Loading...
05-26-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING THIRD REGULAR MEETING MAY26TH 2O22 INDEX Site Plan No.26-2022 Eric Carlson 1. Freshwater Wetlands 5-2022 Tax Map No.239.12-2-S4 Site Plan No.25-2022 3 Antigua Road,LLC 2. Tax Map No.239.17-1-2 and 239.17-1-1 Site Plan No. 2S-2022 Beth Portuese 3. Tax Map No. 316.5-1-3 and 316.9-1-27.2 (access drive) Site Plan No.29-2022 Reds LG,LLC 5. Tax Map No.239.17-1-15 Site Plan No.27-2022 Foothills Builders(FHB Apts) 7. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-24 and 309.10-1-25 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 05/26/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING THIRD REGULAR MEETING MAY 26TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN JACKSON LA SARSO BRADY STARK,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Thursday May 26`h,2022. This is our third meeting for the month of May and our 12` meeting thus far for the year. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency of some kind those are the ways out. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it's not going to interrupt our proceedings we'd appreciate that. Also if you wish to have a conversation outside of the public hearing, amongst yourselves, if you would please move to the outer lobby area to have that conversation so that we remain silent in the room for our Planning Board meeting. We do record the meetings and minutes are taken. So that's very important. A couple of housekeeping announcements. One of our Planning Board members,John Molloy, who's served on the Planning Board for a number of months,had informed us a couple of months ago that he anticipated moving out of the area later this spring, and he has begun doing that. So he is leaving the Planning Board effective this month and I just wanted to make mention of the fact that although he wasn't with us for a long period of time, he was a valued member. He contributed a good deal to the Planning Board procedure. I also want to welcome Brady Stark and Nathan Etu as new members of the Planning Board. They are two alternates for the Planning Board bringing us up to strength,and we look forward to their participation. Brady actually has some prior service on our Zoning Board of Appeals. So he has some related experience with the process, and special thanks to Craig Brown who provided an orientation and training to those gentlemen. I had the privilege of attending that training this particular week and he and the Planning Staff do a very professional job providing information for new Planning Board members which is very,very important. We appreciate that very much. So with that we'll begin with our regular agenda. I should tell the audience as well that we do have a number of applications that are going to be tabled this evening, quite often due to possible changes in their plans. So what we will do is we'll announce when those projects will be returning to the Planning Board to be heard. We will open a public hearing, but because of proposed changes,or likely changes in those projects,we won't take public comment until we actually review the project when they return before us. So the first item on our agenda is Eric Carlson, Site Plan 26-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands 5-2022. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 26-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 5-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ERIC CARLSON. AGENT(S): EDP (CHRIS KEIL). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 67 BRAYTON LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,381 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES PORCH/DECK AREAS AND LIVING SPACE OF DETACHED BUILDING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES 873 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AREA WITH DETACHED GARAGE. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6.,194 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ALTERATION OF A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT, AS WELL AS GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL. THE HOUSE IS TO HAVE 3 BEDROOMS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,147 CHAPTER 94,NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, A NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT.OF 15%SLOPES,WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS,AND DRIVEWAY OF 10% SLOPE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 241-2019,AV 20-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.25 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-84. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,147 CHAPTER 94. MR. TRAVER-I understand this project is to be tabled until to July,Laura. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MRS.MOORE-Correct. It should be tabled to July 26`h. At this time the Zoning Board of Appeals is still reviewing that application and they tabled it to the meeting prior to that which is July 20`h MR. TRAVER-Okay. So for the record we will open a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-We will keep that public hearing open until that project is heard on July 26`h. Any comments or questions regarding the status of that application? I think we have a draft tabling resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#26-2022 FWW 5-2022 ERIC CARLSON Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,3SI sq.ft.which includes porch/deck areas and living space of detached building. The project includes S73 sq. ft. footprint area detached garage. New floor area to be 6,194 sq. ft. The project includes stormwater management,alteration of a shared driveway and parking arrangement,as well as grading and erosion control. The house is to have 3 bedrooms. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065,147 chapter 94,new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, a new structure within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes,work within 100 feet of wetlands,and driveway of 100/o slope shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 26-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 5-2022 ERIC CARLSON. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the July 26`h,2022 Planning Board meeting pending ZBA decision. Duly adopted this 26`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next under Old Business is another application to be tabled this evening. This is for 3 Antigua Road LLC, Site Plan 25-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 25-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. 3 ANTIGUA ROAD, LLC. AGENT(S): EDP (CHRIS KEIL). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 &z 5 ANTIGUA ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,145 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 180 SQ. FT. DECK FOOTPRINT; TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS 6,483 SQ. FT. THE NEW HOME WILL BE 37 FT.IN HEIGHT. THE DRIVEWAY AREA INCLUDES 8,145 SQ.FT.OF HARD SURFACING AND 1,400 SQ. FT. OF PERMEABLE PAVERS. THE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ADJOINS A PARCEL THAT IS IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON THE LAKE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW ENTRY PORCH OVERHANG TO THE EXISTING HOME AND A PORTION OF NEW HARD SURFACE AREA FOR THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN THAT IS LOCATED ON THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020,179-3-040,179-6-065 AND CHAPTER 147,SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 59-2014,AV 22-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: .74 ACRES AND .04 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.17-1-2 AND 239.17-1-1. SECTION: 179-9-020,179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-And my understanding is this is to be tabled to the June 21 meeting. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant had changed their plans early on and so they really need to come back to the Planning Board for Planning Board recommendation. That's why they're on for June 21" for the Planning Board recommendation. However all the public hearing has been advertised. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. So they're hoping to reduce the number of variances? MRS. MOORE-They have reduced the number of variances. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right Well, likewise, similar to the last application, we will open the public hearing and keep it open for when they come back to us on June 21. Any discussion on that item? MR. MAGOWAN Just a quick, as I was putting my packages together looking at it,I should saw it was tabled June. So that's why it was accidentally advertised? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MRS.MOORE-No. Originally it was going to be on this month and they had changed it en route basically. So they needed to move the whole application to June. MR. MAGOWAN-Really? My last one I had tabled to June 21st. Okay. It was me. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we'll open the public hearing. We'll keep it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And I believe we have a draft resolution for that as well. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#25-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD,LLC Applicant proposes to construct a new 2,145 sq. ft.home with a 180 sq. ft. deck footprint;total floor area is 6,483 sq. ft. The new home will be 37 ft. in height. The driveway area includes 8,145 sq. ft. of hard surfacing and 1,400 sq. ft. of permeable pavers. The parcel that is located in the Town of Queensbury adjoins a parcel that is in the Town of Lake George that has frontage on the lake. The project includes a new entry porch overhang to the existing home and a portion of new hard surface area for the outdoor kitchen that is located on the Town of Lake George. