Loading...
08-16-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING AUGUSTI6TH 2O22 INDEX Site Plan No.51-2021 Brett&Pamela West(Main House) 1. Freshwater Wetlands 10-2022 Tax Map No.226.15-1-17 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No.27-2022 Foothills Builders(FHB APTS) 4. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-24&309.10-1-25 Site Plan No. 35-2022 Morgan Gazetos/Greg Francis 20. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.20-1-19 Site Plan No.54-2022 James Brown 22. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.253.-1-23;253.-1-22 (access road) Site Plan No.51-2022 Jeffrey Randles 24. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.12-2-11 Site Plan No.5S-2022 Dark Bay Lane,LLC 27. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.1E-1-37 Site Plan No.49-2022 Tim Scialabba/West Mtn. Ski Area 29. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29 Site Plan No.55-2022 Southern Gateway Renewables 36. Special Use Permit 4-2022 Tax Map No. 303.E-1-1;303.12-1-3 Site Plan No.56-2022 Northern Gateway Renewables 40. Freshwater Wetlands 11-2022 Tax Map No.297.15-1-1 Special Use Permit 5-2022 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 08/16/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16TK 2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN BRADY STARK MEMBERS ABSENT JACKSON LA SARSO LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,August 16`h, 2022. This is our first meeting for August and our 17`h meeting thus far for this year. First on our agenda we have the approval of minutes from June 21"and June 23rd. I believe we have a draft resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 21",2022 June 23rd,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF TUNE 21s`&z TUNE 23rd,2022,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Warren Longacker: Duly adopted this 161h day of August,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Deeb,Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Now we begin our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is Tabled Items, and the first item is Brett&Pamela West. This is for the main house, Site Plan 51-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 10-2022. TABLED ITEMS: 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 611 512 0 2 2)APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME AND SHED TO 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, AND 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 AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. ADDITIONALLY WORK TO BE DONE IS WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,CHAPTER 147,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,WORK ADJACENT TO WETLAND,AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS TO WETLANDS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. 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, AV 30-2022. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) WARREN CO.REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021,FEBRUARY 2022 (STORMWATER DEVICE);JULY 2022(FWW). SITE INFORMATION: APA,CEA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 091 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040;179-6-065,147. JON ZAPPER&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is for demolition of the existing home and construction of a new home and in reference to the variances, they were granted a previous variance on March 23rd, 2022. This new variance is in reference to a wetland that's been identified in terms of our definition of wetland area. It's required to meet some setback requirements and therefore it comes back to this Board for a Planning Board recommendation before it goes to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. So as Laura said,we received all the variances that we requested from the Zoning Board. There's two houses here. The guest house was already fully approved by you, and on the main house we've received all of the variances. We were at Planning Board looking for Site Plan Review working through the LaBella items which we've now done and we have the LaBella signoff, but as part of that process,they asked us to look into,on the right side it's a little bit dark, a drainage way that drains a low area in the middle of Assembly Point not on this site,whether or not that could be considered a wetland, which wasn't something that was on our original plan. So we sent EDP's wetland biologist out and they said,yes, it basically meets the definition of wetland, but the reason that LaBella asked, they wanted to know if we needed Army Corps or APA approvals,permits for that. So we tabled it for a couple of months to go through those two agencies and they all signed off and Laura has it that nothing's jurisdictional. SO we don't need any additional permits for that, but then Craig Brown determined that we needed the setback from the garage building, which is the closest building to this drainage way and also for stormwater device,but in terms of that stormwater device,as part of our back and forth with LaBella that's no longer an infiltration device. We actually did get a variance on the proximity of that,when it was an infiltration device to the lake,but nothing's going from that into this little stream corridor. So the variance is just to keep everything the way we presented it, and we have signoff, again, from LaBella,but now the distance between this drainage way and the garage requires an additional variance, as well as the drainage way. So we're not changing the project at all. It's just this was in response to LaBella and LaBella with obviously satisfied with EDP's responses on this issue and all the other ones because we did finally get a signoff so we were hoping to be here tonight for the final Site Plan Review,but we have one more step that we have to go back to the Zoning Board first. If you could just show them. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. Laura,if you want to go to the proposed site plan. So this plan is the same plan you guys have seen and had previously given a recommendation to the Zoning Board on. So as Jon stated, this grayed out area here has been identified as a wetland area. So we had the garage located here which was always located in that location,and then behind it we have this stormwater retention area. Originally it was designed as infiltration, but due to going back and forth with LaBella numerous comments and revisions to the site, that actually has been re-designed as a retention area with an under drain system in order to take overflow from the other infiltration devices on site. So it's no longer designated as an infiltration device and any water that goes into it actually discharges towards the lake. It doesn't go into this wetland area. So it's going to take any overflow,keep it from flowing into that wetland area. That's what LaBella's been reviewing and signed off on. MR. TRAVER-So the overflow from that retention area is still going to flow into the lake. Correct? MR. FERGUSON-It would,yes. MR. TRAVER-And the wetland area that's been identified that is not a stream,but it does flow into the lake. Correct? MR. ZAPPER-It's a seasonal drainage area. It does flow into the lake. It's not year round. MR. FERGUSON-So what happens is there's a culvert crossing right here. It crosses Bay Parkway, and any drainage from the inside of this roadway, and it drains to that culvert and down into here and down into here and it's flat enough that it stays wet long enough that it,wetland. MR. TRAVER-All right, and so you're looking,that's a 50 foot setback requirement. Correct? From the wetland? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And you're looking for SO%relief of that 10 feet? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. ZAPPER-Yes,but there's no impact. Again,because water's not going into that area. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me. I need a little better understanding. They consider that a wetland even though it's drainage from across the street? MR.ZAPPER-Because that drainage allows for some wetland vegetation,it comes under the road,just like you said,it's a drainage way, and that allows some wetland vegetation to thrive and that. MR. MAGOWAN-Wetland vegetation, all right. Thank you. MR. ZAPPER-It makes it wet. MR. TRAVER-That's one of the definitions of a wetland. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean it's open to the lake, and that's what I'm saying. It's not a body of water where you usually see a wetland. It's inland or something,but it's a ditch basically because, and I know there's a high water table over there since you're on the lake. All right. I mean I feel a little bit more comfortable with the wetland vegetation. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and this area is also in a Critical Environmental Area. Right? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. What we have now is a septic system that is very non-conforming. It's an ancient septic system, and no stormwater devices, and as part of this whole project we have stormwater devices all over the place . We needed variances because we basically have zero building envelope on this site with the water all around it, but now we're controlling the stormwater and treating it. So it's a big improvement for this point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So can you bump that garage structure back a little bit to get a little bit more? I mean it's about compromise. Right? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. We looked at all these alternatives to get to this point and we moved, we made that smaller. We had a separate barn building, storage building. We attached the two together and made it smaller. So we made all those changes to get through the Zoning Board the first time. We were there a number of times before we tightened this up to where it is now, but it's just about the turning radius, because that is a garage, and even if we moved it five feet away, because no water's going from the roof, you know,nothing's going into the wetland anyway. So there wouldn't be an impact. There wouldn't be a benefit if you moved it and the neighbor's house is nowhere near that building. So we don't have any room. It's just a tight site. We moved everything away from the lake. We pushed it toward the back of the site so that it would protect the lake and then it turns out that this little drainage ditch, so that's it. We just don't have any more room to compromise. MR. DEEB-So you've exhausted all remedies. MR. ZAPPER-That's how we got this far. MR. MAGOWAN-So you have been working on this for over a year,haven't you? MR. ZAPPER-Forever. MR. MAGOWAN-And from the beginning the plans, I really, I know you've tried real hard, and we just had a soil and water seminar the other week which really is,it was quite informational what these swales do to help the initial shock and to put it back in the ground,but it filters what's going down in there and you're sitting there right on the lake. The septic is a complete pump out. MR. ZAPPER-Holding tanks. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,they're just holding tanks. MR. MAGOWAN-That really increases that. So thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. LONGACKER-I took a look at it and I just kind of stood up there by the Bay Parkway there. It's really just a drainage swale. I wasn't concerned with it. I was expecting to see like a jungle wetland. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well this evening they're here for the specific referral to the ZBA on the 10 foot setback variance in the CEA as opposed to the 50 foot requirement. Does anyone have any specific 4 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) concerns that they want to express to the ZBA regarding that SO%relief? Okay. Well we have a referral motion,then,to the ZBA. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#35-2022 WEST(MAIN HOUSE) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised 6/15/2022)Applicant proposes to demo existing home and shed to construct a new two story home with a 5,436 sq. ft. footprint with a garage.Also included is installation of permeable pavers for patio, driveway areas and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 5,670 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is S,6S7 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, and stormwater management. Additionally, work to be done is within 100 feet of a designated wetland. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,Chapter 94,Chapter 147,site plan for a new floor area in a CEA, work adjacent to wetland, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks to wetland. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 38-2022 BRETT &z PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. ZAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda, also under tabled items, we have Foothills Builders, this is Site Plan 27-2022. 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. (REVISED) 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. REVISED BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND TRAFFIC INFORMATION. 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. 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,JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This application is removal of existing structures on two parcels and to construct a footprint of 5,663 square feet which has a floor area of 25,000 plus. There's a first floor area for office and a second and third floor which contains 24 apartment units. The project goes through the Main Street Zoning Code which is a little bit more information for them to identify in regards to some of the Main Street requirements. I've identified some of those items in the summary and the applicant also has an additional drawing that they've sent to me so that they can talk through some of these items with the Board. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening. Matt Huntington with Studio A, here with Joe Leuci of Foothills Builders. We were herein May for the public hearing and went over the project. So I'll spare you the full summary on it,but the Board had some questions on it,and one of those questions had to do with some of the planting and lighting and some of the green space. So we put together, for presentation purposes, a rendering of the site kind of showing the coloring and adjacent properties so you can see a little bit of the impact here. Parking area and how much green space we're actually proposing in the parking area in the front of it. That kind of gives you a big old representation of what we're proposing. A couple of the other questions had to do with the fencing. We revised it from wood to all vinyl fence, added the detail in there and additionally we added a little bit to our lighting plan so it was clear that on the bollard lights what we were proposing,the overhead lights there, and one of the other questions had to do with traffic that came up. So we went and had Creighton Manning perform a traffic,not a full blown traffic study,but a traffic assessment essentially of the area, and the findings of that is essentially what they came up with for what they thought for their trip generation, etc.,really provided little to no impact to the existing traffic in the area,the existing neighborhood, and then there were a few additional dimensions that were called out in the building facade and really, I mean, that's kind of a brief summary of what we've done since the last meeting. We have received LaBella's comments. We responded to the first round. We had a second round that's extremely minimal that we're in the process of responding to now, and I mean one of the comments was just simply pipe call out and one of them had to do with rounding to the hundredth of a cubit. So it should be pretty straightforward responses on that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. A couple of concerns. One is the mechanicals on the roof,interested in getting a floor plan of the roof itself so we could see the way the mechanicals are,make sure they're hidden. MR. HUNTINGTON-I'm not sure if we have a roof plan in there. I think the idea from the last meeting we were here,there's going to be a facade that they're going to be hidden behind,if you look at the elevation of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Also the future interconnect to adjacent property. Would that be on the plan? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,we could just note it on there,that potential interconnect,because it's a flat lot with adjacent properties there. So it would be very easy to connect,if need be,to it. MR. TRAVER-There was some comment in the Staff comments about the ground level glass. Building transparency and interior lighting is important at street level. Consequently, ground floor levels facing major or internal access roads shall have a minimum of 60010 of transparent glass surface. MR.HUNTINGTON-I believe on the architect's drawing it's been labeled,but I'm not 1000/0 positive. MRS. MOORE-So I guess the concern is right now it says the word 320/o, and I don't know if that 320/o is the entire front facade or whether you're only talking about that ground level transparency and the idea behind the transparency issue is to create an inviting environment for those pedestrians walking by. I know in this case you're looking at some office areas. Sometimes you need a little bit more shading there, but I wasn't expecting 320/o. So I didn't know if we could come up with a better, a description that either clarifies whether that's 320/o of the entire facade or that's 320/o. If it's 320/o of the ground level,then that's a concern. Because I think that's too much. MR. HUNTINGTON-That we'll have to go with the architect on. On the building I'm not 1000/o certain what his intention was,but,you know, knowing the glass materials that are out there, I'm sure if that is something that's too much,it could be pretty easily modified on the architect's end to be less. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There's additional information that we are looking for about site lighting. Courtyard lighting and building lighting, the canopy fixtures, roof eaves and so on. More detail on the fence. Apparently the parking calculations were identified as office use only and because this is going to have some apartments and so on we'll need to have some updated parking calculations for that. MRS. MOORE-So primarily that's for retail use. So it needs to at least demonstrate on the plans that, I gave you an example or some guidance about adding retail parking and that information should start to show up on the plan in case you do. Because if you end up doing retail in the future, that's possibly a trigger to come back for review. So if we take care of that,that minimizes coming back to this Board so that you could do both office and retail. I don't mind it coming back,but. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I was looking at the old Staff Notes and it was saying there were going to be 22 apartments total, and the new one says there's going to be 24. