house is an 1S inch,but those are pretty healthy trees right down straight to the,I mean,I just feel uncomfortable doing that,all to have a beach area. MR. SERINI-It's also to gain access and a view of the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-How do you get out onto your docks right now? MR. SERINI-You walk through the trees. There's a switchback area. MR.KEIL Jumping off the docks,we all love that,but with younger kids,you know,his grandkids,I think having some things a little more accessible is of real value. MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand that and, trust me, I don't have a problem with the safety and the convenience, and I understand that, but my concern is we're creating something that we're telling everybody that really what we need is to protect our lake,and by saying,all right,well you seem like really nice people,you want to do and you're going to do a good job,but in order to get that perfect beach or a little bit of a spot to enjoy, you're taking away shoreline rocks and cutting down some good sized trees. That's my concern, and go back to the project where they had the steps that go in. They made, it's all sandy out there,but the original shoreline buffer rocks,the APA,you had to leave that in there because it's, the effect is really for the things that live in there,the different crawfish or whatever,or the small fish can hide in there. It really was interesting learning this whole process. It took a year and a half for approval to do it. So I'm just,that's my concern,but that's Lake George and not Queensbury and I'm not trying to do apples and oranges. I just don't feel comfortable. If there was just a few less trees there,but that's a lot of trees for the beach. MR. KEIL-Yes,but it's tough because I mean you can all see it from the grade. That's a good natural area where it wants to be,where there's a little bay there it's right next to the dock. MR. DIXON-May I ask for the number of trees coming out of the beach area? You've got space adjacent to it on the west side. Would you be willing to plant trees in thereto offset what's coming out of the beach area? MR.KEIL-In that area. MR. SERINI-We have no problem planting trees. MR. DIXON-Right now it's says,with that line it says 35 foot shoreline setback in that area. MR. KEIL-We show some smaller,like where I was mentioning before, kind of an understory,more like larger canopy trees. MR. DIXON-Well I think you need a good mix, a healthy mix, a nice variety, and whatever Code allows, but I think that might be a way to offset the loss of trees,because again,if I'm going to count the trees and we figure we're losing about 13,where can we gain it. And that shoreline is all on your southern side, so it's probably not going to impact much of your nice sunshine. MR. SERINI-Yes,we have no problem. MR. MAGOWAN-Well you have like a 20 foot drop from the front of the house to the lake. MR. SERINI-Twenty feet,it's gradual. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,it's gradual. I can see that. Well that's a good compromise. I mean I know it's going to take probably some of your view out from the north by planting them over to the side,but it's a compromise,opening up and requiring what you need. MR. DIXON-That spot that I was mentioning, do you think nine trees of varying species, that could accommodate that? MR.KEIL-We can look at that. It's a little hard to say without looking at it closely,to just agree to throw in a number. Principally our main goal is the long term health,the longevity of the trees. So to just cram them in there with a number. MR. DEEB-We're going to need a number for the resolution. MR.KEIL-Okay. MR. LA SARSO-Can we do like 10 to 15? Is that,give them a range? MR. DEEB-That's an awful lot. MR.KEIL-It's a lot. MR. DEEB-How many are you going to take out? MR.KEIL-I think,what about three or four? MR. DIXON-Yes, I'm looking at the comparative size, based on that beach area. The beach area alone there's six trees coming out. Now I don't know how healthy they are,if they're choking themselves. MR. SERINI-Is your concern more towards the lake or just that immediate area? Because above that rock wall could use some trees. There aren't many trees up there. So if you want nine trees, are you more concerned about nine trees down at the bottom or would you consider nine trees, spread it out so they would be able to thrive? MR.MAGOWAN-I would say from the shore all the way up to the house,if you could kind cover that area over there. Right. So they don't grow up in front of your view as much,but off to the north,you know, and cut out those obnoxious neighbors you might have. You don't know. MR. SERINI-They're going to go up. That's why you've got to go up toward the rock wall. MR.KEIL-Yes. MR. SERINI-Why don't we shoot for nine. MR.KEIL-That's a lot. MRS. SERINI-That's a lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and do you describe the area that you're putting for the resolution,describing the area that you're planting the nine trees? MR.KEIL-I would suggest,I mean do we want it within the shoreline? Does it have to be in the shoreline setback area? Or can we just say maybe like the northern, along the northern property boundary, down slope from the house? MR. DIXON-I think because your easternmost part of your shoreline buffer, that seems heavily planted already. MR. TRAVER-On the western side? MR. DIXON-Yes,I'm thinking. MR. MAGOWAN-Wait,this is your shoreline buffer,right? MR.KEIL-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So this is what you're planning on planting? MR.KEIL-Correct. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry,I didn't flip to the next page,but I thought I had seen one before. MR. KEIL-Like just to get a sense of scale, right. I mean we're showing a striped maple down by the shoreline which is like in the mid statures or deciduous tree. I mean that's drawn,just shy of a 20 foot diameter canopy, and that could get bigger. So if you're talking big, evergreen canopy trees, I mean,just think about that size. I think nine is a lot. I just don't think this really benefits the tree's long term health ultimately. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,you've already got,now what's the witch hazel? MR.KEIL-That's also,it's like a 20 foot max deciduous tree. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you're already adding five trees right there. MR.KEIL-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right,and then what are your eight OC's? MR.KEIL-Those are shaker ferns. MR. MAGOWAN-Ferns? MR.KEIL-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. DEEB-I think six would be more than enough. MR.KEIL-Okay. MR. DIXON-And where do you propose that? I mean the southwest area has an opening there. I'm just trying to think of how we're going to describe this. MR. KEIL-Are we all looking at Sheet Six,the Shoreline Buffer plan? I think that really answers a lot. I think that we've taken a lot of time to kind of. MR. DEEB-We are kind of beating this to death. MR. MAGOWAN-My fault. Sorry. Why didn't you just say go to Six? We could have cut all this time out. MR. DIXON-I'm going to withdraw my suggestion, after looking at cut sheet six. MR. TRAVER-There's adequate plantings. MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-Well,the only question is these are all from our tree list of preferred trees on the lake? MR.KEIL-Yes. That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Under SEQR this is a SEQR Type II. So we don't have to do SEQR. Anything else? MR. DEEB-Let's move on. MR. TRAVER-I guess so. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#15-2022 FWW 2-2022 SHARON SERINI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of new 4 bedroom home with a footprint of 2,445 sq. ft.. Total floor area is 3,094 sq. ft. Project includes connecting to the existing shared driveway to Cleverdale and installation of a new well and septic system. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, 179-6-060, site work for a new floor area in a CEA, site work for a beach area, shoreline planting plan and other associated development shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) 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 3/29/2022 and continued the public hearing to 3/29/2022,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 3/29/2022; 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 15-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2022 SHARON SERINII- 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,n traffic,o.commercial alterations/construction details, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal are a reasonable to request a as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 2) The approval is valid for one(1)year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 29`h day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy,Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-You're all set. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR.KEIL-Thank you. MR. SERINI-Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business and the application we have under Old Business is Harris Bay Yacht Club,Site Plan 18-2022 and Special Use Permit 1-2022. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 18-2022 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AND REPLACE THE CASHIER BUILDING OF 109 SQ. FT. AND THE STORAGE BUILDING OF 209 SQ. FT. LOCATED ON DOCK C. THE EXISTING CLUB HOUSE OF 3,172 SQ. FT. HAS NO IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED AND WILL REMAIN THE SAME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACING THE FLOATING DOCK SYSTEM, INCLUDING 271 SEASONAL BERTHING SLIPS FOR MEMBERS, WINTER STORAGE FOR UP TO 300 VESSELS, SALES AND SERVICE OF MARINE PRODUCTS,FUEL SALES,AND ONSITE PUMP OUT SERVICES. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES REPLACING EXISTING STEEL PILES WITH DRIVEN PVC REINFORCES PILES AND REPLACING THE EXISTING CONCRETE PADS AT THE SHORELINE. NEW LINES FOR WATER, SEWER AND ELECTRIC WILL BE INSTALLED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. UPGRADES WILL INCLUDE FIRE SAFETY AND LIGHTING ON THE DOCKING SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10-070, 179-5-060, SITE PLAN FOR WORK AT THE MARINA, SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MARINA OPERATIONS, AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 24-91, SV 112-1993,UV 111-1993,AV 11-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2O22. SITE INFORMATION: APA LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 17.16 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 240.-1-23.1. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-070,179-5-060. ERIK SANDBLOM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is primarily in regards to the storage building that is on the land side of things as well as the new, or the replacement hard surfacing for access to the docks. The variance that they requested was granted on March 16`h where the storage building was to be located zero feet from the shoreline where a 50 foot setback is required, and I'd just note that when you discuss the Special Use Permit, please note whether you're going to approve it as permanent, temporary, or renewable, and I suggested permanent only because that is consistent with a marina. MR. TRAVER-Sure. All right. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you. Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So we looked at this and you went before the ZBA. You received your variance from the ZBA. Were there any changes to your plan as a result of your meeting with the ZBA? MR. SANDBLOM-No,there were not. MR. TRAVER-So it's the same thing that we looked at before. And you got your zero. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes. We explained to the Zoning Board your comment of whether or not it was considered, and I was quite honest with them that it was not, but we spent that day, I spent some time with the Maintenance and Operations chief there and really what it boils down to is that space is of a premium on this site, and by moving it away from that shoreline you create that space and you take up space, and there were definitely some problems, there could be some problems with the boat removal operations by putting the building in a different spot and it was complicated by that diesel tank that's behind there. Those are the primary reasons, and the Zoning Board agreed. MR.TRAVER-Well thank you for looking into it in any case. I felt it was something that had to be looked at and you did, and thank you for that. Anything else from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to suggest,if you move all that PVC piping,you'd have plenty of room over there. I was up there the other day. MR.SANDBLOM-The great piping that you saw are the piles for the dock system. They're going to replace the steel piles that are driven into the lake bottom. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-And they looked so beautiful out there just floating. They're just floating now,but I do have friends that have been out there. So it's going to be quite an improvement. MR. SANDBLOM-It is. MR. MAGOWAN-But what a feat,and you plan on having this done by boating season? MR. SANDBLOM-Well, there've been some issues with the delivery of the docks. So it's going to be a staged schedule it sounds like at this point. So as soon as possible this April the plan is to replace two of the docks,A and B,they're the ones farthest to the west I believe,and then the rest of them will be done in the fall and the other reason for staging it now is just because I think the folks that operate Harris Bay and maintain it realize that trying to do this in the middle of the summer season is just not a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,you can't. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes,the logistics were just untenable,removing boats and all that. That's the plan. MR.TRAVER-And the way the weather's been the last few days,the lake is making ice again. So it's kind of crazy. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes,it is. It's also a pretty big undertaking. So it's not a bad idea to break it up. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board? All right. I guess we're ready to entertain a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman,you need to open the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'm sorry. So we do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any takers. Are there any written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-One other item that Laura mentioned as well. There is the Special Use Permit. Staff has recommended that we select that as permanent. I think that makes sense. He'd probably have a heart attack if we told him six months. MR. DEEB-That's a no-brainer. It's got to be permanent. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. So we'll try that again. So now we can entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#IS-2022&SUP 1-2022 HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to remove and replace the cashier building of 109 sq. ft. and the storage building of 209 sq. ft. located on Dock C. The existing club house of 3,172 sq. ft. has no improvements proposed and will remain the same. The project includes replacing the floating dock system, including 271 seasonal berthing slips for members, winter storage for up to 300 vessels,sales and service of marine products,fuel sales,and onsite pump out services. The project also includes replacing existing steel piles with driven PVC reinforces piles and replacing the existing concrete pads at the shoreline. New lines for water, sewer and electric will be installed as part of the project. Upgrades will include fire safety and lighting on the docking system. Pursuant to chapter 179- 3-040, 179-10-070, 179-5-060, site plan for work at the marina, special use permit for marina operations, and hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-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 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/29/2022 and continued the public hearing to 3/29/2022,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 3/29/2022; 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 18-2022 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2022 HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB;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,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 as the building and hard surface areas are replacement in kind; 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) Special Use Permit 1-2022 is to be permanent. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 29`h day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy,Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you very much. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 03/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-That concludes our regular agenda. Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? I just want to thank you to the Board for tolerating a third meeting this month. I think it was time well spent. I appreciate it. It looks as though Laura has prepared a little milder agenda for us next month. So thank you again,and we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. MAGOWAN-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 29TH 2022,Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael Dixon: Duly adopted this 29`h day of March,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy,Mr.Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 2S