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020,179-3-040,179-6-065 and Chapter 147, site plan for a new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 25-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD, LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Molloy. Tabled until the June 21",2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by May 19,2022. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Old Business,is Beth Portuese, Site Plan 28-2022. SITE PLAN NO.28-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BETH PORTUESE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC. OWNER(S): BETH AND THOMAS PORTUESE. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 28 LANSBURG LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A HOME OF 1,064 SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE OF 3,184 SQ. FT. ALSO TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS A PATIO OF 1,219 SQ. FT. A NEW FLOOR AREA OF 5,658 SQ. FT. A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED. SITE WORK FOR GRADING FOR THE PROJECT AND ANEW DRIVEWAY TO BIG BAY ROAD OVER PARCEL 3169-1-27.2. LOTS ARE IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP BUT RELATED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-030. 179-6-060, 179-4-050, SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIE AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AD 7-2006, AV 17-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .75 ACRES AND 1.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-3 AND 316.9-1-27.2 (ACCESS DRIVE). SECTION: 179-4-030,179-6-060,179-4-050. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; TOM PORTUESE,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-This application is to remove an existing home and construct a new home with an attached garage,also a patio area towards the shoreline. Full project will have anew floor area of 5,658 square feet. They did receive their variance which is in reference to having access over an adjoining lot versus having their own road frontage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening,Board. Tom Hutchins,Hutchins Engineers,here with owner/applicant Tom Portuese. I think you've seen this project before and I believe it's fairly straightforward. There was a variance involved . It involved access to the parcel from the adjoining parcel. That's also under their ownership, and it really makes sense. That variance was approved and so we're here to review with you for Site Plan,and I'd turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. TRAVER-So as a result of the review with the ZBA,there were no changes to the project from what we saw when we recommended? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR.HUTCHINS-Right. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 28-2022? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will then close the public hearing. This is SEQR Type II. So no further SEQR review is required. Any questions for the applicant? Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward on this? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#28-2022 BETH PORTUESE Applicant proposes to remove a home of 1,064 sq. ft.to construct a new home with an attached garage of 3,277 sq. ft. Also to be constructed is a patio of 1,219 sq. ft. A new floor area of 5,751 sq. ft. A new septic system will be installed. Site work for grading for the project and a new driveway to Big Bay Road over parcel 316.9-1-27.2. Lots are in separate ownership but related. Pursuant to chapter 179-4-030,179-6-060, 1794-050,site plan for construction within 50 feet of 150/o slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 5/17/2022-1 the ZBA approved the variance on 5/18/2022; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/26/2022 and continued the public hearing to 5/26/2022,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 5/26/2022; 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 28-2022 BETH PORTUESE;Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details, s. snow removal waivers requested are reasonable 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; 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: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) 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 Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 26`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR.HUTCHINS-Thank you very much,Board. MR. PORTUESE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under Old Business and this is additionally under Unapproved Development. This is Reds LG,LLC, Site Plan 29-2022. OLD BUSINESS UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN NO. 29-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. REDS LG LLC. AGENT(S): EDP (NICK ZEGLEN). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 7, 9 &z 13 NUTLEY LANE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ALTERATIONS TO TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRD DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE. SITE WORK HAD STARTED ON ALL THREE BUILDINGS PRIOR TO REVIEW. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE NEW BUILDING OF 540 SQ. FT. OF ONE BEDROOM AND KITCHEN, 288 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH, 24 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY AREA; ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE 704 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND KITCHEN(FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ.FT.,NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ.FT. — WALKOUT AREA BELOW ; INTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR 13 NUTLEY LANE EXISTING FLOOR AREA 2,134 WITH FOUR BEDROOMS. PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF 72 FT. IN LENGTH AT 1.8 FT. IN HEIGHT. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE;PROJECT SUBJECT TO AREA VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS FOR 7 AND 9 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING , STORMWATER DEVICES LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE, ADDING A THIRD DWELLING UNIT — KITCHEN, AND PERMEABILITY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065,147,SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 37-2021, AV 21-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,179-6-050,179-13-010,147. MR. TRAVER-I'll just briefly mention that you might recall when we reviewed this for recommendation to the ZBA we unanimously recommended that they not approve the variances that were requested. Maria was kind enough to draw out the discussion that took place in the ZBA regarding this application and e-mail it to us which I forwarded to everybody,but if you have an opportunity, I would look at those minutes. It's very informative. But in any case,they ended up being tabled at the ZBA. So they are being tabled. They're requesting to be tabled this evening, and we expect that they will be returning in July,on July 26`h. Is that correct,Laura? MRS. MOORE-That's correct. They have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals first. If they get past that,then they'll move on MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any comments or discussions about that? All right. I think we have a draft motion again. I'm sorry. So like the other items to be tabled, we will open the public hearing and 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) keep it open until they return in July with what we anticipate to be a different project, and they will be returning for a recommendation again,right,presumably? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS.MOORE-Not that I'm aware. If it's less than there will not be a recommendation. It won't be back if the Zoning Board grants it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. So it sounds like I'm assuming it's a process question. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes,will I get notice of the next hearing? MRS. MOORE-You will not get notification of the next hearing at this point, but you're more than welcome to call our office and confirm that they're on the agenda. MR. TRAVER-This is for the Reds application? Yes,they're scheduled to be on our agenda in July. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. MR.TRAVER-However you should be aware that they will be going through the Zoning Board of Appeals process first. Correct,Laura,before they come back to us. So if something happens in the ZBA review,as it did last night,then they may not be back to us at that July 26`h meeting. We will not hear them until they get through the ZBA process. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So the next ZBA meeting that would be,what,in July,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Right. So they're scheduled to be on the July 20`h Zoning Board meeting, and then the following week they'd be on the Planning Board meeting of July 26`h AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So July 20 at 7 p.m. there will be a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in this room where they will be heard and there would be public comment taken at that time. So that's really the date that you should be aware of. Because a week before they come,have a possibility of coming back to us,they'll be re-discussing their variances and their application with the ZBA. So that's when you want to. AUDIENCE MEMBER-In July. MR. TRAVER-Right. AUDIENCE MEMBER-But we, as neighbors,will be getting notification of that public hearing. MRS.MOO RE-You will not receive a notice again at all. So my suggestion is to call our office and confirm that they're on and/or also submit your letters or comments. I would wait until after June 15`h because that's when they're supposed to provide additional information about that particular project. So the project,I'm assuming,will be changing and you'll be able to see that information after June 15`h AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. I just want to write it down. June 15`h and then possibly July 20`h� MRS. MOORE-Correct. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-But that's not the Planning Board. That's the Zoning Board. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I've got you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And my advice is also to check with Laura in the Planning Office. I think she mentioned the 16`h is their deadline to be on the agenda. So you want to touch base with her because she will have information about any updated plans. You can also check the Town website, queensbury.net. You're familiar with that, and you can see the documents that are pending review, plans and so on. So that's your best way to get ahead of the game is just keep in touch with what's going on. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you so much. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR. TRAVER-You're welcome. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#29-2022 REDS LG,LLC Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of third dwelling unit on the site. Site work had started on all three buildings prior to review. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 sq.ft. of one bedroom and kitchen,2SS sq.ft. open porch,24 sq. ft. covered entry area;Alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen(floor area of 1,40E sq.ft.,new open deck of 440 sq.ft.-walkout area below,interior alterations for 13 Nutley Lane existing floor area 2,134 with four bedrooms. Project includes grass depression areas, shoreline plantings,construction of a retaining wall of 72 ft.in length at I.S ft.in height. Project subject to site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of non-conforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline;Project subject to area variance for setbacks for 7 and 9 Nutley Lane,expansion of non-conforming,stormwater devices less than 100 ft.from the shoreline,adding a third dwelling unit-kitchen, and permeability. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,147, shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 29-2022 REDS LG,LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark. Tabled until the July 26,2022 Planning Board meeting pending ZBA decision. Duly adopted this 26th day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. The next section of our agenda is New Business, and what we have under New Business is Foothills Builders(FHB Apts),Site Plan 27-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS (FHB APTS) AGENT(S): STUDIO A (MATTHEW HUNTINGTON). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 78-80 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 8,663 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 25,989 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR OFFICE/RETAIL WITH A SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR CONTAINING 24 APARTMENTS TOTAL. SITE WORK TO INCLUDE PARKING/DRIVE AREA, LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER. SITE PLAN FOR NEW USES AND MULTI-STORY BUILDING IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL SE IN A MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: DISC 6-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET. LOT SIZE: .76 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-24 AND 309.10-1-25. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-7-030,179-7-070,140. MATT HUNTINGTON&JOE LEUCI,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to remove existing outbuildings on parcels on Main Street and then proceed to construct a building that has a footprint of 5,663 square feet,floor area total would be 25,000 plus. This includes a first floor of office,retail area with a second and a floor totaling 24 apartments. At the moment they're scheduled to be one bedroom apartments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening. Matt Huntington with Studio A. Joe Leuci is running a little late. As Laura said we were in front of the Board a few months ago, maybe late winter, with this project at sketch plan and it was met pretty favorably. So we went through a detailed engineering design for it and now we're back. As Laura mentioned, the existing parcel has two buildings on it. They're going to be demolished. You can see kind of the cross hatched area, the hashed out is going to be pretty well demolished. The adjacent neighbors are residential uses. Across the street is where that Subway recently went in. Just to kind of give you an idea of what the neighborhood is. Laura if you could go to the next one which is the layout plan. I can kind of walk you through the site a little bit. So the proposed building itself, the footprint, is about S600 square feet. It's three floors, a total of about 600 square feet. The entrance is a two way entrance to the left of the page there, and that comes around, due to the site S (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) limitations on the,an entrance of one way traffic, around the parking spaces. The reason for that is we do have a dumpster in the lower right front of the site. When we were last in front of the Board we kind of discussed a parking reduction possibility. The Town Code section does allow a waiver for up to a 500/o reduction, but we ran the calculations for the commercial and mixed space residential, came up with a total needed of 56 spaces and we're providing 3S spaces now. So 500/o would be that 2S spaces. So really we're just trying to maximize what we can on the site that we have there. The commercial tenants on the first floor are still yet to be decided. So when we get to the building you'll see it's kind of blank space,but there is available space for signs on the building above each tenant. Kind of similar to what was done at the Subway building. They'll be down lit. The site,really it's a pretty straightforward site. We did some test pits out there. It's seven,eight feet of this normal sand that you'd see in that area,no high groundwater. So our stormwater management design really encapsulates that middle parking area. We're going to put infiltrators, subsurface infiltrators, in there and capture a lot of the runoff with gutters and roof leaders that pitch to a series of catch basins below the parking lot. Utilities,water and sewer is in the street on Main Street already. So we've had to tie into that. We have touched base with Chris Harrington on locations of those. There's a sewer manhole on the same side of the street as the proposed building,and if we need to tie in to the water, it's unfortunately on the other side of the street. So as we progress here, after we get through the Board, we will be applying for a DOT permit. Lighting wise, all we're really proposing is just some bollard lights. We don't really see a need for large overhead lights just based on the size of the site, the adjacent residential uses. We're looking at some three foot high or so bollard lights within the parking areas. I know the only other waiver other than the parking I believe,Laura,correct me if I'm wrong,that we're shooting for is the Code shoots for a zero side yard setback, and we end up going with five feet on the right side,mainly because of what the adjacent uses are. The use is residential and it's not another commercial building. There is a possibility if the site adjacent to it were ever developed for commercial use,you can kind of see the parking lot as you go right to left through the parking island there. There's certainly an opportunity for connectivity in there. The site and adjacent areas are very muddled so it kind of plays into whatever ends up happening on the other parcel,but there is a possibility if we were ever to tie in, and that's it. I think we've covered pretty much the site. I'll leave it up to questions from the Board. MR. TRAVER-Well first of all you talked about the lighting plan and the bollard lights. They need to be identified on the plan. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,I believe they are,but it may not be totally clear. They're actually,even on this plan you can see in the island there the star looking things. I believe they show up on the planting plan, but we can certainly revise that with the lumens. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then what is the plan for signage? MR.HUNTINGTON-So you'll see the white rectangles. MR. LEUCI-I'm Joe Leuci. MR. HUNTINGTON-The white rectangles are intended to be left open for the commercial tenants in there. They'll be lit from the building and they're attached to the building. So there'll be nothing out in the space between the Main Street frontage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they would come in as the tenants come in? MRS.MOO RE-At this point,yet. So knowing that they don't know exactly their tenants I asked for them to at least identify the space. It would be helpful if they had a little more dimension information so that I could confirm that sort of detail so that each tenant would get,if there's four tenants,each tenant would get X amount of square feet,but the idea on Main Street is that they do have a space for signage and that the signage material is compliant with the Code as well as the lighting for the signage. We require downcast fixtures, and if you remember the Dollar General they had a hard time with that request. The Dollar General generally has an internally illuminated and we asked them to comply and come up with a downcast fixture which they did. They have a gooseneck. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you can provide that dimensional information,too. MR.HUNTINGTON-Sure. MR. TRAVE R-There's a fence as part of the buffer. Is that my understanding? MR. LEUCI-Yes,correct. MR. TRAVER-Can you tell us about the detail of that,the length and so on? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR.HUNTINGTON-We can actually add a detail to this drawing,but basically it's a six foot high privacy fence. At the time I don't think we had the material totally specified. Most likely just a standard vinyl fence to shield off the parking lot. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LA SARSO-I'll just say I think this is a really strong project. I think you've thought a lot of things through it seems. I just want to say thank you for that. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Okay. Why don't we start over here. You have to come up. We want to get you on the record. So if you could come up,state your name for the record and make your public comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JACOB BARDIN MR.BARDIN-I do believe that there was a petition submitted to the Board earlier today with 55 signatures on it opposing this proposal,for reason of we are the entire neighborhood and we don't want him building in the middle of our neighborhood. We do believe it is a very attractive looking building and it would increase the value of Main Street,but not in the middle of our neighborhood as it is. If they were to go across the road,next to the Caldwell Banker location,that would be a better location and they would have additional parking for the tenants or if they did further down the road where they tore down Carl R's. With those adjustments, our neighborhood would be on board with this proposal, but as it is we don't want a three story building in the middle of our residential neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you said there was a petition and you've given that to the Town? MR.BARDIN-Yes,I sent that over this morning. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BARDIN-Besides the signatures on the petitions, I was contacted by two more residents in the area that wanted to add their names. So that would increase the petition by three more signatures. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If you want to give those names to Laura. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. You had included Ruth and Matthew Fulling,is that the two extra names? MR.BARDIN-No,there's more on top of that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So if you have that information, you can provide that to me. So there was 54 signatures,56 signatures well approximately 34 plus houses that have signed this petition. You had some backyard privacy items. I don't know if you want me to read, do you want to read that section of it, so that the Board understands what your concern is, as well as the applicant. MR. BARDIN-Backyard privacy for residents along Main St., Pine St., and River St. will be completely eliminated. From having a three story building with residents on the top two floors that will easily be able to see clear over our houses and fences. Additional noise from a parking area sized to accommodate 36 vehicles will continue to hinder current residents' enjoyment of their current private yards. Proposed parking lot lighting will increase the light pollution for all surrounding properties. Residents with backyard pools are concerned that they will come home to find residents from the new apartments trying to trespass into their current private oasis by jumping fences. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MR.BARDIN-The petition is on file,correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR.BARDIN-I think that's all my comments for now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Ma'am,did you want to make a comment as well? JODIE WAITE MRS.WAITE-I'm Jodie Wait from 23 Pine Street. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MRS. WAITE-Good evening. I believe my home is located on the left side of this diagram. I am the one that has a very large backyard with a very large in-ground pool. Right now where they're proposing to put this parking lot is where it's very lush, it's very green, very nice. I do understand that it is an extra parcel of land and I understand what they're saying,and I do understand productivity. I've also looked at the new apartment buildings that went in by the Walgreens. I also have friends that neighbor that property. They've dealt with people stealing things,people from these apartment buildings causing havoc. You're talking a lot of residents, a lot of cars, a lot of in and out. My property literally is,like where they are my property line is right there. I have a grandchild, and like I said,I have a very nice backyard which now is going to be overlooked by a three story buildings and however many residents overlooking my backyard. There is no privacy now, and that concerns me. The property value of my land now bothers me. If this goes up, what is my property going to be worth. Now I've got 35 residents overlooking my property. Again,I do understand that we have to move forward. There are a lot of places in Queensbury that could house a production like this. It's lovely. I do agree with Jacob that right smack in the middle of this residential area and also the people that are on,I think the people on the back road,I can't remember what it's called,but we all walk that whole circle, this is going to but right up to and behind all of these residents'houses which area lot of these names. It's very concerning, and it's bothersome to think about that amount of people,and I'm concerned about the store frontage. Where are these people going to park? There is no parking on Main Street. Where is this overflow going to go? If these residents, if we're assuming that these residents are going to go to work every day. This is the middle of COVID and a lot of people stay home now. A lot of people have now made their jobs to stay home. So if they're looking for parking for,I think it's four businesses underneath,where are these people going to park? Where are they going to come and go? What are these stores going to be? I just find it very concerning. I'm concerned for our little neighborhood that is very close-knit. We all know each other and it comes right smack in the middle of,the gentleman on the other side,I know he signed the petition. Like I said,we all know each other. I know the older gentleman that's on,he's Jacob's neighbor and my back neighbor. I know he's not well and so these gentlemen might be thinking that he might be selling and we could just progress out. Also my concern is why piecemeal this? Why are we going to push people out of our neighborhoods one by one? If you want to commercialize this neighborhood,bring in Wal-Mart,bring in a Target and get rid of all of us,you know. Buy us out and put up something huge. I'm not quite sure where Exit 1S is going. I know they've widened the road. That's my other concern. All this traffic now from all these people right where we get in and out of our house now. They put that little streetlight. I mean it's like Manhattan. I mean you sit at Exit 1S and by the time you get down to my road,and I know where Manhattan is. I spent much time in the City,I know exactly what it's like. You get off Exit 1S,you take a right you're just sitting. You're sitting until you can get half mile down the road. I'm concerned that this is now more traffic flow and again I'd like to say I think there's many places where this beautiful building could go with a level parking lot that I think people would be more comfortable in. Right smack in the middle of Main Street? Right across from a Subway and a gas station? I find that a little odd, and I find it encumbering to our neighborhood that's on the back side of this project. I'd give it a big,fat no. That's my vote, a big fat no, and I hope you'll take into consideration the privacy of these people that have owned their houses and have lived there and that home is going to be my retirement. So if this place goes in and my house now is very unattractive to a future buyer, there goes my retirement because that's a big project. Thank you for hearing me. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I believe there was another gentleman. Yes,sir. JAMES MARTIN MR. MARTIN-I'm James Martin. I live at 10 River Street across the road from behind where this is going to go. I had a couple of questions pertaining to the parking of this facility. So right now they have 3S spaces included in that parking. I'm not entirely too sure how the coding goes in Queensbury,but they have a total of 2 one bedrooms, or excuse me,yes, 20 one bedroom apartments and then 4 two bedroom apartments. So with the Code that I looked at,not specifically Queensbury,that would total out to be 2S parking spaces, minus the 3S spaces they have. That leaves them 10 spaces for what I guessed at about roughly 6,930 square feet for the commercial businesses, and like I said, I'm not too sure about what Queensbury Code is four those four commercial businesses. So it would have to depend on what they're going to be putting in there or not putting in there. So that was one of the issues or questions I had with this design. Also with its design, on the bottom of it you can see a 10 foot setback. There's a note in the bottom right hand corner. As far as setbacks go,my question is,if that's the setback, then why do they have the parking spaces going halfway through that setback? Is the parking lot considered a structure? My next question is with the off street loading. There's going to be potentially four commercial businesses in there. I don't see any off street loading facilities with this plan. I'm not sure what the