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MRS. MOORE-That's an error on my part. MR. TRAVER-So it's 22,not 24? MR. DEEB-So it's going to be 22? MRS. MOORE-It'll be 24 total. MR. TRAVER-Twenty-four. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-So the first one was in error,the 22. MRS. MOORE-Correct. I misread the value. I know where it was. MR. DEEB-I thought they were trying to sneak in two more. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. DEEB-And we did express concerns about the parking at our last meeting and they were quite some concerns, especially given what the neighbors had to say but if it was 24 originally and 24 now, I guess that's fine. MR.HUNTINGTON-And I think,you know,to answer a couple of those,we did provide additional detail on the prints,on C-5.12 we provided dimensional details of the vinyl and what it would look like on there. So hopefully that suffices, and also on that same sheet we show the bollard lights that are within the parking area and the lumen contours. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it's just the courtyard. I thought you had some lights in there, and then I wasn't certain if there's any additional lighting on the building in regards to,right now you have sort of like signage lighting, and I didn't know if there was additional lighting in reference to when folks drive into that one, on the west side,if you're going to put any building lighting on that side. So that sort of information should show upon the plans if it's going to exist. If it's not,then that's fine,but you may need to do that. I don't know. MR. HUNTINGTON-I'm not sure we were looking for too much building lighting other than what is proposed. We aren't trying to go nuts with the lighting. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and if there's no additional lighting,then that's fine. Then that should be clarified in the resolution that the lighting that's been proposed is the lighting that's on. MR.HUNTINGTON-I mean if they were adding anything on the building,I think it would be a downcast lighting. MR. TRAVER-Well,if you add something to the building,that's a change in your plans and we'd want to see the cut sheets and all the information. MR.HUNTINGTON-We'll keep it as is. MR. TRAVER-We have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JODIE GRENIER-WAITE MS. GRENIER-WAITE Jodie Grenier-Waite. RUTH FULLING MRS. FULLING-Ruth Fulling. 24 Pine Street. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-24 Pine Street. MRS. FULLING-I just have some questions. I wanted to know what the Planning Board's longterm plan for this area of Main Street is? There's mention of a Comprehensive Plan in the minutes from May. Is that a Queensbury plan or is that a comprehensive plan from the builder? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-No. The Comprehensive Plan is provided by the Town, and it's available on the Town website. MRS. FULLING-1 couldn't find it. Could you be more specific? Does anyone know,familiar? MRS. MOORE-It should be on the Town's website under Documents. MR. TRAVER-I should note, too, that the, and other members of the Board can comment, but the Comprehensive Plan is not stating what the future is going to be. It's a guideline. So if you ask us what the future is for this part of Town or anything else,we can't answer that. We address applications as they come in to the Town and they're before us. MR. DEE&We hope that they fit in to the Comprehensive Plan, they blend in. That's why the Comprehensive Plan was written. MRS. FULLING-Is the plan just guidelines for builders or is the plan what you expect it to look like 10 years from now? MR. DEEB-It does take into account what the future is going to look like,and that's why that commercial part of Main Street we make sure that that's retail downstairs, commercial downstairs and apartments upstairs to make it look it look like a Main Street so it increases pedestrian traffic. That's what we're looking for on that street and that's what the Comprehensive Plan was planning. MRS. FULLING-And the neighborhood that's behind this building,the Pine Street,the River Street,that whole neighborhood of houses there,is that part of the Comprehensive Plan? MRS. MOORE-I mean you'd have to look at that up. I don't know off the top of my head but specifically if they've identified that particular neighborhood, I don't know off the top of my head, but I know they have identified residential uses in relationship to doing, between high commercial uses and moderate commercial uses. So it would be residential moderate commercial businesses,high commercial uses. So that's identified in the Comp Plan. MRS. FULLING-Okay. There's a mention of a 120/o setback,and I wanted to know how much that was in inches or feet. It's in the May minutes. They said they went over the 100/o and went to 120/o, and I was wondering is that six inches? Is that afoot and a half? Does anyone? MR. TRAVER-Well it would be on the plans. MRS.MOORE-And I don't know if it was a setback or relevant to the 120/o required,like a percent coverage of vegetation on the site. That sounds more like a percent coverage. MR. DEEB-Setbacks are usually measured in feet,inches. MRS. FULLING-Right,so that there is no setback for parking lot like it said in the minutes? MRS. MOORE-Not typically. MRS.FULLING-So there's no requirement for the builder to put any kind of setback from the parking lot? It can go right to the fence? MRS. MOORE-There's potential. In this case the applicant is required to provide information about a buffer between a residential use and a commercial use, and their proposal is putting up a fence. I don't know if that,I don't think it answered your question about 120/o. I'd have to look specifically what that is, but I don't know off the top of my head. MR. LONGACKER-Twelve percent was in the landscaping plan. It requires 100/o and they're proposing 12. MR. TRAVER-The plans themselves, the application itself, is available on the Town's website, queensbury.net. MRS. FULLING-Okay. The plans for this particular build? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All of the, if you look on the Town's website, queensbury.net,under the Planning Board, you will see meeting materials for all of our meetings including this one. S (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MRS. FULLING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we have some concern about traffic coming through our neighborhood to avoid traffic pulling out onto Main Street during the busier hours of the day. We feel that it would be very easy for residents to make a right instead of a left because of the heavy traffic,when they come to the light to make their left. MR. TRAVER-We had traffic concerns as well, and the applicant did provide a traffic study by a third party,and that says minimal impact. MRS. FULLING-And that's on the website as well? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. FULLING-Under Documents. If we were to find, over time after this is built and we are seeing an increase in traffic on our street,would we be able to come and request a speed bump? MR. TRAVER-Request a what? MRS. FULLING-Request a speed bump on our street. MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure who has jurisdiction over speed bumps. MRS. MOORE-I agree. I don't know who has jurisdiction. Typically I would approach the Highway Department, and off the top of my head I don't know who owns Pine Street. So whether that's a County function or locally owned. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-We're just noticing a lot more traffic and a lot of extra traffic. MR. TRAVER-Yes. If it's speeding,I assume the area speed limit is like 30 miles an hour. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-On the little road it is. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So if you notice speeding,what you'd want to do is contact law enforcement and let them know that there's a law enforcement issue and typically what they'll do is they'll station someone there to monitor what's going on and see what the trend is, but that's not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. MRS. FULLING-Okay. All right. We're talking about lighting,and again I don't have the documents in front of me. Is it stipulated in the,I forget what you said the name of,that started with a`B". MRS. MOORE-A bollard light. So a bollard light is typically,it's much shorter than a regular light pole. So I'll see if I can find it so I can pull it up. MRS. FULLING-I'm picturing a pole about this high with a light coming out of the center of it. As long as the lighting stays below the fence line I think that would be appropriate for this. MRS. MOORE-So if you look up on the board here,I have that bollard light up here. MR. TRAVER-And that's on the Town website as well. MRS.FULLING-And the last question I have is just what recourse do we have if the plans are not followed, if the light is obtrusive to the neighbors? MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. Say that again? MRS. FULLING-What recourse do we have as homeowners if we find the light to be obtrusive to the neighborhood? MR. DEEB-If the lighting's not Code compliant,then it would be an enforcement issue. You would go to the Town enforcement. MRS. FULLING-Okay. MR. DEEB-But if it's Code compliant and it still bothers you, it could still be Code compliant. I mean I have that where I live. There's nothing I can do. MRS. FULLING-Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-Yes. The plans that they submit, should they ultimately be approved by the Planning Board, they're required to follow those plans and the Town will send representatives to examine what they're doing and make sure that they,in fact,follow the plans as proposed. They're required to do that. MRS. FULLING-Okay. That's all I have. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-I have a few questions regarding just what you gentlemen just said I'm a little confused from the last time I was here. Is this a three story building or a two story building? MRS. MOORE-Three story building. The first story is office. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-Retail. Retail or office? MRS. MOORE-Both potentially. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-For? For shops? MRS. MOORE-Potentially for shops, or one office. It's a configuration that the applicant has the opportunity to arrange, and then the second and the third floor are apartments. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-And they are at 24 apartments? MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-Forty-eight cars, roughly, and thirty-six parking spots and four businesses or potential offices that's going to have more than one person in them. Where are we putting these vehicles, and how are these vehicles getting in and out of this building? Are they coming in one way and going around in a circle? Are they going one way and then back out that way? MR. TRAVER-That's part of the approval process we're looking at that. That's a huge concern. Huge concern. This is Main Street. I mean my partner just got into an accident right in front of our street because everybody's going every which way, and putting 4S more cars or 50 more cars,going to work and coming home at night,is a big concern. I understand your future idea about like foot traffic,but as of right now there really isn't anywhere to walk in that area or anything to go to in that area to go to. I understand everything has to start some place. We have a big Adirondack Bank across the street. They can't even put their sign up because it's sitting on sand bags. I'm concerned. It's a big project. It's in a little area and again it's in a very residential area and that is a concern. Can you guys put that picture back up with the colored drawing? So that's me, the big in-ground pool. This picture is lovely,but my understanding was that this parking lot was going to be where that line of trees is. That's one question, are those trees coming down? Are they part of this project? And, Two, I was under the understanding that that parking lot was coming up literally to my fence line. MR.TRAVER-What you're seeing is what is proposed,and again,I would suggest that you go to the actual Town website and look at the actual submitted application. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-Right. I get that. So that's the parking lot. So I mean how many feet from that to that tree line are we looking at,or is this kind of just a pretty picture that makes it look nice? MR.TRAVER-That is. They have offered that so that people can have a representation of what is actually proposed, and there are dimensions on the plans that are submitted. MS. GRENIER-WRITE-So how far is it? Can somebody tell me how far it literally is? Because like I said the last time we were here the impression that I had was that this parking lot was literally going to be five feet away from my fence and now it looks like it's a block away. MRS. MOORE-Are you? MS. GRENIER-WAITE-I'm 23 Pine. MRS. FULLING-That's her on the left. MRS. MOORE-This mark right here. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-No,one up. MRS. MOORE-This one. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MS. GRENIER-WAITE-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Okay. So right now you're correct. You have a fence line between your property and their property. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-So it's A fence line. Well that's not what that looks like. MRS. MOORE-That's why it's a rendition. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-It looks like it's a whole other lot. MR. TRAVER-That's the fence line,where she's got the pointer. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-I'm the one with the pool. Wherever the pool is,that's my fence. MRS. FULLING-That's her property. MRS. MOORE-So this is not your property there? MS. GRENIER-WAITE-No. MRS. MOORE-So you're farther away. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-But I thought we talked that big tree was coming down. You guys were talking about that big,gigantic tree coming down,and that their parking lot was going right up to that lady's pine trees. MR. TRAVER-What you're looking at is a rendition of what is proposed. MRS. MOORE-Are you Grenier-Waite? MS. GRENIER-WAITE-Yes. I mean and I'd love to be wrong on this, and I'll even let everybody peek in my pool,but from what I understand it's all going right up to the line of the fence. MR. TRAVER-Well,you're now getting into part of the review process, and that's our job. Do you have any other public comment? MS. GRENIER-WAITE-We talked about the runoff of the water that was going into the parking lot and there was concern about that, and I did have concern. Again,I'm not a builder or a contractor,but when that water runs into that parking lot,where is it going? MR. TRAVER-It stays on site. They have a stormwater plan that is under review by the Town Engineer. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-Because that's also my fear. If my house is that close to their parking lot. MR.TRAVER-You're house won't be impacted by stormwater from this site. That's opposed to the Code. They have to ensure that. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-All right. I appreciate that. And maybe you can answer this. When you build a property like this,is there supposed to be certain amount of green versus asphalt when you put a property like this in the middle of what I call a residential area? MR. TRAVER-Yes. There are guidelines for that and that's all part of the application, but then you're getting into the review process and this is not public comment. It's part of the review process. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So I suggest that you study the application and that will clarify all of that in quite a bit of detail. MS. GRENIER-WAITE-Okay. I'm just a mere mortal here trying to cross our T's. Snow removal. You brought that up last time. MR. TRAVER-That's part of the review process and we'll be discussing that. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Laura, are there written comments? MRS. MOORE-The written comments were previously read into the record. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Okay. All right. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-We'll ask the applicant to return. So there is some information that we're seeking to clarify. I guess I'll ask the Board,poll the Board,because we do have to do the State Environmental Quality Review on this application, and with the parking and some of the other issues, do we feel comfortable moving ahead with SEQR,or do we want to get that additional information first? MR. MAGOWAN-I think we ought to get the additional information. I still brought up the last time the center infiltration underneath the parking lot for the subsurface infiltration chambers and that's taking basically all this water from this property. So right now you have a house and a driveway and a patio and a garage,but pretty much those two lots are opened up,and now you're putting the building and complete parking lot practically edge to edge, seven feet off the back line where 10 foot,it looks like the 10 foot rear yard setback, and I'm looking at those infiltration,you know, the parking lot, the snow removal and the rain,and that's taking all the rain from the roof of the building,too. Correct? And you're comfortable with that? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well,and they also have to get the engineer to sign off on it. MR. MAGOWAN-I've been down there with the engineers. I'm seeing something that I don't feel comfortable with,and I've been out in the field along time. So I'm just,you know. MR. HUNTINGTON-So, Mr. Magowan, if I may, on the stormwater. So we did, I don't remember, probably five or six test pits out there within that parking lot area and came up with a very well graded sand to almost infinity. The infiltration rate on it was anywhere from 60 inches an hour to 15 inches an hour. When we perform these calculations, the mottling program we use is, in my experience, very conservative in the first place. So our rainfall events are a conservative approach and we over-size the stormwater devices even beyond that conservative approach to be able to handle all that infiltration because we have good subsurface soils. Additionally, we've gone through two letters now with LaBella and they haven't had any exceptions taken to any of our design to handle the design storm. MR. MAGOWAN-Now do you have a maintenance plan for the catch basins? I mean obviously if you're putting sand down in the parking lot. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. They need to be monitored and cleaned on an annual basis,usually springtime to make sure you don't have sand build up. There's also inspection ports that need to be,so you can look down and make sure you don't have any sediment built up in the infiltration chambers. MR. MAGOWAN-My concern is once it's all paved,you know. MR.HUNTINGTON-Of course. MR. MAGOWAN-You're really not going to see it, and I know it's sandy over there, and I know the perc rate,you know,will probably suck the water right out of the pipes for a while. MR.HUNTINGTON-We had a hard time keeping water in the pipes when we were doing the tests. MR. MAGOWAN-And my other concern is really the parking, and I understand due to that,but that was more,and I talked to Joe about it,my concern on that,and really as to the business aspect of it. If you feel comfortable with it,that's fine. I think it's a large building and a large parking lot on that lot, and you go right edge to edge. You're just putting a six inch, six inches of river rock on the side. Is that going to be enough? MR. HUNTINGTON-Well that's kind of above where the stormwater is actually all pitched towards the catch basins in the center. So everything on that lot is pitched to drain to a catch basin, and when there's four of them in there, and all the catch basins are interconnected to the infiltrators. MR. MAGOWAN-I did see that. MR. HUNTINGTON-So nothing's going to drain off site. The parking end, our take on that is we're following what's been put in the Town Code per requirements and what the allowable reduction is and our assumption is for it to end up in the Town Code there had to have been some studies that have applied these factors and the equations in there. So we're following what that is,and even with a 500/o reduction, that still provides 10 more spaces at this point beyond what the 500/o shared use allowable reduction is. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Well what the Code was hoping to do was get more pedestrian walkways,and I'm not knocking the Comprehensive Plan, but,you know, for years we've been watching and trying to see, and we've had to make some changes to that to kind of get it kick started, you know, and I'm happy you're coming in and doing it,but really the whole thing when it was designed it was more for foot traffic than anything else,but it's a straight path,all right,and in the Comprehensive Plan,the way I would have seen it if I were around at the time and thinking about it,but I wasn't involved in the Comprehensive Plan at the time that it was coming through. It's almost like they're trying to create a village type atmosphere on a straight line, and I can see the people walking to Hannaford and coming back with their bags. That's what they wanted. Well that's quite a far walk and I don't know about you, but remember those days when we had plastic bags. You get a couple of those in your hands,you're walking out to your car,how far are you going to go? Now they have paper bags. So now you've got to have the cart. So I understand the Comprehensive Plan and why they do that, and that we can't change, and if you're comfortable with that,that's fine. My main concern is to make sure that that water infiltration system is going to be large enough to handle all that,because you really are,from the sidewalks,from the road all the way to the back lot it's all going in there. So that's my only concern. MR. HUNTINGTON-We're very confident in that based on what we saw in the field and what the calculations are on that. I don't think,you should not have a drop of water ponding in there based on the calculations. MR.MAG OWAN-All right,and then on snow removal,that's another big one. You have no room to store. So that means you've got to haul out every time, and I now you have the equipment to do it, but you're planning on it,because they're long days,I'll tell you,if you're into that plowing business. MR. LEUCI-We're fully prepared to take care of that. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. DIXON-1 do have a question, and this may be more for you, Laura,but in my packet I didn't see Fire Marshal signoff on the plan. Has that already been accomplished? MRS. MOORE-I'll look. MR. DIXON-Again,my concern would be if they have to get any sort of ladder truck to the back side of the property,how are they going to get around? Again,it's not a project,but you would have another road on the other side where people could get in,could get out. You would have no egress if that one road gets blocked off. As Laura's looking at that,it's kind of outside the scope of what we're looking at here today, but could you just refresh my memory? What were your plans for,you've got the vacant lot to the east as well,correct? MR. LEUCI-This is both lots. MR. DIXON-That is both lots. Okay. MR.DEEB-Could you address that retail,the parking that Laura mentioned earlier? The other thing I was concerned about,I mentioned it before,is the parking, and we talked about the parking. The project is a huge project for that lot, and it just concerns me,it still should have been mentioned a long time ago,but maybe cutting it down, but it's too late now, but it's just such a large project for that lot. Maybe I'm a little late in bringing that in. MR. HUNTINGTON-In the Staff comments, actually Laura helped us out and actually provided an example with the detail combined in there and what she came up was a 500/o reduction,but it's 2S spaces required,and we're still providing 3S. That's still beyond what the allowable reduction would be. MR. MAGOWAN-It's for the businesses,right? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Now what happens if you have tenants upstairs that work nights and they sleep days? MR. HUNTINGTON-Well that's the mixed use factor in the Town Code between residential and retail. That's where we come up with the 2S spaces with the 500/o allowable sharing reduction, and we're providing 3S spaces. MR. DEEB-And you're planning on two retail commercial on the bottom floor? MR. LEUCI-Tentatively we're planning on putting our office there,which we anticipate being one to two cars a week. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. DEEB-Are you going to use the whole bottom floor? MR. LEUCI-No,just a portion of it probably. MR. DEEB-Then you're going to lease out the? MR. LEUCI-One or two spaces, depending on what size someone's going to want. I think it's allowable for up to four spaces,but those would be small spaces broken into four. MR. MAGOWAN-Or just one large one. I mean it's build to suit pretty much. MR. LEUCI-Right. MR. HUNTINGTON-And our original parking calculations that are shown on here. By looking at office only,you actually required,we'd be required,with the sharing factor,we would be required 49 spaces for the office, which means our plan now would have required more parking spaces which we designed off than retail, which the retail would allow 2S spaces with the 500/o reduction. So updating that number essentially puts us within the allowable sharing factor reduction. MR. STARK-My only concern, if I can interject here, like you said, was parking. You guys have 24 apartments,one office,two retail spaces,now 3S spaces, and I mean imagine during the winter,you guys are going to have snow. Do you guys feel that the 3S spots is enough for such a big project with the 24 units? Like I think you guys have a very good project here. I'm just concerned like let's say during the wintertime, I don't know, I feel like 3S spots, I don't know if it's enough. Are you guys comfortable with the 3S? Do you guys think? MR. LEUCI-I am comfortable with that. Twenty of the apartments are single bedroom. So even if a portion of those have a couple or they have more than one car, most of them are going to be single car apartments. The shared factor accounts for people during the day traveling to work when the businesses are open. I know one of the concerns of the Board was work from home. I don't think a one bedroom apartment is necessarily going to attract someone who has a work from home situation. I think that would be more someone with a two or three bedroom apartment where they can designate an office space. So I wouldn't worry about the one bedroom apartments necessarily having someone park there during the day because they're working from home because there's just not really space to work from that in those apartments. MR. DEEB-Those are intangibles you really can't measure. You know what I mean? It's all speculative. Whatever happens happens. We don't know. You're within Code on the parking. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So I can respond to the Fire Marshal. So the Fire Marshal gave us a letter back in April, and the only comment is that the sprinkler system and stand pipe system are required, and that FD apparatus access is acceptable. So I'm assuming that's the access way. So that's something that has to be just clarified. I'm assuming he's looked at it, but in the long run it has to be accessible, and then in regards to the engineering comments,the only comment that still would probably need to be addressed is in reference to the test pits and infiltration tests. The concern is that it doesn't get lost. So in my Staff Notes I identified it, having the test pits done prior to the, as part of the final plan submission. So that that information is available on the site plans. Again,it's all a signoff but this way it doesn't get lost. If it goes as part of construction then it sometimes gets overlooked. That was the big concern about that MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? We have to consider SEQR on this application. How do members feel as far as if we have enough information to move ahead with SEQR? I know Mr. Magowan had some concerns and wanted some additional information. How do others feel? MR. DEEB-I'd be okay with it,but I don't think we have many alterations to the site plan that I can think of. Right? MR. DIXON-:Laura,nothing really impacts the SEQR, other than the, or would impact it,other than the test pits. MRS. MOORE-Right. Other than the test pits, but that information, obviously, the applicant has indicated that the site as designed, even though those test pits weren't specifically in the site of the infiltration practice, he's already indicated this site can accommodate the stormwater management as designed,but the Town Designated Engineer is asking for those test pits to be in this specific location. MR. DIXON-Okay. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, there's four test pits, and they're kind of right around, in the back around the filtration. So they're asking for it to be right over the filtration. MR. TRAVER-All right. So I guess I'll go back to you,Brad. Do you feel like after further discussion you have enough information to move ahead with SEQR? MR. MAGOWAN-Well,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So one of the questions that Mike and I went over today is in reference to the actual form itself. So I believe it's under a Short Form,and typically we do a Long Form and we go through each of the questions,but it's up to the Board. I don't mind pulling up the Short Form and going through each of those questions so you have those. MR. TRAVER-Well,I'll ask the Board. Are there specific questions that the Board wants reviewed? MR. DIXON-I don't have any. MR. TRAVER-I guess not. All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#27-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS The 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. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 27-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/FHB APTS., Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-Next we move on to the Site Plan itself. Any concerns or further discussion by members of the Board before we proceed? MR. DIXON-I do have a concern, Mr. Chairman. So we were talking about ground level transparencies that are facing the road. Essentially they need to be Code compliant,but does that change the facade at all? MR. TRAVER-I think we're just talking about the glass. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MRS.MOO RE-We're talking about the glass. Sothis is,we've had this discussion with other applications, meaning the only other application that triggered this was the Dollar General,in reference to percentage of transparency and that was identified as part of the project. So I am a little concerned. Right nowit says 32. I don't understand what that 320/o is. MR. TRAVER-So we can make it a condition that it be the. MRS. MOORE-I'm a little cautious about that because we want to understand what the 320/o is. Sixty- four percent,to me,makes sense because you want basically full glass is what that's asking for. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-And I don't know what the architect was trying to drive at. MR. MAGOWAN-So who's saying 320/o,the engineer? MRS. MOORE-The architect. Matt's saying he's not certain what the architect was proposing at this point. MR. DIXON-Aside from the architect,are you agreeable to 640/o? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. DIXON-So it would be ground level transparencies facing the road to be 640/o. MRS. MOORE-On the ground level. MR. DEEB-That way you can get through this. RESOLUTION APPROVING 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. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 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 27-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/FHB APARTMENTS,- Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: waiver for side setbacks not at zero feet, buffer between residential and office use; 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, 16 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) 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) Ground level transparencies facing the road to be 64%on ground level. m) Proposed lighting as demonstrated on proposed plan without any alteration. Any changes would need additional Town approval. n) Test pits for infiltration pits must be part of the final submission and on the plans. o) Maintenance plan for the infiltration system to be provided with the final plans. p) Clarification of all fencing which must indicate length and height. q) Documentation of merged lots provided with final Site Plan. r) Snow removal plan to be on final plans. s) Fence detail to be included on the final plans and will be approximately 475 feet of fencing. t) Applicant to update parking information to include retail space. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I have two items. One that I identified in the Staff Notes, but just for clarification purposes, the street light that's out near the road, that is actually owned by the Town, and our Building and Grounds folks actually maintain those, and so if there's any,it doesn't appear that there's going to be any alterations to that, but if there is, then the applicant needs to communicate with our Building and Grounds folks before they do that. Sometimes what happens,obviously,is that it needs to get moved. So that will be further discussion with Building and Grounds, and then another one was the documentation for merged parcels, and then I apologize. Another one is in reference to the fencing information. It's just clarification about the actual distance. Right now I have some portion of the plans indicate some distance but it's not clear. I don't know if those are considered additional conditions or whether they're just clarification. MR.TRAVER-Well,with the impact to the Town owned light,I wouldn't think that would be a condition because anyone impacting a Town owned property would have to deal with the Town anyway,but as far as the merged parcels,yes,that seems like we would want to add that as a condition and would want that clarified. MR. DEEB-And you'd want the fence clarified also. I think that should be a condition. MR. TRAVER-It's part of the plan. MR. DIXON-I thought we had the fence information already on the plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes,it is. MR. DEEB-I thought you said there was some confusion. MRS. MOORE-There's some clarification that needs to be done. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-Can you be specific? MRS.MOORE-So the side,the fencing on the west side and the east side don't indicate length and then in regards to the fence,and then the rear fence doesn't,it's not clear if it's the entire length of the rear property line or whether it's only the sections that are identified by 99 or something to that. That's why. 10.8, and then it says 99.0 and then there's no value. There's a six foot height vinyl privacy fence with a gate, and that's in reference to the dumpster. So I don't know if there's a fence behind it. So just a clarification. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So clarification of length and height of all fencing. Correct? Okay. MR. DIXON-Again,I apologize. I was not paying attention when you were talking about the merging of the lots. What needed to be in there? MR. TRAVER-Documentation of the merged lots. MR. MAGOWAN-Question. On the fence,I mean how can we approve a project if we don't know what the length of the fence is? Do you know what I'm saying? So I mean just say for instance we're only going to put 20 feet offence up,you know,it comes back. So what are we approving? I mean this is the problem I've seen in the past is that we don't see it, all right. There are decisions made,you know, that Craig has the ability to do,and then unfortunately what I've been finding out in following through is sometimes these plans aren't followed to what we've approved. Do you know what I'm saying? So to me I'd like to know tonight what the length of the fence is going to be. MR. TRAVER-Well,let's ask. What is the length of the fence? MR. MAGOWAN-I mean from the looks of it it looks like it's from the corner of the building, around the back,and then it goes all the way back up to the,on the east side almost to the road. Am I correct? MR. HUNTINGTON-You are correct. It's actually the issue is the fence is actually on the property line. So there is a fence line there you'll see in the legend there's a proposed site fence. It's small,kind of dots on the line,but the issue is the property line kind of overtakes it a little bit. So the idea is really you're essentially following the property line along the driveway,along the back,encompassing the dumpster on all sides, and then continuing up, I guess that would be the west side,no east side up to the building and then that bottom corner of the building is where it kind of truncates into the building. So there's no fence where that cursor is to that lower corner of the building. The fence will truncate the building. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. It goes to the edge of the building. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Now you have down here six foot high vinyl privacy fence with gate. That's for the dumpster. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want to save a couple of bucks? Don't worry about the gate. It's just going to get trashed, and the dumpster guy,he don't care. I've fixed a lot of them in my day and we end up taking them out. But just a slight recommendation there. MR. TRAVER-So do you have the length of those? MR.HUNTINGTON-We haven't figured out the exact length. I would have to add it up right now. We'd have to add,235 on the west side,I mean you're essentially at the property metes and bounds. MR.DIXON-Can I make a proposal that we can add an addendum and the fencing would be to encompass the perimeter of the lot while being Code compliant. Is that correct? MR.HUNTINGTON-I don't think it's totally necessary on the east side where the building is because you have a building there. You're going to have a building wall in that area. That's why we had to stop that on that east side. MR. DEEB-Could you go up and show us? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly. So,yes,we're going to have a rectangle drawing. Basically the fence starts here, continues down the property around the dumpster to this corner and then all the way up to the road. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So my next question. Up near the road,how close is that going to come to the sidewalk there? 1S (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR.HUNTINGTON-It'll stop on the property line which is just shy of the sidewalk. MR. MAGOWAN-For site view? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,so sight distance was part of the traffic review on that. MR. MAGOWAN-But what I'm thinking is like that last maybe 20 feet of that fence you could bring it down. MR.HUNTINGTON-It is. MRS. MOORE-It is. MR.HUNTINGTON-That last 35 feet is indicated to be three feet high. So you can see over it. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thanks. I can just see people pulling up to that sidewalk and someone coming around. MR.HUNTINGTON-Well it's not going to be six foot high right there. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. DEEB-It's important that we have the dimensions. So if you could add them up. We have to put them in the resolution. We want to make sure it's accurate. MR.HUNTINGTON-Bear with me for a second. MR.MAGOWAN-Now while he's doing calculations,Mr.Chairman,snow removal. Should it be in there in the resolution that snow has to be removed within a certain? MR. TRAVER-Well,it will be part of the final plan submitted to the Town. MRS. MOORE-So the snow removal note,though,that I apologize,I didn't identify that. So there should be a snow removal note on the plans that says that when snow accumulates. MR. TRAVER-It's going to be removed from the site. MRS. MOORE-It'll be removed from the site. MR. TRAVER-That was in the discussion. You can add that to the final plans. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean it just,you know,one space makes a difference,but that's a big parking lot. MR. TRAVER-No, as long as it's on the final plans. Well we could add it as a condition that it be on the final plans. MRS. MOORE-That's what I'm asking,that it be on the final plans. MR.HUNTINGTON-So the fence is approximately 475 feet. MR. DEEB We can't use approximates. MR. HUNTINGTON-Well,I mean,you've also got to take into account what we're measuring off on the survey. I mean it's 473.5,but give or take. There's going to be afoot or so waiver as you install the fence. MR. DEEB-Let's go over by a foot. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,that's why I said approximately 475 because we're 473.E feet. MR. DIXON-So are we going to have this 475 feet of installed fence? MR. DEEB-What's the height,six feet? MRS. MOORE-It varies and those are noted. MR. DEEB-And that's noted. MR. MAGOWAN-To the last 35 feet,it goes down to three. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-Put fence detail to be included on the final plans to be approximately 475 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we need to put any condition in there for the maintenance of the storm drains? MRS. MOORE-He already put that in there. MR. MAGOWAN-It's already in there? MRS. MOORE-It's already in there. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Do you think we need to be more specific on snow removal? I mean because. MR. TRAVER-You mean what kind of backhoe is he going to use? MR. MAGOWAN-How quickly it's going to be removed so it doesn't eat up any parking spots. MR. DEEB-I don't know. I just thought. MR. STARK Just say as needed. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I don't ever remember when we talked about snow removal. MR. MAGOWAN-As needed. MR. DEEB-Who defines as needed? MR. STARK-I think they can figure it out. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I don't ever remember requiring a specific. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, usually we don't because you always have a storm area to put your snow, and then once that piles up they have a chance to move that. Here we do not. We do not have an area to put any of the snow. So it's going to go to a parking lot. I'm not trying to bust chops here,but,you know, we've got a 500/o reduction in parking,every space is worth. JOE LEUCI,SR. MR. LEUCI, SR.-Listen, we're not going to leave our clients, our customers without a place to park. If there's too much snow we're going to remove it. End of story. MR. TRAVER-It's going to be on the final plan and I'm sure because of the 500/o reduction, if there's a problem with snow effecting parking they're going to hear about it. So they're going to want to take care of it right of way, and they said in the minutes that they would be dealing with it as it accumulated. MR. DEEB-I'm sure they'll take care of it. MR. TRAVER-Yes,they'll have to. MRS.MOORE-I'm just going to add the note that the applicant is going to update the parking information to include retail. MR. DIXON-So did we want to add anything to the snow removal,or keep it as is? MR. TRAVER-Well we put in there that the details are to be on the final plans. Right? That's what we normally do. MR. DIXON-And since I had to go through all this, I'm just going to throw out one comment. As you're looking at your parking, I would encourage you to think about your people that are going to be driving electric vehicles over the next several years there's going to be a big push., Well, actually, does that need to be on the plan? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Good point. MR. TRAVER-So we have another amended motion. Do we have a second? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2022) MR. STARK-I'll second it. AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. Thank you. MR.HUNTINGTON-Thank you. MR. LEUCI-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Tabled Items for unapproved development. This is Morgan Gazetos and Greg Francis, Site Plan 35-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MORGAN GAZETOS/GREG FRANCIS. AGENT(S): MORGAN GAZETOS. OWNER(S): GREGORY R.FRANCIS TRUSTEE. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2930 STATE ROUTE 9L. (REVISED) APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION NOT CONSTRUCTED PER APPROVAL. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED ADDITIONAL WORK WITHOUT APPROVAL INCLUDING DECK AREA NEAR SHORELINE,SHORELINE PATHWAY DECKING, AND A RECONSTRUCTED SHED/CHANGING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NEAR THE SHORE. THE EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT OF 1,285 SQ.FT.TO REMAIN THE SAME. THE EXISTING DECKING AREA TODAY IS 1,508 SQ. FT. WHERE A PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR 1,116 SQ. FT. THE SITE WORK WITH THE ADDITIONAL WOODEN WALKWAY HAS AN EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 2,384 WHERE THE PROPOSED IS 2,074 SQ. FT. UPDATED PLANS SHOW OVERLAY OF EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-13-010,SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 72-2014,AV 85-2014,AV 25-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JUNE 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 92 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-19. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-13-010. MORGAN GAZETOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; GREG FRANCIS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is in reference to additional decking that was added to a project site. The applicant and the Board discussed how to frame this information onto a plan,and they discussed with the representative,let's have the surveyor overlay information from the previous plan,and that worked out really well. So you all have a plan in front of you that has information in regards to what was approved and what was constructed,and then,in addition to that,information about what's being removed from the site,and if you looked through the Staff Notes at all,the applicant ended up overbuilding,or ends up being overbuilt by 82 square feet. The applicant has proposed removal information, and I'll let the applicant speak to that. I think that's all. I'll let the applicant address the rest. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. FRANCIS-Gregory Francis. I want to apologize to the Board for letting this get out of hand and go on for so long. I hired people whom I thought knew what they were doing and were taking care of this, and obviously was not. So I think Morgan has a good handle on it and he's going to take you through the plan. MR. MAGOWAN-He deserves a big bonus because that last meeting we brutalized him and he was spot on. MR.FRANCIS-It comes down to me. It's ultimately my responsibility to take care of this and I apologize for not taking care of it. I thought that it was, and it wasn't. MR. MAGOWAN-He gave you good representation and really a big thank you to him. MR. TRAVER-So,welcome back. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. GAZETOS-Thank you for having us. As the Board requested, I got the surveyor to overlay the approved versus the existing. The difference with the upper decks was 73 square feet. The lower deck is something like nine and we discussed ad naseum the last time,I don't know how good the guy who came before me's numbers really were because we've done some significant variances all over the place. I worked with Mr. Francis. We spoke to the neighbors. They submitted letters of support, and it's close. It's about as close as we can get it. I think that,I build docks. I work on the lake. You have to know the rules or you get in trouble and I have been before the Board before and said,hey,I'm in a spot,but you've got to stop during the process, and this guy I think just kept rolling along and he came, almost in confusion. If you don't work on the lake then you don't know specific the rules are. Side line setbacks,shoreline erosion is, it's a difficult prospect to break into. When Laura put this together, Laura mentioned this is what I ought to do. The difference really when you look at it is the change in the stair configuration, and I mentioned last time, I think that came down to geography. So if you've visited the site, it is a sheer cliff and when I built this tier in 2014 I slide the six by sixes down the hill just because there was literally no way to get them down and so I think when he reconfigured this, it has to do with the way that piece in there is,and the variance being as small as it is,I'd like to think if I was in a similar spot I came back before the Board as I mentioned and said I'm stuck on my stairs,I might have had to shave a few other things,but it's not as bad as I think it looked last time. I think the drawing is better. We're still removing as much as we can feasibly do without changing the overall, because once this is here with this, this really takes away not the need for but the wood walkway has got to go obviously to be in the setback. We're still removing that. We're removing the deck back here,the two little wings on each side that I showed you last time on the drawing, and so the difference overall is S2 square feet. So this is what I had the last time. All stays the same. We're going to put some plantings in here, and that's where I'm at. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.GAZETOS-But I think that the difference was the last time I didn't have,73 square feet is inhere. the nine square feet is somewhere in here. I honestly believe it may have been lost in translation because of some of the guy's other stuff, his impermeability is wrong. His driveway size is wrong. He didn't do anything about the boathouse. That wasn't included if you look in the Staff Notes. So my numbers are all going to be slightly off because we actually measured everything,and so I think Mr.Francis came hat in hand. I explained honest to God I cleaned up the mess and I think we're really,really close to what was intended. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So you're here this evening for this modified plan to address the unapproved development and it still requires a variance for setbacks,but you have managed to chip away at everything except S2 square feet of unapproved development. Questions,comments from members of the Board? I know we reviewed this quite a bit last time. MR. MAGOWAN-I really am impressed. You really,you've done a heck of a job. This was dumped into you and you got it down to S2 square feet. That's really good, and like you said,you've got that one rock ledge you're dealing with and that's probably the majority of where that S2 square feet is coming from. So I'm much happier, but I'm totally impressed with what you've done and measurements and for a dock builder you even come with a tie on. That's shocking. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments,questions? MR. DEEB-You have S3 total square feet,73 for the additional decking and nine is S2,nine feet. MR. GAZETOS-The 73 we're able to really figure out because there's original drawings from shale and then the surveyor over added. We're solid at the 73 for the upper two decks. I think some of the nine is lost in the stairs,because if you saw the first application,I'm not faulting the guy. He does nice work,but like I said,if you work around the water,you've got to be real close. MR. DEEB-I'm not concerned about the nine square feet. I mean like you said the configuration of the land necessitates that. MR. GAZETOS-When you lay out stairs,it's a funny thing. It happens to me on boathouses all the time. You have an idea,somebody draws it,the architect,how the stairs are going to come down,and then you're there and you do it,and you set the height where it's supposed to be,and then all of sudden you're like,oh, you know,or the worst we do like those land bridges that come back to meet the retaining wall. I do put a plus/minus on all of them,because you've got to sit it in the right spot and then you come down especially now it seems that most of my clients are getting a little more senior and I find they need a nice transition to get out onto the sundeck, you know. I was told earlier this week that it's mean to make folks go downstairs to go back upstairs. MR. TRAVER-So do we have any questions or concerns that we want to forward to the ZBA as they consider this amended plan? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. DIXON-I don't,but,Mr. Chairman,I just wanted to say also I'm impressed where we started off and where we've come, and, Mr. Francis, please keep tabs of everybody so we don't run into this again. It's very uncomfortable and puts us in an awkward position. MR. DEEB-Morgan,you did do a Yeoman's job. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we have a draft resolution for the ZBA. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#25-2022 MORGAN GAZETOS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised) Applicant requests approval for construction of a deck addition not constructed per approval. Additionally, the applicant has completed additional work without approval including deck area near shoreline, shoreline pathway decking, and a reconstructed shed/changing accessory structure near the shore. The existing house footprint of 1,255 sq. . ft. to remain the same. The existing decking area today is 1,50E sq. . ft.. where a previous approval was for 1,116 sq. . ft.. The site work with the additional wooden walkway has an existing square footage of 2,354 where the proposed is 2,074 sq. . ft.. Updated plans show overlay of existing and previously approved. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010, site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks.Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 25-2022 MORGAN GAZETOS/GREG FRANCIS Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA, MR. GAZETOS-Thankyou,Laura. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA. This next item is James Brown, Site Plan 54-2022. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. JAMES BROWN. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: LC-10A. LOCATION: 1918 RIDGE ROAD, SHOP ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A 1,936 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT. THE ACCESS DRIVE TO THE NEW HOME IS FROM AN EXISTING PRIVATE ROAD ("SHOP ROAD") THROUGH AN ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE NEW HOME. THE REMAINING DRIVEWAY AREA IS LOCATED ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY USING SOME PORTIONS OF PREVIOUS LOGGING ROADS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE OF AN ACRE AND WILL REQUIRE A MAJOR STORMWATER PERMIT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-4-050,CHAPTER 147,179- 6-060,SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITHIN THE LC10 ZONE IN THE APA,A NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE PROPERTY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 32- 2018, DISC 6-2021, AV 41-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. SITE 23 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: 15.75 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 253.-1-23,253.-1-22 (ACCESS ROAD). SECTION: 179-3-040,179-4-050,CHAPTER 147,179-6-060. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;JAMES BROWN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is construction of a new single family home,but it involves an access road from an existing private road through someone else's property to this applicant's property that they own. We've been through this particular site back in 2015. The applicant then came to the Board in 2021 for a discussion item for this exact proposal, and now the applicant's back before this Board in reference to actually constructing this project, and so relief being requested is for having access that's not directly on a public right of way. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.JARRE TT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. To my left is Jim Brown, the project applicant. To my right is Mrs. Stark. She owns the property immediately north. In the way of a general overview, this project was before you last year at sketch plan. We gave you a broader view of what was intended to do. We're back now with some details. Ina nutshell we plan to access Mr.Brown's property via an existing road,Shop Road,which is owned by the Starks and then traverse along a ridge line directly south at a relatively constant elevation to a house site on Mr. Brown's property which is shown in the plans. We can give any level of detail you wish tonight. The variance we seek is for access to Mr.Brown's property not through his road frontage on his road because that would be very,very difficult,impractical, and environmentally it would degrade virtually half the site. So we are seeking a variance to use Shop Road for access and Mrs. Stark is here to represent her interests with that property. I'll open it up to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-In reference to the variances,I have no questions. MR. DEEB-It's pretty cut and dried. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-They presented it pretty well last time. MR. TRAVER-So what happens to Mr. Brown if the property they're going through changes hands? Is there going to be an easement? MR.JARRETT-There will be a recoded easement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.JARRE TT-That draft easement was submitted with our application materials. It will be executed,I believe it's with Laura. MR. TRAVER-I didn't see it,but we'll take your word for it. MR.JARRE TT-The draft easement was submitted to you. We'll execute it if this project is approved by the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks. MR.JARRETT-And you can certainly condition that. MR. TRAVER-So do Board members have any issues with a positive referral to the ZBA on this variance? MR. MAGOWAN-That was a lot. Unfortunately I've become a little hard of hearing in the last couple of weeks so I'm trying to follow,but I was reading your lips well. Mr. Brown,you own two parcels here. Correct? MR.BROWN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. And both obviously are just noway to access them. So you have to come in up Shop Road across the Stark family. So you're going to be asking for an easement, and obviously with that easement there'll come a maintenance agreement and an additionally insured,all that other good stuff 24 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) that I'd like to see in a resolution but we can't enforce all that. I don't know why we're not allowed to do that. MR.JARRETT-You can certainly reference the draft easement that we prepared. MR. TRAVER-Well at Site Plan we could do that. Tonight we're just looking at the variance. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Well I'm just getting it out there ahead of time, but I want to thank the neighbor for being so lovely to make this happen becse I have to have it looks like it's going to turn out to be a nice project. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions,comments before we go to resolution? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#41-2022 JAMES BROWN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a new single family home with a 1,936 sq. ft. footprint. The access drive to the new home is from an existing private road("Shop Road")through an adjoining property to the new home. The remaining driveway area is located on the applicant's property using some portions of previous logging roads. The project includes disturbance of an acre and will require a major stormwater permit. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-4- 050,Chapter 147,179-6-060,site plan for construction of a new home within the LC10 zone in the APA, a new structure within 150/o slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for access to a public right-of-way from the property. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 41-2022 TAMES BROWN, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.JARRETT-Hopefully we'll see you next week. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under referral to the ZBA,is Jeffrey Randles, Site Plan 51-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. JEFFREY RANDLES. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 42 OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,968 SQ.FT.AND THE TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW HOUSE TO BE 3,348 SQ.FT.THE ADDITIONS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BASEMENT AREA. THE MAIN FLOOR WOULD ALTER THE NORTH SIDE WITH A NEW DINING AREA AND A NEW GARAGE. THE SOUTH SIDE BEDROOM AREAS TO BE ADDED TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE. THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AND STORAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-030, 147, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXISTING HOME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL 25 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 36-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .83 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-11. SECTION: 179-3-040, CHAPTER 147. CURT DYBAS &BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is alterations to an existing single family home. It includes a second story addition and an attached garage with some interior alterations. The new floor area to be 6,96 S square feet and the total footprint of the new house is to be, with the additions, is to be 3,34E square feet. In reference to the variances,it's setbacks,primarily for a side yard setback and then stormwater infiltration side setback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design, also here with the architect, Curt Dybas. The Randles are here as well tonight. So a quick overview of the project. The Randles are looking to improve their property on the lake and in order to do that they're looking to add a driveway off of Assembly Point Road for access and make improvements to the house,including a two car garage and expansion of the screen porch off the lakeside. So they are, with the house they are planning on re-using the existing foundation and some of the other structural components of the house. So we're keeping it in the same footprint as what's there now and expanding with a two car garage and a screen porch off of that. So the side yard setback, eight foot side yard setback, that's what exists now. We're not getting any closer,and that's off the existing foundation. So that's the reason for the side yard setback. Shoreline, the requirement is typically 50 feet. We also have to look at the average of the two homes adjacent to it,and when you look at them,this house to the north is a ways off the lake,and then this house to the south is pretty close to the lake. However, with this deck being detached we kind of take our measurement from the house itself and not from the deck because they aren't attached. So it pushed the shoreline setback to 56.7 feet. We're proposing 51 because we're kind of using an existing house footprint trying to get a screened in porch off the lakeside. So we meet the typical 50 foot requirement, with the average between the homes,that's what pushed us into a variance requirement. And then for stormwater infiltration setback, you can kind of see outlined right here we have the stormwater infiltration device proposed to handle runoff from a portion of the existing driveway as well unfortunately a portion of the proposed/existing house. Just because of where the house position is now, as well as trying to maintain some existing trees, it pushes it to SS feet from the lake when 100 is typically required. So those are the variances we're requesting. I'll turn it back to you guys. MRS. MOORE-Can I just ask for a quick clarification? You mentioned the foundation. Is part of the building being removed down to the foundation? MR. DYBAS-We're taking the house down to the top of the first floor structure. So the foundation has a first floor structure. MR. TRAVER-So it's not a complete teardown and rebuild. It's a partial. MR.DYBAS-Economically they're trying to save the foundation and floor structure,what's there now,and also save the fireplace,which again is quite a bit of money to be re-built. So we're building all around it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The foundation's going to be adequate for the addition? MR. DYBAS-What we're planning on doing is taking the entire the second floor load and new roof load will be put on new footings within the building. MR. TRAVER-Within the building? MR.DYBAS-You have isolated footings,and taking the beams and columns,taking them down through to new footings. So,yes,the increase on the foundation is minimal. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm sure glad you didn't retire. MR. MAGOWAN-The other question I have,I see the tank,two septic tanks. MR. DIXON-Existing septic. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Existing septic and pump tanks to remain,but am I missing the leach? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, it's up closer to the road. It's on the roadside of the house. So it's going to be to the north of the proposed driveway. That's where the existing leach field is. And that's to remain as well. MR. MAGOWAN-So your line's going to be going underneath the driveway and crossing over? MR. FERGUSON-'Yes,it will head across the driveway and go over there. MR. MAGOWAN-I see it over there,yes,the wastewater field to remain. Got it now. MR. DYBAS-The system was replaced not too long ago. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. DYBAS-I believe it's a six bedroom system. MR. MAGOWAN-It was designed for how many bedrooms? MR. DYBAS-Six. MR. DIXON-When we do get to Site Plan would you be able to get us the exact date that was replaced? MR. FERGUSON-Yes,we can get that for you. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you just ask to have that put on? MR. DIXON-Well, when we get to Site Plan, as far as the date it was installed, I'd like to have that information. MR. MAGOWAN-The date it was installed and the design on the prints. If that's possible. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,we'll do that. MR. TRAVER-So as far as the variances, are there any concerns that we want to forward to the ZBA regarding these variances? MR. DIXON-Again, I appreciate the fact that you're trying to stay within that footprint and you're not coming any closer to the lake. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well,we have a draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-So it's just,you're removing these walls that are on here? MR. DYBAS Just the lower, halfway to the west, from the mid=-point out, right there, to the right. MRS. MOORE-To the right. MR. FERGUSON-This is the new garage. MR. DYBAS-That's the new garage. MR. FERGUSON-The new garage is over here. Here's the existing structure. MRS. MOORE-And you're removing those. MR. FERGUSON-We're removing the foundation and the floors. MRS. MOORE-And the whole wall system? MR. DYBAS-No. The wall system won't be replaced. Craig Brown and I, this is how we got into the discussion. I came in back in March and talked to Craig about this. MRS. MOORE-It didn't get relayed to me. So that was,my take is, and I apologize. To me it's still,it's a teardown in the sense that you're keeping the foundation but it's still a new building, but that's a discussion you had with Craig. So I won't go there. It's fine. MR. MAGOWAN-But you just said,I mean that's the front of the house that's to the right,correct? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2022) MR. DYBAS-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And you're leaving that foundation? MR. FERGUSON-This foundation here is going to remain. MRS. MOORE-Right,but the walls are coming down. MR. MAGOWAN-The walls are coming down. MR. DYBAS-Forty feet of wall is coming down and will be re-built to Code standards. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. That's what I thought you said. MR. MAGOWAN-They've got that foam now. MR. DYBAS-The building was built in'66 by McCormack of Coulter&McCormack and believe it or not I've been through it. It's solid as a rock down in the basement. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV#36-2022 JEFFREY RANDLES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing single family home with a second story addition and an attached garage.New floor area to be 6,96 8 sq.ft.and the total footprint of the new house to be 3,348 sq.ft.The additions include additional basement area. The main floor would alter the north side with a new dining area and a new garage. The south side bedroom areas to be added to the footprint of the structure. The second floor would include additional living space and storage. The project includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,147,site plan review for a new floor area and alterations to the existing home shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 36-2022 JEFFREY RANDLES,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. The next item on our agenda, also a referral to the ZBA,is Dark Bay Lane,LLC. This is Site Plan 58-2022. SITE PLAN 58-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. DARK BAY LANE, LLC. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 40 DARK BAY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 2,000 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,658 SQ.FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 4,378 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, UPDATE TO PARKING AND S HARED ACCESS ARRANGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTING AREAS, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040,179-6-050,179-4-010,179-6-065,NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT 28 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43- 2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .43 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-37. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-050,179-4-010, 179-6-065. JON ZAPPER&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes a demolition of the existing home to construct a new home with 2,65E square foot footprint, as well as a floor area of 4,37E square feet. This project probably looks familiar to you. The applicant was before this Board to do some additions to the house and received those variances,had additional review by their contractor to look at actually constructing the project and come to find out it would be better if they tore down the building and re-constructed a new building. It's in the same footprint. The information indicates that they still request a floor area ratio as well as setbacks to the property lines as well as the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-For the record,Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson and Michael Chase is here in the first row. He and his wife are Dark Bay LLC. So Laura did a pretty good job of summarizing everything. In fact,we have an existing approval to build exactly what we're proposing except it would involve keeping the foundation,and as Laura said,Matt Cifone,who's a very reputable builder,went in with the applicant to go look at the foundation to get started with the project,and he just said he was unwilling to work with that. They thought that they could fix it and reinforce it and it's just too far gone. So we brought Craig Brown out to the site to show him and everybody understood that that was really the right answer. So we're her seeking the same approvals,the same variances from last time. It's 22.750/o FAR. So a very minor variance. This is certainly not a grand house, and I know you've all been to the site. There's certainly constraints with the ledge. Can't move the house back any further. This is, they could go in tomorrow and build it if they wanted to work with that foundation and that's just not the right answer. So we have to ask for the approvals again to do it the right way. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we looked at this previously and reviewed it and at that time it was going to be built on the same foundation. You're just replacing the foundation based on the engineering review. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-This was really just an addition to the garage,wasn't it? The original application? MR. FERGUSON-In the original application they were doing a re-model of the whole house. They were adding a second story. They were redoing the whole interior of the first story, and then they were adding a proposed garage. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'm looking at this and this looks identical. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR.FERGUSON-So the footprint and everything ends up staying the same. Essentially what's previously approved,this application,just with the new foundation. MR. TRAVER-So hearing that,any questions,concerns that we want to pass along to the ZBA? All right. Then we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV#43-2022 DARK BAY LANE,LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,000 sq.ft.home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,65E sq.ft.The new floor area is to be 4,37E sq. ft. The project includes a new septic system, update to parking and shared access arrangement, shoreline planting areas, and stormwater management. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040,179-6-050,179-4- 010, 179-6-065, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and floor area.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2022) The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 43-2022 DARK BAY LANE, LLC, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. FERGUSON-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is the West Mountain Ski area Site Plan 49-2022 and Special Use Permit 3-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 49-2022 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. TIM SCIALABBA/WEST MTN. SKI AREA. AGENT(S): APEX CAPITAL,LLC. OWNER(S): APEX CAPITAL, LLC. ZONING: RC. LOCATION: 59 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 365 ACRE PARCEL TO HOST OUTDOOR EVENTS. THE EVENTS INCLUDE,BUT AREN'T LIMITED TO COMMUNITY AND FAMILY EVENTS FOR MOUNTAIN BIKING, OUTDOOR CONCERTS/FESTIVALS, ENDURANCE RACES,AND OTHER OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE INTENT IS TO HOST 10 SINGLE DAY EVENTS AND 8 MULTI-DAY EVENTS OUTSIDE THE NORMAL OPERATING SEASON FOR A RENEWABLE 5 YEAR PERIOD. ADDITIONALLY, LOCAL DOH, AND NYS APPROVALS/SERVICES WILL BE OBTAINED AS NEEDED FOR EACH EVENT, HOURS OF MUSIC WILL BE LIMITED TO BE DURING 8 AM TO 11 PM ONLY,AND ALL TENTS AND/OR STAGES WILL BE TEMPORARY PER EVENT ARRANGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10-040, SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR CONCERTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 16-2018, SP 53-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. SITE INFORMATION: SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 365.43 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29. SECTION: 179- 3-040,179-10-040. TIM SCIALABBA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-Okay. So the applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the 365 acre parcel to host outdoor events. This is similar to the past applications. Typically they have a five year renewal. The applicant is now back before this Board after it was identified that the renewal was outdated. So the application hasn't changed. The intent is to host 10 single day events and 8 multi-day events outside the normal operating season for a renewable period. Any additional agencies review,they do that on their own in reference to security,Department of Health and our Fire Marshal does the tent inspections and I think that's about it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SCIALABBA-Good evening. I'm Tim Scialabba representing Apex Capital,West Mountain Ski area. So we're looking for a five year permit,like Laura said,to host events such as mountain bike events,races, concerts, anything that can help the viability of our resort as a year round resort, bring in people from outside the community to visit West Mountain and take place and work on,you know,bring in business into the area through staying in the area for a concert or event. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You had a prior approval for this,right? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. SCIALABBA-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And how did that work out for you? MR. SCIALABBA-We did host many events over the years. We started in the spring after we closed the winter operations. We had a country man challenge which is kind of like a, style event. Mountaintop over the mountain which was mountain biking and running, a 5K run race and 25K mountain bike race, and then we have hosted Fall Festival for the past five years. We're going to continue that. We're looking to host concerts in the summertime,probably around the July 2n1 period. That's what we're planning on a few days before Fourth of July every year and I'm looking to add any additional activities that we can host under this permit. It does help us out to staff the mountain for the entire year as well as bring in additional funds to keep the mountain running in the summertime with our operations with mountain biking and parking. MR.TRAVER-And when you were approved previously,when was your Special Use Permit approved for? MR. SCIALABBA-I believe that was five years. MR. TRAVER-Five years. You're basically asking for the same thing you were previously approved for? MR. SCIALABBA-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Any repercussions from the concerts? Noise from the concerts with the neighbors. MR. SCIALABBA-So that's something we will keep in accordance with the law with stopping at 10 p.m. We know that we can't. MR.DEEB-That was a question I had,because I see here it was 11. I put in my notes that I thought we did 10. MR. SCIALABBA-We always stop. We've had it in the past at 11 p.m. We always stop all live music at 10 P.M. MR. DEEB-Ten p.m. MR. SCIALABBA-We give ourselves a buffer for time to get people out of the resort. MR. DEEB-And you said other events without any other specifics. Do you have anything in mind? MR. SCIALABBA-Yes. So we're proposing having a farmer's market on Sundays with some live music. We have,you know,the Fall Festival has been growing in years. So that's the two weekends in October, two days each event in each weekend. So that could be something that we want to grow further. We do have plans for an additional concert,too,during the summertime. We do want to bring back the country man challenge and some others in the spring season. We've got to do what we can show the seasons, and hopefully host one to two evens every month. MR. DEEB-Farmer's market sounds nice. MR. SCIALABBA-Yes,we're looking to do that on Sundays between June through August. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB JONES MR.JONES-Bob Jones, 200 West Mountain Road. I've been a resident out there for 50 plus years. I've skied for 40 years, many across the street and I would just like to have some thoughts shared with the frequency, ski season is usually four months, December,January....That leaves us basically eight months left or 32 weeks, and if we look at the number of programs here and the number of days, that means basically one every eight and a half days. I'm not sure that that's going to be popular. I don't object to what they do now, okay, and I would also ask that maybe we drop the time limit from five years to three because we all know there's major plans for that area and this would give us residents in the area greater opportunity to share the concerns which were mentioned before, noise and those are basically the issues that I am concerned about and I thank you for your time and insight. Thank you very much. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. DEAN WESTCOTT MR. WESTCOTT-Good evening. I'm Dean Westcott,123 Northwest Road. I'm actually up on the hill from West Mountain. I've got to applaud West Mountain for the work that they've done out there. It's a great improvement to the area. I do have concerns about the time limit. As you expressed,Mr.Deeb,on the concerts at night. Ten o'clock seems reasonable. Eleven o'clock might be pushing it. SPAC ends concerts around 10:30 at night. The noise does carry right up that mountain just as if you were on a lake. One of the loudest events I heard was probably one of the smallest ones. There was a culinary event, and windows closed in the living room,still the noise came through. I would like a little more attention maybe given to the way the speakers are positioned during concerts. I know Cerro's have a problem with their noise level in the Town. They made some adjustments with stage position. They used some soundproofing on the back side of the stage. It made a big difference. You can walk by that area and not even know that a band is playing. So the rest of the events are great out there. I mean all activities as well, but there are times when I'd like to be able to shut my windows and enjoy a peaceful night. Up to 26 events,if they are all concerts,could be quite a bit over the course of the year. So I'd like to see some limits put on it or review that as appropriate. Again,West Mountain is doing a great thing. MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question while you're up there, and I wanted to ask Bob but he took off too quickly. I mean you brought this up. They've already had a permit for the last five years and the past five years,the only one that really comes to my mind,and it was years ago,and I think we brought it up,I think it was over the five years, was that Techno. Boy the phones rang off the hook on that one and that was brutal,and I think I heard them over here,but I backup,my house backs up to The Great Escape. tactually have The Comet in my backyard,and I heard the click,click,click around the corner and the screams down the hill. I'm not complaining. I knew it was there when I bought my house,but some of them,but some of the other events that he's really promoting,which,you know,the bike,the tough man bike,over the top, those events,they're not noisy. MR.WESTCOTT-No. I have no objection to any other events. I'd participate in them if I didn't think I'd get beat up too much doing them. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'm sure that West Mountain will take these concerns seriously,and I think they have in the past,but that's a great concern with maybe some sound absorbing materials. MR.WESTCOTT Just the positioning of the speakers. You get a band in there that thinks it's great. This is a 300 acre facility. This is Woodstock. I can blast out into the area,you know, the entire mountain. That's not necessarily the case because there are people that live on the other side of those trees, and if the crowd is contained in a smaller area,then that affects the noise,too. So just a little thought to that. It's going to make a big difference to people up the hill. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. DEEB-So your main concern then is the concert noise. MR.WESTCOTT-Concert noise,yes. I mean the rest of them are great events to attend. MR. DEEB-We talked about the 10 o'clock before, and maybe a couple of positions. It sounds like an easy fix. MR.WESTCOTT-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is addressed"To Whom It May Concern: I support West Mountain Ski area since they've been my neighbors for 15 years. I do see the investments they have finally made in improving their facilities. It's a good thing for their winter activities. I do NOT support their concert requests.In particular the time of 11 pm.I've lived here through the ownership changes and it's never been done well.First off the music sound levels are ridiculous. It's blasting for hours. Secondly,the parking issues create safety issues along West Mountain Road. People park on both sides, traffic and pedestrians do not mix well on West Mountain Road. The parking lot is way too small and exceeds capacity quickly. People park on my lawn and the other neighbors lawns with a total disregard for property. Even worse the attendees leave trash (bottles,butts,cans,and even baby diapers)and drive off.West Mountain Ski Center does nothing to have proper event planning for overflow parking and makes no effort to clean up the mess their clients leave. While I understand they have grandiose plans to do everything they can to make money and develop the land, they lack basic etiquette and manners when dealing with their neighbors. I request that they have the concert hours limited to those of the Queensbury noise ordinance"Just for the record,we don't have a 32 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) noise ordinance. "I also request no parking on West Mountain Road. They can provide a shuttle from the Northwest/Triple chair area since it's off any main road and has additional space. I think that a 5 year permit is ludicrous. I think each event should be case by case. These events require proper planning and review and they should each stand on their own merit.It's time that West Mountain plans events properly and takes pedestrian safety serious before there is a fatality. While the best planning can't prevent everything, these events can be limited in scale and time to do a better job of meeting the needs of the neighbors around the mountain rather than just trying to make money. Balance must be achieved and currently has not taken the neighbor impact into account. Thanks for your time. Al Pettit" And it doesn't give a street address. MR. TRAVER-Are there any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So you heard the concern primarily with the concerts and the volume of the music. What can you do to moderate that? MR. SCIALABBA-For the volume of the music we'll stick to a strict 10 p.m.cutoff for any live music,as we have for the past few events. That's something that we are cognizant of. The current operations,we do cease any operations at 10 p.m. So that is something that we are prepared to continue. As far as the direction of the speakers or the amps or we're cognizant of where the sound may travel,that's something that we could look further into, what kind of impact on where the sound would be projecting, either up the mountain or into the parking lot from the center of the mountain. If you look at that picture right there, the proposed stage that we have is located in this direction and it can either project up or project down. This gives us ample space for the crowd to congregate in our courtyard, which is a good distance back from West Mountain Road, set back. The parking lot also contains spaces in this parking lot for over 500 spaces,and on the northwest side of our mountain we do have an additional space for 250 spaces. So we believe for a summer event we haven't had issues of filling our lot and having spillover. The problem has been in the past that we have seen is when we are shooting off fireworks people don't want to pull into the parking lot. They want to park on the road. So that's something that we also are planning on addressing in the future as well. MR. TRAVER-How are you going to address that? MR. SCIALABBA-We have parking lot attendants that are at the gate that are telling people that they cannot park in front of our property, that they must pull into the parking lot and use the parking spaces provided. We also contact Warren County Sheriff to pass by through our property during these events and monitor any parking on people's properties as neighbors have complained in the past. We're doing what we can to mitigate that. Ultimately it comes down to people following directions, and it's difficult to enforce that when we have contacted the authorities that this may be an issue, but like I said, the northwest parking lot does give us ample extra parking and it's less than a mile,that we can use a shuttle to get people over or they can walk through. We have a private road that does connect to these areas that people can come through. MR. DEEB-A lot of the parking problems, didn't they precede the last time, the time you came before us with the new build,the new lots that you bought and configured? MR. TRAVER-I think you added some parking. MR. SCIALABBA-We did add some parking space. MR. DEEB-Yes,I remember,and I think the parking problems preceded that if I'm not mistaken. MR. SCIALABBA-Yes. MR. DEEB-That people were parking on the road. Have you had any problems since then? MR. SCIALABBA-During very busy days during the winter season there is some overflow parking,but we are directing all traffic on overflow parking to utilize our northwest parking area. MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. That's what I thought. MR. MAGOWAN-Also,too,within the last five years, didn't you increase the size of the parking lot? MR. SCIALABBA-Yes,we did. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-And I have a question. On the south side of that building, do you, I mean in the summertime,does that? MR. SCIALABBA-The south side of the building,we're looking at a winter picture so it is whited out It's hard to see,but there is a large mound which is our tubing breaking mound. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I knew something was over there. They park the four wheelers there. MR. SCIALABBA-It's about a 20 foot high hill. We can park up to it, and if we need to use space on the opposite side we can do that. We have a lot of space where we can fit a lot of cars in that parking lot. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand on the fireworks a lot of people want to see them and they'll park on the road and unfortunately we can do whatever we have to,you know, and we can put the law out there, and it is very disturbing when people open up the door and they just leave their trash,and that just bothers me when I see trash and people just do that,and unfortunately my wife will say,Brad don't say anything and I'll go up and say something. But that just offends me. It's like, come on,we all have to do our part. On the sound it was brought up. Really it's amazing. I've been in restaurants before where you couldn't hear anything and the next time I go in there and they've put up these little foam,fabric foam things,you know, and what a difference because it does absorb. Now I used to live over in Bedford Close and I remember hearing the guns,you know,I could see the lights and also the concerts,you know,we'd hear the concerts. There is some echoing over there,but the concerts,you have a few concerts,but really you're going more for the events during the day there. MR. SCIALABBA-Correct. We do have a few concerts planned per year. Right now we're at one concert in the summer and one concert in the winter,which is indoors,and both of those events do have fireworks at that time,however,we're not looking to expand the number of concerts over an appropriate level. We're looking at maybe one or two more events over the whole summer. I grew up in Bedford Close as well. I had the snow guns and the lights in my window in bed every night. So I understand. The volume has come down and we've had a lot more snow guns since that time,and they're a lot quieter. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,much better snow guns now. MR. SCIALABBA-Yes. And they're more efficient. They're not those turbo fans like you see back in the day. We are cognizant of the sound that we do produce. It is a lot. We do have a large space. It's hard, as an outdoor venue, to try and muffle the sound,but if we're working with our staging and lighting and sound engineers and companies to direct them in a way that is acceptable,that we're not being as invasive, we're trying to mitigate that sound across the mountainside and to our neighbors we'll do everything we can to do that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,I will say Apex,really,you have done a great job with the mountain. It's a great asset for our Town and I really deep down feel that you guys will do everything possible to keep the public happy,at the same time help carry yourself through the summer months because they can be long,but it's a great asset in our backyard and like I said just being conscious,you know,if you talk to some people can we put up some, I thinking like a concrete heating pad or something,to kind of keep it from echoing up that mountain. MR. SCIALABBA-There may be certain levels that we can put on a limit. If we hit a certain decibel level we know it may have an effect. I don't know if that's something that sound engineers can look into,but something that we can. MR. DEEB-So it's minimal increase in concerts. It's not like you're. MR. SCIALABBA-No. We're looking to do family centered activities, festivals, things that bring family folks in. We're not looking to hold rock concerts. MR. DEEB-I'm sure people are thinking you're going to have one a week, and that could be a real problem. MR. SCIALABBA-No. MR. DEEB-You're far from that. MR. SCIALABBA-Right. MR. TRAVER-So you don't have any objection to our conditioning that live music be ended no later than 10 P.M. MR. SCIALABBA-No, that's okay with us. In fact that gets us out of the mountain earlier. We're not doing that. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. DIXON-And if I can comment on that as well. So previously it was hours of music. So it was just music in general,not just live. So we just keep it at music versus live? MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's fine,music in general is fine. That covers live as well. MR.DIXON-And then I just wanted to ask you. It's not your responsibility to clean up after everybody on private property,but I would imagine that after an event you probably have to go out there and do cleaning of the parking lot? MR. SCIALABBA-Yes. MR. DIXON-I wouldn't make it a condition here unless other members want to. I would encourage you to maybe look along the roadside. It's a busy road. Just be careful. It sounds like you're a good neighbor already. MR. S CIALABBA-Right. We'll do everything we can to help clean up the area and make sure that our neighbors are happy. Leave it the way we found it. MR.MAGOWAN-I have a good idea. Let's have them adopt the highway there and it would be a cleanup crew. MR. TRAVER-So another thing we have to consider is the duration of the Special Use Permit. They're requesting five years,which was the prior approval. How do we feel about that? MR. DEEB-That does seem to work. I'm okay with that. MR. DIXON-Me,too. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I think there's a reason why we went with the five years, and it was really for booking and trying to concentrate. I think we talked about that and you can't really book something. MR. TRAVER-Well you can,but it becomes harder. MR. MAGOWAN-It becomes a lot harder. MR. SCIALABBA-Certain acts take a lot longer to book and we're lining up vendors and just planning out the size of the events. It took five years to get the Fall Festival to where it is now where we have a really nice turnout for it every year. The five years seems to work for us. MR. DEEB-Booking was a major consideration,if I remember right. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Are we comfortable moving forward? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft resolution. MR. DIXON-I've got two conditions on here. We were talking about mitigating noise levels when possible. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-And the other hours be limited to S a.m.to 10 p.m. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman,you need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#49-2022 SUP#3-2022 TIM SCIALABBA/WEST MTN. SKI AREA The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the existing 365 acre parcel to host outdoor events. The events include,but aren't limited to,community 35 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) and family events for mountain biking, outdoor concerts/festivals, endurance races, and other outdoor recreational activities. The intent is to host 10 single day events and S multi-day events outside the normal operating season for a renewable 5 year period.Additionally,local,DOH,and NYS approvals/services will be obtained as needed for each event,hours of music will be limited to be during S am to 11 pm only, and all tents and/or stages will be temporary per event arrangement. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-10- 040, site plan and special use permit for outdoor concerts shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on S/16/2022 and continued the public hearing to S/16/2022 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 S/16/2022; 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 49-2022 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2022 TIM SCIALABBA/WEST MTN SKI AREA,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 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,waivers requested are reasonable for these items as the project site will remain as a winter sports facility with no changes to the site. 2) The approval is valid for five (5) years from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the five(5) year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plan and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Use of methods to mitigate noise levels when possible. i) Hours of music to be limited to during 8 a.m.to 10 p.m.only. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me did you say music from S a.m.? MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-To 10 p.m. MR. DIXON-The last time it was hours of music will be limited to be during S a.m.to 11 p.m. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm sure there's not too many concerts that start at S a.m. MR. SCIALABBA-The only thing is if we have races on the mountain from time to time. It's a PA. It's a small PA. It's not producing much. Just a finish area. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Well you just said music,fine,but I mean I just wanted to,because I did hear rumors of people a little upset at music at S a.m.,but music doesn't happen. Music doesn't start that early in my house. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. SCIALABBA-Thankyou. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman,the next two are Northern and Southern Gateway. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Southern and Northern. MR. MAGOWAN-I am,being an At Large Supervisor for Warren County and on the County Facility. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. MR. MAGOWAN-But I think I shall recuse myself, due to having to give approvals on the other side of Town there. All right. MR. TRAVER-Yes,thank you. SITE PLAN NO.55-2022 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. SOUTHERN GATEWAY RENEWABLES. AGENT(S): EDP(TRAVIS MITCHELL). OWNER(S): COUNTY OF WARREN DPW. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF QSBY. AVE., SOUTH OF AIRPORT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE 27+ ACRES OF AN 80 ACRE PARCEL FOR A S.OMW SOLAR FARM OF 8.25 ACRES OF LAND AT THE WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES FENCING,STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,AND EQUIPMENT AREAS. THE HARD SURFACING TOTAL WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED IS 1.07 ACRES WITH EQUIPMENT PADS. PANEL HEIGHT IS 16.5 TO 19.5 FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 5-140, 179-10-040, 179-3-040, SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. SITE INFORMATION: AIRPORT. LOT SIZE: 54.37 ACRES, 25.24 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.8-1-1,303.12-1-3. SECTION: 179-5-040,179-10-040,179-3-040. TRAVIS MITCHELL&DALLAS MANSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to give the overview of this? MR. TRAVER-Yes,please. MRS. MOO RE-So the Southern portion is 27 acres of an SO acre parcel. Sorry,I'm just going to flip to the other side,too, so that I can sort of give you an overview of both of them. So I'll do, Southern is 27 acres over an SO acre parcel, 5.25 acres of the land actually is covered by the solar panel and in reference to the Northern,it's 510 acres. Thirty-three acres are to be used. In reference to the project itself,this is similar to the remaining projects that we've seen recently on solar projects. It's a large swath of land. They're putting up panels. They're putting in a drive aisle so that they can access the panels and also they'll have some equipment pads for different types of equipment so that the operation can run with the panels themselves. They anticipate every so often they'll have some maintenance that needs to occur,but other than that,at this point it's similar to the other solar panels that we've seen. In this case the one difference is that the property is owned by the County of Warren. They have signed off on that, in the sense that they are giving them lease. They turned the project over to the Town in reference to local level review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MITCHELL-Good evening. Travis Mitchell with Environmental Design Partnership, here with Dallas Manson with NexAmp. Dallas will start off with a little background on NexAmp and the process with the County and then I'll give you some details about the site. MS. MANSON-I knowyou guys have had a fewprojects,but I just thought I'd give you a little background about who we areas a company before we actually jump into the design. So NexAmp Solar was founded in 2007 by two army veterans. Since then has become community solar, specifically the States of Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. We've got over 400 megawatts in the State of New York in development or in construction. We're a full turnkey company. We develop, construct, manage and 37 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) maintain solar farms afterwards, and in addition we do community solar projects. As was mentioned we do all of our subscriptions in-house. We have a company called NexAmp which you reach a real person and you subscribe to it. Both these facilities will be community solar. This is just a general overview of how community solar works. I know you guys have had other projects,but NexAmp offers a 10 to 150/o discount to local residents and subscribers of the utility. We typically start with the first 60 to 90 days with just the Town residents. We offer educational opportunities if the Town's open to it, try to get residents signed up and then after that we go out to the County,and then if we're not subscribed we go all the way up to the utility. About 950/o of the time we are fully subscribed by the time we go to the County level. The next thing that we do that's not very common for community solar is we don't do credit checks. We do signup for free on line. You call in. You can mail in. It was a big change we made a few years ago, and it makes clean energy accessible to all. As I mentioned before, another main thing that's a little different about us is a lot of times that'll come in,develop a project,flip themselves to amain investor or to somebody else to construct and own that. We do everything. We do engineering and consult with local civils such as EDP. We do the construction. We have PM and construction managers that we hire and usually we contract out to local contractors and we do all of our ask management and customer acquisition. Again,in-house,full turnkey. So the landowner and the Town and the County,it'll be a different contact but it'll be the same company. I just wanted to give kind of an overview of where we were at the County, what we've submitted. So the County went through the process of issuing an RFP last year, full RFP. They interviewed a few different companies. We were accepted and awarded on August 25`h of 2021, so about a year ago, for both facilities. You're going to hear Northern Gateway Renewables and Southern Gateway Renewables. Those are owned by NexAmp. We create separate LLC's for projects. It's still owned by us but just different LLC's for financing and then the remaining list up here is essentially everything that we've submitted to you guys that we find of significance for you guys. Site Plans,we did a full glare study for no impact. We just put in a decommission plan which was approved by the County when we submitted our RFP, Operation and Maintenance plan, because, like I said, we operate and maintain everything. Letter to no effect for wetland delineated,endangered species,draft SEQR. So we've essentially addressed everything I think we could address. So I'll give it over to Travis to kind of talk through the actual project. MR. DEEB-May I ask one question? MS. MANSON-Yes,absolutely. MR. DEEB-It's probably got nothing to do with it. Do you bill directly or does the bill come through National Grid? MS. MANSON-So National Grid will, we have to go through a full interconnection study with National Grid to connect the facilities. So the substation is located a little bit south of the southern site. We go through a full study. So we build everything up to the point of interconnection,which is called the POI. National Grid will put in two poles and equipment and we'll connect into their construction. MR. MITCHELL-The bill. MS. MANSON-Bill. I'm sorry. I thought you said build. Unfortunately National Grid won't combine bills. So it's two separate bills. You'll get a bill from us and you'll still get a bill from National Grid which will show the credits on the bill. We are trying very hard to make that one bill. MR. DEEB-I was just curious. Thank you. MS. MANSON-Sorry. I thought you said build. MR.MITCHELL-All right. So as Laura mentioned,there are two sites, You seethe airport here obviously. This is the northern site. This is the southern site. And I'll jump right into the northern site to begin with. I think Laura mentioned it's about 27 acres of fenced area. Within there there's about eight acres of panels. Access off of Hicks Road here. Comes in,it's a little tough to see at this scale, come into an access road that comes down to this area, and then down these travel pathways here. Central electrical equipment pad here and then also in this area here. With solar of this nature we provide stormwater management for the impervious area of the access roads and the equipment pads,but not the panels themselves. The panels are spaced out far enough that DEC recognizes them as disconnected. Impervious areas. We do not,management for them. These are tracker systems so the arrays are located in a north/south direction and the array follows the sun. It faces the east in the morning and then slowly tracks the sun throughout the day,facing the west in the afternoon. Both the northern and southern sites are practically cleared to begin with. There's a little bit of vegetative clearing,but very minimal. I think about an acre and a half on the northern site. We do have shown in the site plans we submitted some DEC wetlands and some Army Corps wetlands on the northern site. Nothing on the southern site. There's permanent disturbance about six hundredths of an acre, some temporary wetlands disturbance in there as well and questions on the northern site before I jump in to take a look at some visuals? 3S (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-On the agenda they were southern site first and then northern site but it really doesn't matter because it's one major project. MR.DEEB-There's residences on the other side of the road as you see from the map,and you say the panels rotate,some of them,but they're 16 and a half feet to 19 feet high,and they're usually 12 feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I found that alarming as well. MR. DEEB-Is that going to be visually seen by the neighbors? MR. MITCHELL-So I meant to mention that as well. So your solar ordinance has a 12 foot limit,but it gives the Board the discretion to increase it, and with the tracker panels,we provide a range in there just because undulations in the ground,I don't know if you're measuring from a ditch. In general 16 and a half is the nominal height,but we like to set it at 19 just because of those undulations in the ground, and I can expand a little bit on your question of visuals in the next couple of slides. We've provided some renderings. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR.MITCHELL Just initially we've provided some visual renderings from these three points. So looking into the access road here,looking to the east on Hicks Road in this direction,and then looking to the west on Hicks Road in this direction. So this is the access road locations. You can see the existing gate into the airport here, and then superimposing access road with the solar panels at the proposed height off in a distance. Separation distance,go back a couple of slides,but we have a typical setback of 50 feet and we're 410 feet back. So we're quite a ways off of Hicks. So that was the view at the site entrance, and then if you take a look,this is looking to the west on Hicks Road,just about at the end of the roadway. Existing conditions, and if you take a look here in the superimposed panels. So that's an idea of the height. It's quite a distance from this location. I think it's close to 1,000 feet to the panels,but I'll click back and forth and you can see what that looks like when you set the panels in. And then the last view here is looking to the west on Hicks and there's quite a bit of existing vegetation in there. So this is,from this location this is, if you can see through those trees, this is roughly where those panels would be,but obviously it looks like the vegetation's too dense. MR. DEEB-In the summer. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. In the summer, when it ends, it's dense enough that in the winter they won't be seen there. Going back to the aerial. So this is heavily vegetated in here as you can see it right there. MR.DIXON-Where these panels are on your environmental assessment form,I didn't see any species that were identified,but there's a historic site,Walter C. Fisher property,residence. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. So I'm not sure, I'd have to looking into the historic site. We did do an OPRHP with a specific application and they came back with a letter of no effect. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. MITCHELL-That should be in the file. Right,Laura? MR. TRAVER-So getting back to the height of the panels,our regulations are 12 feet. You're talking up to effectively two stories high. I mean that's a very significant increase,almost twice height. Can you operate them at 12 feet? MS. MANSON-No. So those facilities that you're talking about are called fixed tilt,meaning they don't move with the sun. If you look at the way that fixed tilt facilities are, they kind of stagger more, they undulate more. The way the trackers work, there's a motor that goes like this. So the reason why you have that height difference,you have movement. You have the panels moving. So you have to take into consideration shading. The second thing is that we can't have undulation , like you can't fix tilt panels. You can separate panels,if there's less shading,but because these are on motor,they need to move together. So that's why we have that range of 16 to 20 feet to be careful,or to be safe,but generally speaking 16 feet to IS was really what we were looking for,but if someone were to go out there on a specific spot with a measuring tape,it could be 1S and a half because they do move with the sun. MR. DEEB-So you're talking six feet more, and if it goes to eighteen you're talking six foot difference. MR. MITCHELL-The distance off the right of way really helps to mitigate it also. MR. TRAVE R-They're talking up to 19 feet. That's two stories. MR. DEEB-That's two stories from the bottom. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-But 12 feet is Code is allowed. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Will the panel ever reach the actual 19 feet? So it'll actually tilt up to 19 feet or will it always have this angle to it? Sorry. MS. MANSON-They'll continue to move, and that's what's so hard is there's no set,they'll stow flat, and then as the sun comes up it'll go,oh,the sun's coming up. You can drive by them in the morning and then drive by them at night,you'll see that they're slowly moving. So they don't. MRS. MOORE-They won't stay at 19 feet. MR. DEEB-No,just a minimal amount of time at 19. My point is, Steve,it's only a difference, even at 19, now seven feet from what is allowed. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-So I mean seven feet isn't too bad. MS. MANSON-The reason why we use trackers in this area and why we, a lot of it in the past, and you'll start to see more,it just wasn't as efficient in the past as it is now. Also in this State you guys get a lot of snow. We don't do any snow plowing , or we don't do any snow clearing on our panels and the slow movement actually helps clear the panels. So the capacity is better,it gets better efficiency of the panels, it last longer. The technology has just really improved significantly, especially in these territories. Ten years ago you probably weren't seeing a lot of solar in northern New York because of that reason. Snowfall is a big issue. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on both of these applications as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on the Southern Gateway Renewable, or actually I guess we should reverse the order of the agenda, since we're considering the northern one first. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on the Northern Gateway Renewable project. MR. DEEB-The northern one. That's the northern one,yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL KILMARTIN MR. KILMARTIN-My name is Paul Kilmartin. I live at 247 Queensbury Avenue. Okay. Where they're proposing the northern one right now, a farmer's using that for hay and/or for corn. Okay. They also do hay on the whole airport. Regardless,it is a good use of the land. The trees that they took out was for an airport expansion. That never happened and there's a lot of reasons why it didn't happen. They spent a lot of money on it. Studies,like$4 million,and the project was a$10 million project,the expansion. They didn't do that. So now we want to put solar panels in there, and I don't know where this is coming from because isn't there a reflection from the solar panels? And one of the concerns when they were doing that expansion of the airport was they didn't need anything to make the pilots crash. MR. DEEB-They can answer that when they come back. MR. KILMARTIN-Okay. That's one of my concerns. The other thing is the solar panels only last about 20 years. So if they last about 20 years, who's going to foot the bill on re-doing whatever has to be re- done? MR. TRAVER-There's a decommissioning plan that's part of the proposal. MR.KILMARTIN-Right,but is it going to be for the price of it 20 years from now? MR.DEE&Well that's,they have to take care of that. That's in their plan. They'll address that when they come back. They'll tell you more about it. MR. KILMARTIN-All right. There's a Marl Fen there. Everybody knows there's like three of them, something like that,in the world,Marl Fens. There's also a butterfly that lives back there. I'm just letting you know that these are some of the concerns that we had before when they were going to do the expansion and now they're going to put solar panels in, and down at the other end, the southern end, the fire department has a practice place down at the other end, and there's another building that has historical 40 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) value down there that nobody's taken down yet at the other end. And there is wetlands there. So we have to take that into consideration too. MR. TRAVER-Yes,it's part of the project. MR.KILMARTIN-Okay, and I'm surprised there's not more people here to address this. Thank you. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there written comments? MRS. MOORE-I have no written comments for either project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing on the Northern Gateway Renewables application. This is for Site Plan 56-2022, which was different than the one I introduced because we changed the order. This is also for Freshwater Wetlands Permit 11-2022 and Special Use Permit 5-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 11-2022 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. NORTHERN GATEWAY RENEWABLES. AGENT(S): EDP (TRAVIS MITCHELL). OWNER(S): COUNTY OF WARREN DPW. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 443 QUEENSBURY AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE 31 ACRES OF A 510 ACRE PARCEL FOR A S.OMW SOLAR FARM OF 8.3 ACRES ON THE WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT LAND. PROJECT SITE WORK IS WITHIN 100 FT. OF DESIGNATED WETLAND AND THERE WILL BE DISTURBANCE OF EXISTING WETLAND AREAS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SOLAR PANELS. PROJECT PROPOSED IN WETLAND IS IN THREE SPECIFIC AREAS AND OTHER SITE WORK IS ADJACENT. TOTAL SITE DISTURBANCE IS 34.10 ACRES. PANEL HEIGHT IS 16.5 TO 19.5 FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-140,179-10-040,179-3-040,94,SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT, AND WORK ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. SITE INFORMATION: AIRPORT WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 510.06 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 297.15-1-1. SECTION: 179-5-040, 179-10-040, 179-3- 040,94. TRAVIS MITCHELL&DALLAS MANSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So I think we have addressed or will be addressing the concerns that were raised in public hearing. Specifically regarding wetlands. I know that the glare study has been done with the panels. So that's been addressed. The southern project, is that going to interfere with the training center that the County has down there at all? MS. MANSON-No,it's not impacting them at all. MR. TRAVER-I didn't think so. Any other responses to anything that you heard in the public hearing comment? MR.MITCHELL-As you said,the glare study's been done and submitted to the FAA and actually approved by the FAA. Decommissioning plan's been submitted, and as you know, it requires NexAmp to post a bond through the life of the project and we've gotten the signoffs from DEC and Fish and Wildlife on wetlands and endangered species. MR. DEEB-Native species. It's all taken care of. I just want to make sure he understands that. MS. MANSON-And all of our sites we try to make wildlife , we try to apply for wildlife certification any natural seeding pollinators on site that's allowed. Like I said, we own and operate them afterwards. So we want them to look good and well maintained. MR. DEEB-Aside from the construction of the project, how many vehicles are on the site afterwards, or what frequency? MS. MANSON-So the first three years you're going to see a little bit more frequency, especially for re- seeding and stabilizing,and then the first three years you'll probably see a pickup truck on it to just usually we hire an electrician that will do our inspections and just make sure everything's working. You won't see construction trucks coming or anything like that. I'd say in the first three years you'll probably see eight to ten visits and then after that they get smaller and smaller. We monitor our facilities all remotely. So we get notified when remotely if something goes down. Within 24 hours we go out and replace it. If it's an emergency obviously we respond quicker,but it's called NEST. It's on 24/7,seven days a week. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MR. DEEB-Could you just speak into the microphone. I'm having a little trouble hearing you. MS. MANSON-I'm so sorry. I said we have a,it's called Nest at NexAmp,but it's 24/7,seven days a week monitoring of our facilities. So if a panel goes down or a converter goes down we're out there within 24 to 4S hours. MR. DIXON-And the only other thing that I can think of that came up on one of our other projects, a similar project,was with the snow that we get,it probably slides off the panels,but you still have to remove it,store it. MR. MITCHELL-That's part of the reason for the height is you've got a tracker system that's rotating and they need to be a certain distance off the ground and it's all based on snowfall calculations. So the tail end of that panel,it's a certain height off the ground for snow buildup. MR. DIXON-So you're not going to have any plow trucks in there keeping the pathways clear? MR. MITCHELL Just the access road itself,but not rows of panels. MR.DIXON-Okay,and when they're doing that access road,we'd want to know where you're putting the snow,or is it just going to go off to the? MR. MITCHELL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Before I forget,I want to close the public hearing. MR. DEEB-You did. MR. TRAVER-I did? That's a first. Okay. One issue with regards to process. We need to do the State Environmental Quality Review Act review on this application and there are a large number of engineering questions that remain and I think that we're going to need responses to those in order to be able to do the full environmental review. So can you? MR. MITCHELL-Absolutely,yes. We received those comments last week. They're all technical,mostly related to stormwater. We'll address them for our next submittal. And this will be,I think it was listed as an Unlisted action on your form,but it will be a Type I action with coordinated review necessary. So if appropriate with the Board, if you would kick that off tonight, start the 30 day review and then we'll respond to the engineering comments. MRS. MOORE-Can you clarify who is the other entity that is an involved agency? MR. MITCHELL-So we'd have,well you'd have Army Corps,DEC. MRS. MOORE-Are they necessarily involved,or are they just interested? MR. MITCHELL-Well with the permits with Army Corps on the northern. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So we've got to seek Lead Agency? MRS. MOORE-So you'll need to do a resolution for seeking Lead Agency. We haven't had to do that in the past,but I'm fine with that process. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So we're going to put off doing SEQR. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. If the Board's okay with it,if you start the Lead Agency process tonight. We'll give it 30 days. We'll respond to the comments, and then we'll be in a position to make a SEQR determination. MRS.MOORE-So what the Board will do is they'll update the status to a Type I action,and then also Seek Lead Agency status,and all necessary,I don't know,I can't remember off the top of my head,but the Staff will follow through with the process of notifying the entities. MR. TRAVER-So we can go ahead and pass a resolution to Seek Lead Agency tonight. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MRS. MOORE-With that, what I'm asking is that with your Seeking Lead Agency that you update the status to a Type I Action. MR. TRAVER-As part of that? Okay. So we're going to need a resolution updating the status to a Type I action under SEQR and requesting Lead Agency status. Actually we'll need that for both,but we'll do them one at a time and first being Northern Gateway. RESOLUTION TYPE I SEQR&SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#56-2022 WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to utilize 31 acres of a 510 acre parcel for a S.OMW solar farm of S.3 acres on the Warren County Airport land. Project site work is within 100 ft. of designated wetland and there will be disturbance of existing wetland areas for the placement of solar panels.Project work includes fencing, stormwater management and equipment areas. The increase in hard surfacing is O.S6 acre with equipment pads. Site work proposed in the wetland is in three specific areas and other site work is adjacent. Total site disturbance is 34.10 acres.Panel height is 16.5 to 19.5 ft.Pursuant to chapter 179-5-140, 179-10-040,179-3-040,94,site plan and special use permit,freshwater wetlands permit,and work on slopes greater than 150/o shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). WHEREAS,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS,the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA form will be sent to the appropriate agencies. MOTION TO UPDATE TO TYPE I ACTION AND SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 56-2022, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 11-2022 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2022 NORTHERN GATEWAY RENEWABLES, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-So that will go out and the clock will start ticking on that process, and we also have, I suppose at the same time we could do the Southern Gateway. Correct? So we'll go ahead and move onto Site Plan 55-2022. MRS.MOORE-It's up to you how you proceed,but you also will be tabling the Northern application until it's process is reviewed. So at this point, I'd like to say maybe the second September meeting,but most likely the first October meeting,but it gives you time to address engineering and get that resolved prior to the application having that final review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we need to do a tabling motion it automatically happened? MRS. MOORE-Because this originally was going to be,at this point,you updated that status. MR. TRAVER-Okay. First meeting in October? MRS. MOORE-I'm looking to the applicant for a little bit of information about process, about eventually getting responses to Town Engineering. MR. MITCHELL-So if there's room on the agenda, we could have it back and ready for the second September meeting. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) MRS. MOO RE-So the idea is to have everything in by a certain date so that we have that. So typically for September meeting we would have had everything by August 15`h. I mean I don't mind giving some leeway, but that leeway also needs to be granted by resolution. It's helpful to have it granted by resolution. MR. TRAVER-We have 30 days for the? MRS. MOORE-Right. So 30 days if it goes out, actually gets into the paper,goes out tomorrow, 30 days from that date. MR. TRAVER-So we're looking at something like September 20`h or something. MR. DIXON-I think October is. MR. TRAVER-So we're probably better off going for the first meeting in October,right? MR. DIXON Just to be safe. MR. MITCHELL-That's fine. MR. TRAVER-So I have that as October IS". Would we want to hear potentially both of these at the same meeting in October? MRS. MOORE-Potentially,yes. MR. DEEB-Do we want to table this one first? MR. TRAVER-Yes, we will. I was just wondering if we would want to hear them both on the same meeting. MR. DEEB-I think that would be the logical thing. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we need to table until October 1S`h RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 56-2022 FWW 11-2022 SUP 5-2022 NORTHERN GATEWAY Applicant proposes to utilize 31 acres of a 510 acre parcel for a S.OMW solar farm of S.3 acres on the Warren County Airport land.Project site work is within 100 ft.of designated wetland and there will be disturbance of existing wetland areas for the placement of solar panels. Project work includes fencing, stormwater management and equipment areas. The increase in hard surfacing is O.S6 acre with equipment pads. Site work proposed in the wetland is in three specific areas and other site work is adjacent. Total site disturbance is 34.10 acres. Panel height is 16.5 to 19.5 ft. Pursuant to chapter 179-5-140,179-10-040,179-3- 040,94,site plan and special use permit,freshwater wetlands permit,and work on slopes greater than 150/o shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 56-2022,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 11-2022&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2022 NORTHERN GATEWAY RENEWABLES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark. Tabled until the October 1S,2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by September 15th. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-So I also want to make note that we're actually going to re-open the public hearing and keep it open because we're tabling this. So the public hearing will remain open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we move on to Southern Gateway Renewables. This is Site Plan 55- 2022 and Special Use Permit 4-2022. MR. MITCHELL-Yes,just for reference,the southern site here. Here's the tail end of the runway, about 3,000 feet down to the southern site. If you'll notice a gap in the panels here. It's intended to follow the extension of the runway. So just a close up of this one. Basically they're similar tracker system. The 44 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) same request of the height waiver. We're about 125 feet off of Queensbury Ave. here. Access in this location here to a point where it would come out and access the panels in that location. The yellow line represents the chain link fence, about 27 acres of fence, again about eight acres of panels. No wetland is on this site. Again,very limited clearing. The site is predominantly clear already. And just similar to the northern site, we put together a few visuals for you. The first thing I'm going to show you is being right at the site entrance. This is what it looks like currently. This is would look like with the panels here. Unlike the northern site, this is currently shown with an overhead connection. This is driven by FAA, National Grid,what type of connection that is. Alice and I were speaking earlier. It's very likely that this will not end up being overheaded but underground similar to the northern site. That's what's proposed now. Then this, the photo isn't that great, but this is from the north looking south toward that side entrance. You'll see,when I do go to the next slide,you'll see the panels here and you'll see the telephone poles in this area. You see those panels again. Although they're IS,19 feet tall,it's such a distance and it's mostly screened by topography and some vegetation in this location here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.MITCHELL-And from the south on Queensbury Ave.looking to the north,this is the extent of where that array would be,and again,the existing vegetation makes it not visible from the south on Queensbury. You've already got your process set. So I don't need to re-hash that. You have the process. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. So as with the Northern Gateway Renewables, we will open the public hearing and we will keep it open,pending the return of the project in October. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And we're going to need a resolution to identify this as a Type I SEQR and to Seek Lead Agency status. RESOLUTION TYPE I SEQR&SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#55-2022 WHEREAS,the applicant proposes to utilize 27+ acres of an SO acre parcel for a S.OMW solar farm of 5.25 acres of land at the Warren County Airport.Project work includes fencing,stormwater management,and equipment areas. The hard surfacing total with existing and proposed is 1.07 acres with equipment pads. Panel height is 16.5 to 19.5 ft. Pursuant to chapter 179-5-140, 179-10-040, 179-3-040, site plan and special use permit shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). WHEREAS,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS,the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA form will be sent to the appropriate agencies. MOTION TO UPDATE TO TYPE I ACTION AND SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 55-2022 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2022 SOUTHERN GATEWAY RENEWABLES, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Warren Longacker: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-And then next we will consider a tabling motion, also to the October 1S`h Planning Board meeting. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/16/2022) RESOLUTION TABLING SP#55-2022 SUP#4-2022 SOUTHERN GATEWAY RENEWABLES Applicant proposes to utilize 27+ acres of an SO acre parcel for a S.OMW solar farm of 5.25 acres of land at the Warren County Airport. Project work includes fencing, stormwater management, and equipment areas. The hard surfacing total with existing and proposed is 1.07 acres with equipment pads.Panel height is 16.5 to 19.5 ft.Pursuant to chapter 179-5-140,179-10-040,179-3-040,site plan and special use permit shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 55-2022 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2022 SOUTHERN GATEWAY RENEWABLES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brady Stark. Tabled until the October 1S,2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by September 15th. Duly adopted this 16`h day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Magowan MR.DEEB-I have to admit,the last couple of months we've seen so many solar arrays come in. It's amazing how they've mushroomed in this area. MS. MANSON-Thank you so much. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. We still have a meeting going on. MR.TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Just note the fact that our regular scheduled monthly August Planning Board meeting was moved from August 23rd to Thursday,August 25`h So you want to make note of the fact that our meeting isn't going to be next Tuesday. It's going to be next Thursday, a week from Thursday I should say. If there's nothing else,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-So moved. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 16TI,2022,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael Dixon: Duly adopted this 16`h day of August,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaSarso MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks,everybody. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 46