Town or State police or authority has for trucks parking in the middle turn lanes on Main Street. I'm not sure if that's too safe, especially with the amount of traffic in there during rush hour businesses, rush hour time. Another note I have with this one is pertaining to the flow of traffic. The gentleman said earlier that the flow of traffic is going to be counterclockwise as far as the egress of emergency vehicles into the back of those facilities to park for any type of fire or emergency what have you. The left hand side there they have a marker that says about 12 and a half feet distance. From the Code I looked at for Queensbury there has 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) to be at least a 20 foot egress on either side for emergency vehicles to get through there. Also I'm not sure on this drawing how are people going to enter this building from the rear,or if they have to go to the front, there's no sidewalk. So are they going to walk through the building? I wasn't really too sure about that when I looked at the site plans. That was my next question,and then,these are just my questions that I've taken away from this. This is not just my personal feelings I have about this. To go back to the traffic of this area. So what you have there is you have Main Street. If you go down a ways,I believe that's Second Street that cuts back. You come around to River Street and you can go out to Pine Street to hit the light. So what a lot of these people are probably going to do when they live here is they're going to turn right,if they're going to go back towards Exit 1S,they're going to turn right,go down Main Street,come down on Second Street,come around to Pine Street and then turn at the traffic light. It's just going to be easier. I mean there's no two ways about that. That's just going to increase the traffic in our neighborhood and if you've ever been on River Street it's kind of like a big cul de sac. You go down Second Street and it has a sharp right corner there. So many people,when they try to cut through during rush hour traffic, I mean I've almost seen people hit each other because they cut the corners because it's just such a tight corner. There is a sign there to show that there is a 90 degree bend in the corner,but I do have concerns about the traffic patterns that are going to increase with this, and then coming the other way, if you're coming towards Exit 1S from the left side of this,you're going to go to Pine Street. You're going to hit the light, you're going to come around, or you're going to go opposite. You're still going to go down, excuse me, Second Street, come around to Pine and then turn in. So that will definitely, a question of mine and a question of a lot of the neighbors in the neighborhood. It's just going to increase a lot of traffic in that area, and it's also going to increase a lot of foot traffic, and I don't have an issue with people,with the foot traffic,but there are no sidewalks in that area. So more increased traffic,vehicle traffic compared to foot traffic especially with the right corners that are on those streets will make it,in my opinion,dangerous for pedestrians to be walking. I did have an issue with the lighting,but my opinion of the lighting,if they do have things that are,you know,in their sense economic ambo lighting. MR. TRAVER-Downcast. MR.MARTIN-Downcast,correct. I do have a question with it being three stories,though. Are they going to have any lighting on the outside of that building? How far would that lighting go up? I know sometimes they do that for an architectural sense,to make it look nice,security wise, and with the neighbors that are directly behind there, is that going to, are they going to have big floodlights coming into their bedrooms, their living rooms? MR. TRAVER=We can ask about that. Sure. MR. MARTIN-And the last one is, you know, a lot of the neighbors in that neighborhood, you know, they're older. They don't really care, at the end of the day, what gets built because they realize they've lived there most of their lives and they know that that strip of Main Street is going to be eventually built up. Their concern is for, whoever they pass their house onto or if they decide to sell something like this, how is this going to decrease their property value. They talked about that new building that was built down the road from Walgreens and some of the instances the police have had there,of how they destroyed this property and it's,what,maybe two years old. They started building at the beginning of the pandemic. That was definitely a question of mine and definitely a question of my neighbors. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Laura,this might be a good time to segway into the parking. Maybe you could chat with us a bit about the parking. I looked at the notes that you provided and I know it's all there,but I thought maybe I would prevail upon you to sort of narrate us through that process. MRS. MOORE-Sure. So Main Street has additional review requirements that an applicant has to go through. Parking is one of them. The parking section for Main Street allows for this 500/o reduction in parking requirements,or the Planning Board has the opportunity,at their discretion,to waive any portion of that. I did a quick calculation. A little bit different only because of reduction of,if it was 35.2,they went to 3S and it's really 39. So it's a minor item in that sense,but I went through office versus retail. Obviously retail requires more spaces. However,if you include this 500/o reduction in there,they still have the correct amount of spaces. You would need 2S spaces and they've provided 3S. So there really is enough parking, based on the calculation that's being presented. I did note that, in my summary of items, that maybe additional information about traffic assessment might be necessary. That's something for the Board to evaluate. I do have one other letter, and I did talk to Warren County DPW. I thought they would have some information for me this evening,but in general they did not provide that to me as of yet,and I would encourage either the applicant or this Board, as part of their preparation of any information tonight, to include them as part of the review. MR. LA SARSO-Is this required to go through 239 review? MRS. MOORE-It already did the 239. So there's additional,so the 239 was done. MR. LA SARSO-Did they raise any issues? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MRS. MOORE-They suggested to concur with the local Board. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then, so then I additionally reached out to Kevin Hajos up at the DPW because sometimes there's additional information that the County Planning Office doesn't see and I thought it would be best to contact Kevin directly and he said he thought they'd have some comments, I'm just not quite sure what they are. Chuck Rice,of our office area,handles typically the lighting,because again Main Street is a particular area. So different people have different functions on this particular stretch of road between Glens Falls and the Northway. So Chuck Rice handles the lighting and he was just concerned about making sure that the lighting is kept in place or adjusted so that their project doesn't interfere with the lighting. Other than that,Main Street has additional review. Can I read that one other letter into the record? MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go ahead. MRS.MOORE-So this is addressed to Craig,and this is,"I am concerned with the mature at property line. 11 River St.is my lot that borders Apt complex on Main St. Please be respectful of the existing privacy and please don't damage my trees." And my understanding, after talking to this individual, is that their property abuts this directly to the rear and he just would like his trees that are on this property to remain and not be damaged. He also asked the question in regards to the 10 foot setback and I explained that's typically for a structure. It's not dealing, fences don't have a setback. Parking lots and things like that also don't have a setback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So with regard to the DPW information that you spoke about,you're still waiting for that and you think there's potential there for information from them that we should consider? MRS. MOORE-I think it's more technical in nature. It's probably connections and things like that. I just don't know off the top of my head. Kevin didn't give me any leads when I chatted with him the other day. So I'm not quite certain exactly what it is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LA SARSO-It's probably not design related,right? It's probably more site related? MRS. MOORE-I think it's more site connection issues. MR. LA SARSO-That makes sense. MR.TRAVER-There was public comment about the emergency access,and I see we did get comment from the Fire Marshal indicating that access is acceptable on this site. Okay. So I guess with that we'll ask the applicant to return. Is there someone else that wanted to,we still have the public hearing open. Is there another audience member that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? This is the Foothills apartment building. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I was going to,but my son sent in the letter. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So you heard the public comment. A lot of concern about, because of the height of the building and therefore the apartments that the privacy is going to be impacted,particularly the people in the immediate area. Concerns about foot traffic and the absence of sidewalks and, well,you heard the public comment. So I guess I would give you an opportunity to respond. MR.HUNTINGTON-Certainly. I think the sidewalk issue is the easier one to start with because there is a sidewalk along Main Street. So I'm not sure if the gentleman is referring to the side off Main Street,but Main Street does have a sidewalk. So that's there for foot traffic. As you said for the emergency access we did design it accordingly to Town standards. It is actually a 20 foot wide entrance there. In terms of the third floor thing, I think we'd probably have to chat with the architect and just see if there's anything building wise,that could make an attempt to increase the privacy,I guess. MR. DIXON-If I can ask,before you get beyond the sidewalks, the sidewalks for the businesses, though. How do you expect customers to get in and out of the building? Is all the egress and entrance through the front of the building for customers or are they entering from the back? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR. HUNTINGTON-The access, the back is actually like a horse shoe shape with a courtyard area so that's actually where we would anticipate most people to park back of the building, but then there are doors obviously on Main Street for any foot traffic that is going by. MR. DEEB-Is that just for the commercial. MR. LEUCI-The apartment accesses in the rear,so they can park and walk in. MR. DEEB-Yes, but will the tenants be able to get in from the front, or is that just for the commercial business? MR. LEUCI Just for the commercial. MR.HUNTINGTON-I believe the commercial is through the front and the tenants will be in the back. MR. LEUCI-There'll be three entrance points in the rear, one just for commercial and then the other ones would be for the tenants. And then there's also commercial spaces. MR. TRAVER-So getting back to the privacy issue, do all of the apartments have windows that overlook the neighborhood? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,there's windows all the way around it. MR. LEUCI-So when you look at the rear of the building,there's really not any windows looking directly back. There's windows on the third floor looking to the side,but there's nothing looking out the back of the building. So the residents behind won't have any issues with privacy in that regard. I think there's a window in the bathroom but that's about it. MR. MAGOWAN-You've also got a parking lot. So your line of sight. MRS. MOORE-So this is the rear elevation. So it's just these folks. MR. LEUCI-The ones in the middle have the fence,but the ones on the outer portion of it,the horse shoe, on the back of the horse shoe which will be closest to the neighbors, those are farther set away from the fence. So it's kind of a different angle looking across. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I would say you've done a really nice job. I like the design of the front of the building. It's very interesting how your layout and the interior is. It's jam packed. I will say that. I understand the height and the amount of rentals and everything. It's an expensive building to build. There's a lot of fixtures and everything else. What concerns me is you're taking two lots,and one's completely grass. The other one just is a house and a garage,putting a huge building and it's going to be all paved,and we have,I can't remember,what is it like five feet on either side of the fence. MR. HUNTINGTON-I think that's approximately right. We did provide a little, the Main Street Code requires a 100/o landscape barrier. I mean we went a few percentage points above that to provide about 120/o,but our understanding is this is somewhat,we tried to design this kind of in line with,the site in line with the Main Street Design Guidelines. MR. MAGOWAN-And you did a very good job on following the codes and the parking,all right. I'm just concerned it's a large building and it's all macadam and I look at the six storm drains going into a leach, pretty much a leach bed underneath the parking lot. With the concentration of storms that we're having now and the intensity,you know, I'm concerned that that middle will fill up, okay. You've taken really every form of evaporation away and you're going to be concentrating it. If we have two bad storms right in a row,but I'm not an engineer. I'll leave that up to you,but I have a concern with that. I also see that you mentioned vinyl fence,but over here on the plans that I see a wooden fence,tall six foot high privacy wooden fence,remainder of property length. So is it vinyl or is it wood? MR. LEUCI-I guess that's to be decided in a sense. Is there a preference with the Board? MR. DEEB-The vinyl's more attractive. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,vinyl is a lot more attractive. Wood is a lot of maintenance. MR. LEUCI-I think we got a miscommunication. MR.HUNTINGTON-That's an easy fix. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-That's all right. Snow removal. You have no place to put it. You're already at 500/o, which I really disagree with the Comprehensive Plan on allowing that. It's a lot of apartments. What happens if you get girlfriend and boyfriend with two cars? And believe me some of these parking lots in Queensbury I think are way too large, all right,but you're talking 500/o with businesses, but nothing on Main Street. That just concerns me. Really for you it's people that are going to come in as tenants downstairs and say I'd like to be here,but I need more parking. What are you going to do? You can't kick out your tenants,you know, but we say,yes, it's a one bedroom apartment,but what happens if there's two people. Now I know in the Comprehensive Plan it's more walking. They wanted people walking, and I really hope that works because the way you designed it and put it in,it's impressive. I am concerned with the height and nobody likes change, but this is what we wanted with apartments up above. The third floor,boy that's up there,you're 40 feet on the height,and really snow removal,I mean how are you even going to do that? You're going to have to go in there and take it out every snow storm. Pick it up scoop it and haul it out. Are you prepared to do that? I mean I'm thinking cost wise. You could pile it up in the corner for just a little bit,but with 500/o capacity,you're going to be maxed. Those are my main concerns. Thank you. MR. HUNTINGTON-The snow removal, obviously, after larger storms if that pile starts to build up we have the equipment, we're willing to remove the piles and maintain the parking as needed. Part of the operation of maintaining the property and maintaining the parking lot. MR. MAGOWAN-You said after a major storm,right? But every storm,you take a two inch storm and that size parking lot,coming off of Main Street all the way down one side of the building,it's going to have to go out every time,because you're going to be maxed out on,you're undercutting,I think,on the parking spaces and you're limited. I'm impressed as to how you did it, but my main concern is, is that water retention underneath the parking lot going to be large enough, and on the snow removal, and really, the wooden fence,I'd rather see the vinyl. MR.HUNTINGTON-I think we're good on the stormwater end. Just to let you know,the soils that were out there when we did the test pits, I mean, you really couldn't ask for better soils for stormwater infiltration and it was all granular sand. The infiltration rates were dropping,you know,one inch in less than a minute. We had a hard time keeping the water in the hole while we were doing the infiltration test. MR. MAGOWAN-That's good. MR. LA SARSO-So you're not requesting any waivers for stormwater. It's all by right. MR.DIXON-Now one of the residents made a comment as far as lighting. So I'll comment on that for just a moment. So we don't have an official lighting plan to know what the lumens are. MR. HUNTINGTON-I think we just need to add the lumens. Like I said, the idea of the parking lot, because of the residential uses next door,was just small,three foot bollard lights,certainly nothing that's going to escape the property from those. There's a few of them on each parking island and it's just enough to make your way. No lighting going into the back. MR. DEEB-Are there going to be lights on the building? MR.HUNTINGTON-I believe there will be some. I think that's yet to be determined. MR. DEEB-How high will they go? Will they go past the first floor? MR.HUNTINGTON-I think the highest ones will be the signs on the front. MR. DEEB-So they won't go above the first floor. MR. DIXON-I mean you are showing balconies there. Are you planning on having lighting on there for your tenants? MR.HUNTINGTON-There might be a sconce light just for the tenant using the balcony,but there would be like soft light sconces,downcast on the floor. MR. DEEB-You have to be conscious of the neighbors with the lighting. MR. LEUCI-Sure. MR. DIXON-I didn't see a cut sheet on the lighting,either,though. MR. HUNTINGTON-The drawing for site lighting is on Drawing 52012, there's a cut sheet for these bollard lights,I think. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR. DIXON-There's nothing for the building itself,though. MR. MAGOWAN-While you're looking those up,these balconies you're talking about,they're less than a foot. MR. LEUCI-For the one bedroom it's more of a Juliette balcony so they can open their door and the next day let the breeze in. MR.MAGOWAN-You've got about a foot. I mean it's not like anybody's going to go out there and shimmy along the railing there and between that and the window,but the ambience looks like. MR. LEUCI-The two bedroom apartments have more substantial. MR. MAGOWAN-A bigger one? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR.DIXON-Should we have a lighting plan submitted before we have any consideration? I'd hate to kick the can too far down the road. MR. TRAVER-Yes,because this is an Unlisted SEQR as well. MR. DIXON-So the SEQR,I'm not seeing any items that are jumping out at me for SEQR specifically,but as far as the Site Plan itself,I think having a lighting plan would be very helpful. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly. We actually have these readily available,the lumens for it. So they generally stay a few feet above small bollard fixtures, and then the building lighting is something we can obtain. MR. DEEB-Can you address the commercial tenants? One of my concerns here is parking for the commercial business. Are you intending them to go out back and park in the back parking lot, people using the businesses in there? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,that's why we provided. MR. DEEB-And there's eight extra spaces for four businesses? We've got people that are going to be employed at the businesses. They have to park also. So there's really going to be no parking for consumers, but I don't know what you plan to do,what kind of businesses you plan to put in there. I thought I read that you were going to put your corporate offices there? MR. LEUCI-There's a tentative plan to use a portion of the spaces for ourselves,but we would anticipate one or two cars. MR. DEEB-I'm really concerned about the parking for the commercial business. Is there any way you can address that? MR. LEUCI-We would just anticipate that the tenants upstairs versus the businesses might be offset hours. I know there's a lot of work from home,but not everyone can work from home. MR. DEEB-Yes, and I guess that does make sense if they go to work,businesses are open during the day, there should be some spaces back there. MR. LEUCI-We would anticipate that. MR. DEEB-And again the master,Comprehensive Plan,this is what it called for,what you designed, and I think that's what the Town is aspiring to do is get more of that type of development on Main Street. This is a big one, a big project. I mean we had talked about two stories. I don't think we talked about three. That's a lot of apartments for that small area, but parking is what concerns me, and the traffic. I think once we get to SEQR we're going to have to address the traffic somewhat because you're going to have a lot of cars going in and out MR. TRAVER-So are you suggesting we should request a traffic study? MR. DEEB-No, no I don't think that. I think we've just got to look at it. I don't know how you can anticipate. MR. STARK-Can I just offer a comment real quick? I agree with Mr. Deeb. I'd like to echo his comments as well. I'm very concerned about the parking. I think you guys are kind of maxed out and like Mr. Deeb 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) said,you guys have all of those apartments and three businesses and the parking lot is,you know,let's say there's a snowstorm and you guys are completely out of spaces, where are they going to park? Are they going to park in front of a nearby resident's home? I think that's very concerning. That's just a concern I had,but I think the other elements of the project are very nice. MR.LA SARSO-I would just say with that,again,it is in the Comp Plan that we are supposed to be getting as many folks as possible to walk to this and this is the exact style of development that does get folks to walk. We've seen it in Glens Falls and on the rest of Main Street, and we are charged to really be implementing what the Comp Plan says. So I'd note that, and what I'd say, too,is that,you know,if we are going to say that parking is going to be an issue,that it is going to be too small,that really what we're going to be asking them to do is find more spaces to park,and that's going to be more development in this area, more greenfield development, ultimately more asphalt. I don't think folks really want that. So I think that's just something to keep in mind. The Comp Plan has this thing laid out. They've followed it very nicely I would say and I think we should respect what the folks who were elected to do wrote in that plan and said about what they want development to be on Main Street,because this very much does line up with what that says. MR. DIXON-Well,let me pose a question, and I don't want to get into the business aspect because that's not our purview,that's not what we're here to do,but if you're not finding businesses that want to occupy that first floor, are you considering turning that into more residences, and if so,how many? MR. LEUCI-We would anticipate doing that,and I don't think that that Code allows for it. MR. DEEB-The minimum was two stories. That was the minimum in the Comprehensive Plan. MR. DIXON-On the floor plans I see a lot of potential. So it does add a little bit of vagueness. So a potential of four businesses on the first floor. Are you thinking that potential could rise to eight smaller businesses? Again,I'm trying to get my mind around the parking issue as well,too,because there's no on street parking. You're talking about creating some foot traffic. However that foot traffic would be the local residents or other businesses,but again,where are people parking to go to the other businesses to use this? So really the bulk of the parking would have to be accommodated in the back and,well,even if you use it as office space and you bring in an office that employs 14 people,that's not a huge business but that just ate up all your parking spots. Grant it some people may be going to work during the day. I don't know what the calculation is for an average family,but I would venture a guess it's two cars. It's almost two cars per unit now days. You'll have a few singles there,but parking's tight. I so badly want this to be a successful project for you,but I'm still struggling with the parking. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe I can help you out here, Mike,if you don't mind. Really what concerns me is the lack of parking is going to hurt your project and it won't be as successful as you want, and I'm not trying to put this out as a bad term,but I understand the Comprehensive Plan. That's just a major concern. To help out Mike,how do you say it in a nice way without,you know,hurting your feelings or anything. You did a nice job putting this together,and I like that,but that's my concern. I just,you know,it would be nice to if you had a hunk of land and you said we're going to with 3S parking spots because we think we can do it. and then what we do is we bank an area for you,you know,that we'll say all right if you need it it's there,but we want X amount of green space,but since you don't need it,you know, I don't know, that just really concerns me. You're taking up every square inch of that lot. MRS. MOORE-Can I offer that typically the Town Designated Engineer is targeted to review our stormwater plan for the Board and provide you with that comment. You could request that the Town Engineer evaluate this parking arrangement and see if there's additional information that the engineer could offer in working with the applicant and Staff. That's up to you. MR. DEEB-Or you can build a parking garage. MR. LA SARSO-Is that something you guys have even thought about at all, any subterranean parking? I know that adds a significant amount to the cost. Is that something that's even been thought about, broached? MR. LEUCI-Not really,no. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. I was just wondering. MR. DIXON-Laura, on the Town's behalf,I know the answer is no,but just so it's out there. The Town currently has no intent on purchasing any properties to start creating parking spaces on Main Street or creating any additional green space to further develop Main Street? MRS. MOORE-I have not heard that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR.TRAVER-So,Laura,you make an interesting suggestion. The Town Designated Engineer could work with the applicant to evaluate the proposed parking versus the uses. MRS. MOORE-Right. So at this point,and it's up to the Board,I didn't hear the word traffic study,and I didn't use that either in my assessment. I said a traffic assessment,because I agree. I'm not certain that it triggers a traffic study,but I did want to know a little bit more about the traffic and the uses and how that parking lot would work. MR. DEEB-I really hope we can come up with a solution. I mean I want to see this project go through. It's a great project. MR. MAGOWAN-The other thing I'd like to address, Mrs. Waite came up. I see her property here, and looking to retire there. Is there anything we can do to buffer her more? MR. DEEB-Put a roof over her house. MR. TRAVER-You said something about working with the architect to see what could be done about privacy? MR. HUNTINGTON-We're site engineers and structural engineers, so I don't know if there's anything that can be done on an architectural level for that. MR.MAGOWAN-Well,I'm thinking planting some fast growing tall trees. I mean are there any big trees that are coming off the back of the lot that you can come in with a big ball scoop there and if,I don't know if she wants to rake or anything in the fall. MR.HUNTINGTON-I think the root structure because we're so close to the property line with trees that large. MR. DEEB-And there's nothing you can do with the third floor. MR. DIXON-Well I know you submitted a landscape plan, a cut sheet C-3.10. I show three mature trees in the back property. There's one island that's on the western side of the rear property. Is that something that would be better served moving it closer to the property line and putting more mature trees in there, possibly doing the same with the island that's on the east? MR. TRAVER-Well one issue is that's where the lighting is proposed to be installed. MR. HUNTINGTON-The other concern there is traffic flow as well. As you try to hug things up to the property line you encroach on traffic flow and that may exacerbate the parking issue. MR.TRAVER-Well,perhaps if we're going to ask you to work with the engineer on the parking issue,you may come up with something in that process,and you are going to do a lighting plan which again could be tied into that,possibly privacy as well,privacy issues. Maybe there's something that could be done either regarding the landscaping. How does the Board feel about that? MR. LA SARSO-Yes. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I've been taking notes here, and some of the items that I'm hearing that we may want to include,lighting plan to be submitted to the Planning Department,provide compliant signage, cut sheet which includes lighting and dimensions. They need to, no site work started pending a DPW review and approval,all the fencing will be vinyl and plans would be updated to reflect that,and the Town Engineer would work with the applicant to evaluate parking. Did I get? MR. MAGOWAN-Was that a resolution? MR.DIXON-No,we've just got a lot of items that we're adding to this,and the only other item that I want to put out there is do we feel that the front of the building complies with the Town Code what we were trying to do with Main Street? I think most of it looks good, and the vinyl. The only recommendation I would have, and it would not be a showstopper,I see the awning over the front where it's asphalt shingle. I think the same roof would make it look more commercial on the first floor,but that's nothing that I would require. MR.TRAVER-And we have SEQR to consider. Do we want this additional information before we pursue a SEQR review? MR. DIXON-1 would. MR. LA SARSO-I guess if we're going to get a traffic assessment there's no reason not to wait for it. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-I don't know how we can go through SEQR without having everything. MR.TRAVER-I agree. I just wanted to get the feel of the Board. Okay. So we would proceed,then. We would hold on SEQR until we get this updated information which,Mike,you're working on a motion. MR. DIXON-I've got quite a few of those items. I think I'm okay,unless there's any other additions that you would like to see added. MRS. MOORE-Could I just offer that, I know you mentioned parking, but I would do just a traffic assessment, because that would include both the parking and I think the concern about entering and exiting. MR. DEEB-We're going to table this. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the applicant has indicated that they're fine with working with the Town's Engineer to do all that. MR. HUNTINGTON-I actually had a question for clarification the traffic. Is that something you would want us to retain an independent assessment? I mean that's something I don't think that we need a full blown traffic study,but a letter or something along those lines. MRS. MOORE-I think so. That would work. I would rather have clarification so that I don't give you direction to go get something done when we can have this internal discussion and say,yes,this is the next step. Again, I don't think it's a full traffic study unless other entities that know more about the traffic assessment process think that it is a traffic study. MR.HUNTINGTON-I doubt it. MRS. MOORE-I don't feel it is. MR. TRAVER-I would think that if the engineer, if the applicant gets involved with the Town Engineer and continues to work with Staff,at this point it doesn't appear, and I'm not hearing from the Board,that a full traffic study is needed at this point. Maybe if something comes out of this further discussion,we can always look at that down the road,but I think at this point. MR. DEEB-Well I like your suggestion of getting an outside person. I think that would help. MR. HUNTINGTON-From my familiarity with the Town Designated Engineer, I don't know if they're heavy on the traffic end. We use Creighton Manning quite a bit for this type of information. MR. DEEB-Independent assessment. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That sounds reasonable. MR. TRAVER-That's fine. MR. LA SARSO-Are we still going to have the Town Engineer? MRS. MOORE-They would evaluate it. You would say the applicant has agreed to have an independent assessment and the Board would like that evaluated by the Town Designated Engineer. MR. TRAVER-So both. So they'd have their person and then our engineer would look at it MR. MAGOWAN Joe,you did see that the Fire Marshal asked for a complete sprinkler system. MR. LEUCI-I did not see that yet. MR.MAGOWAN-All right. I just wanted to let you know. It's not as hard as it used to be with the steel pipe. I guess they allow more of a, I guess afire rated pecks or something. Yes,it says sprinkler system an standpipe system required. MR. LEUCI-Are you saying he wants it designed for the Planning Board or he wants it designed for? MR. MAGOWAN-You'll have to do that for the Building Department for the permits. The Fire Marshall will review that. I just wanted to make sure you caught that. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a big one. MR. TRAVER-So,Laura,what's the thinking about timing for this? MRS. MOORE-So there is room on the July 19`h meeting,which is our first meeting in July or the July 26`h meeting. It's very,at this point the July 19`h meeting is pretty much full and anybody that was wishing to come in would be moved to August. MR. TRAVER-But to engage an outside party and. MRS.MOORE-So they would have to have all information in by June 15`h. We could give them a little bit of leeway. I'm not quite certain they could make June 15`h MR. TRAVER-And that's only a couple of weeks. MR. LA SARSO-How long do you think it would take to retain a? MR.HUNTINGTON-I would think,I mean we just had a similar situation. MRS. MOORE-So you're looking at an August. MR. DEEB-Unless you want to try for the second meeting. MR. TRAVER-Well the problem is the time it takes to engage an outside party and then actually do the work. MR. MAGOWAN-And if they miss it,August is the way we're going. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point. So why don't we maybe schedule them for August 16. That's the first meeting in August. So then they'd have until July 15, Laura. That gives them a month. How does the Board feel about that? MR. LA SARSO-Sounds good. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we'll hear a motion,but you understand what we're looking for basically,just clarification on those issues. MRS. MOORE-Do you want to re-open the public hearing or leave it closed? MR. TRAVER-Yes,since we're going to be tabling it,we will re-open the public hearing and leave it open for when the applicant returns in August presumably, and we'll have updated information and plans. We'll have an opportunity to take public comment as well. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. DIXON-Do you want any of these items read into the tabling motion so it's on the record. So we're doing a tabling motion to August 16`h MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. DIXON-With information due by July 15`h MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR.DIXON-Do you want any of the items that were identified included in the tabling? We don't normally do that,but I don't know if you feel there's any value just to point out the lighting,the signage. MR. TRAVER-Do you think we need to be specific about what we're looking for in the tabling motion, Laura? We had a pretty lengthy discussion. MRS. MOORE-You've had lengthy discussion. You can identify it as discussed in the meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay,yes, as discussed in the meeting. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I think we're ready for that motion. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/26/2022) RESOLUTION TABLING SP#27-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS (FHB APTS) The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: Applicant proposes removal of existing structures and to construct a new building with a footprint of 5,663 sq. ft. and floor area of 25,959 sq. ft. First floor office/retail with a second and third floor containing 24 apartment total. Site work to include parking/drive area,lighting,landscaping and stormwater. Site plan for new uses and multi-story building in the Main Street zone.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for a new commercial use in a main street zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/FHB APARTMENTS, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, Tabled to August 16,2022 Planning Board meeting with new information to be submitted by July 15,2022. This information will address items that have been discussed at this meeting. Motion Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26th day of May,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off until August. We'll see you in August. MR.HUNTINGTON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? MRS.MOO RE-I will offer that the Zoning Board had asked for a stormwater training session. I'm setting that up with them for July, and I will announce that to this Board when we decide that date so that you can attend one of the Zoning Board meetings. Where we typically see the stormwater discussion happen at a Planning Board meeting, but they're getting more and more variance requests so at this point they would like a little more information So I'll let you know when that happens. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. Anything else? I guess we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 26TK,2022, Introduced by Jackson LaSarso who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 26`h day of May,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stark,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned,everybody. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 21