Loading...
09-20-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20,2022 INDEX Site Plan No.49-2021 Lester H. Chase,III 1. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No.239.19-1-17 Site Plan No.51-2021 Brett&Pamela West(Main House) 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.226.15-1-17 Site Plan No.57-2022 Thomas&Marybeth Babcock 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2S9.13-1-12 Site Plan No.51-2022 Jeffrey Randles 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.12-2-11 Site Plan No.50-2022 Brian Hogan 9. Tax Map No.239..12-2-37 Site Plan No.59-2022 Harvey Roadcap 15. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-31 Site Plan No. 60-2022 Gary Hillert 17. Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-53 Site Plan No. 61-2022 John Arcuri 30. Tax Map No.239.7-1-42 Site Plan No. 63-2022 Immunotek Bio Centers 34. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-42 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 09/20/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK BRAD MAGOWAN NATHAN ETU,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,September 20`h. This is our first meeting for September and our 19`h meeting thus far for 2022. First I would point out the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency of some kind,those are the exits. If you have an electronic device, a cellphone or other device,if you would either turn the ringer off or turn the device off we would appreciate it so as not to interrupt our proceedings. We do have some public hearings this evening, and other than that if you want to converse amongst yourselves,we'd appreciate it if you would just go to the outer room to have those conversations, again, so as not to interrupt our meeting. We do record the meetings and the minutes are taken and are available on line once they've been processed. So with that we have a few administrative items. The first being approval of minutes from the meetings of July 19 and July 26`h of 2022. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 19,2022 July 26,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19`h &z JULY 26`h, 2022, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 20`h day of September,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Etu MR. TRAVER-Next we have a request for a one year extension from Site Plan 49-2021, Lester H. Chase, III. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SITE PLAN 49-2021 LESTER H.CHASE,III REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has expressed that they're not able to start their project at this time. Supply chain and contractor shortages. They haven't been able to get this off the ground yet. So they've asked for an extension. MR. TRAVER-Okay. An issue that we've run into a number of times since the COVID situation. Is there any questions or concerns from members of the Board on that extension? I believe this is their first extension,right,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Hearing none,we have a draft resolution. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP 49-2021 LESTER H. CHASE,III The applicant submitted an application proposing to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq.ft. The site has an existing 1,552 sq.ft. (footprint)home and 37S sq.ft.shed and both are to remain. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 49-2021&Freshwater Wetlands 2-2021 on September 2S,2021. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 49-2021&z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2021 LESTER H.CHASE III. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Warren Longacker: Duly adopted this 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Etu MR. TRAVER-The next administrative item is for Brett&Pamela West. This is, again,a tabling. SITE PLAN 51-2021 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST TABLE TO SEPTEMBER 27,2022 MEETING MR. TRAVER-This is pending a Zoning Board of Appeals review and originally on our agenda this was listed as tabling to next week, September 27`h,but it turns out that it actually is not going to be heard by the ZBA until next month. So rather than table this to next week, it's going to be tabled to the October 25`h,2022 Planning Board after they have been heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is that not correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? I believe we have a draft resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#51-2021 BRETT&PAMELA WEST 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. The project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 51-2021 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 10-2022 BRETT &z PAMELA WEST. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the October 25,2022 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Etu MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. That takes care of our Administrative Items. So we can move to the regular part of our agenda, and the first section of that agenda is Recommendations from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding variances. The first application to consider is Thomas and Marybeth Babcock. This is Site Plan 57-2022. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 57-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE IL THOMAS &z MARYBETH BABCOCK. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15 CHESTNUT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 STORY ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,079.2 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) SQ. FT. WITH A 357 SQ. FT.PORCH AREA. THE EXISTING FLOOR REA IS 2,230 SQ.FT. THE NEW GARAGE IS TO BE 554 SQ.FT. TOTAL NEW FLOOR AREA IS 2,569 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-10, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 35- 88A, SP 55-2012 ADDITION, AV 1988, AV 73-1990, AV 45-2016 ADDITION, AV 46-2012 DOCK REPLACED. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .17 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-5- 020,179-13-010. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This project is for a two story addition to the south side of the existing home and to demo the existing garage and put up anew garage. The existing home is 1,079 square feet with a 357 square foot porch. The existing floor area is 2,230 sq.ft. The new garage proposed is 554 square feet. The new total floor area is 2,569 sq. ft. The building, the addition calls for the second, there's two stories to the main house addition which is a second floor to expand the bathroom area and the first floor to expand the kitchen area. The new garage will allow for usable car space and relief being sought is for setbacks,floor area and height. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins,Hutchins Engineering with Tom and Marybeth Babcock and this proposal actually consists of two parts. The two story addition to the residence is the small little block here that fills in this corner and it's a net increase in footprint of S5 square feet and with that S5 square feet they're able to get a more workable kitchen and more workable second floor bathroom. It's not a lot of footprint. It's well thought out. They've been considering it for some time. They are limited by the constraints of the geometry and the size of the parcel, but it's quite important to them. What the Babcocks have done, since they've owned this property for 35 years and made a vast number of improvements. Right now that entire roof is completely guttered. All of the water from the roof is infiltrated into infiltration devices,two of them located to the east of the residence. Functions very well. That was something they did as part of their previous project and it works very well. It has the capacity to handle the small addition and provides a great benefit to them. As Tom says,he has trouble fitting in his kitchen right now. The other portion of this project involves the garage and like a number of the properties on Chestnut,this has a garage located near the road. It is within the front setback as a number of them are,and this one has been there for quite some time. It's structurally troubled. The concrete work is in rough shape. The building itself is in rough shape. It does not hold two vehicles. It can hold one vehicle but the access is very tight and it has to be a rather small vehicle. So they're proposing to re-build the garage, and it would be, the current garage is 334 square feet. They're proposing a 550 square foot garage,which is still a very small two car garage and it's a couple of hundred square foot of expansion and that is again within the front setback as most of the garages on that street are. So we're asking the Zoning Board for relief on that. The big benefit to this garage is to have a place where they can park two cars. They're able to remove 4 S5 feet of asphalt driveway,which makes this project increase the net permeability on the site even though we're building two small additions because we're going to have a place to actually park our cars. We'll be able to reduce a bunch of asphalt pavement. They have,on their own,implemented some stormwater improvements in the area of the garage. We installed an infiltration device in that area several years ago,2019 I believe. They had water problems around the garage. They had water coming in from the Town road and they installed another stormwater device there, which is functioning very well and has solved a problem up there and will be of adequate capacity to handle the modest increase in size of the new garage. Additionally the Babcocks, they've installed a fully enhanced aerobic wastewater treatment system. I won't say it was the first one to be installed on Glen Lake but it was one of the first ones, the first true aerobic systems on Glen Lake. I know it was the first one that our office handled on Glen Lake. It's basically the current state of the technology,wastewater treatment system,fully aerobic treatment,ultra violet disinfection in the pump station,subsurface disposal. So they have already made a number of improvements and actually this project, if approved, would amount to an increase in permeability of the site. Even though we are adding some floor space,there will be increased permeability because of all the asphalt area we're able to remove. They're going to install another row of buffer plantings. There's a number of plantings at the shoreline. They're going to install another full row of buffer plantings closer to the house, above the shoreline, and I guess with that we'd like to answer your questions and hope you could at least give us some support to go see the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Yes,thank you. One of the questions that I had was regarding the floor area. It looks as though what the project is proposing,unless my math is wrong, doesn't account for the floor area above the maximum allowed. In other words the maximum is 1615 and with this project we're looking for 2569. So I'm thinking that some of it was pre-existing? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR.HUTCHINS-Yes. It's presently,the FAR is presently over the maximum. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So it's not,I guess what I'm saying is the 2569 that we end up is not entirely because of this application. Some of it was pre-existing. MR. HUTCHINS-That's correct. We're going from,right now it's 2230,okay, and the proposed is 2569. So it's 229 feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. That helps because that, although it's still a variance, the change from a pre-existing,non-conforming state is less than going from 16 to 25. MR.HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Considering the floor area ratio, we, as a Board,I think,in the last year or so, we've tried very hard to stay within the guidelines of the FAR and I mean it looks like you're going to almost 350/o from the calculations,my calculations,and I know you're not going from 22. You're going from like 270/o. MR.HUTCHINS-30.5. MR. DEEB-You're going from 30 to 33. MR.HUTCHINS-We're going from 30.4 to 35. MR. DEEB-Thirty-five. Which is still a huge jump. The garage is considered as part of the floor area,too. MR.HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So, I mean,you can note that the garage space at one point was not part of the floor area and when they updated that Code section,they now include that garage area as part of the floor area. MR. DEEB-When did they update that? MRS. MOORE-I apologize, I don't remember. I'm assuming,they've owned it for 30 years,it was within the 30 years. TOM BABCOCK MR.BABCOCK=Thirty-five years. MRS. MOORE-Thirty-five years. MR. DEEB-And I understand that sometimes it's not equitable to consider the garage for the floor area. It's really not living space,but it is a concern that we are going to such a large increase, and I know we're going from 30 to 35, and it was already over before. I just have a concern with that. I don't want to set precedent. I know you've got small,you've only got.17 acres. MR.HUTCHINS-And that's a challenge with that FAR,the 220/o. MR. DEEB-It makes it really difficult. I understand that. I just wanted to express my concern. MR. TRAVER-Understood, and it is, we've noticed that especially in the Glen Lake area,they tend to be the smaller lots. So the FAR stands out a bit more I think,plus the issue of the garage included,but it's noted. There has been an increase in FAR. MR. DEEB-And we've been pretty good about it recently as a Board,trying to keep that in line. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I agree. MR. DEEB-I hate to see that. Maybe the FAR ratio has to be changed in the Code. I don't know. It is a concern,and I am concerned. I don't know about anybody else. MR. TRAVER-Other questions? MR. MAGOWAN-Duly noted. I have to say I'm not a big proponent for trying to put a big house on a small lot, but this is not a big house on a small lot. If it had been a bigger house I think the amount of addition that you want to put on is fair. I don't really call the garage,I don't feel even though it's included in the FAR, I don't,you know,to me it's not a living space. I can see you're kind of tired of shoveling off 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) the cars and would like to get them inside. I think that's more moderate. What I'm really impressed about, that Mr. Hutchins kind of grabbed my attention,was all the improvements that you've done on your own on this property, and between the stormwater,you know,I see it with the existing drywells, and you had a little problem with the Town road,you know. Are you an engineer,may I ask? MR. BABCOCK-No, just to elaborate on that, that was a four year process of many meetings with the Building Department with the roads, and they were receptive in listening to our concerns and we had the County there. We had the State there, and evaluation of the road problem,okay,that was there, and we were constantly just pushed forward, pushed forward, pushed forward, and we elected, Missy and I elected, on our own to say, listen, I don't want to get too far into it,but we are, feel very, very fortunate that we found Glen Lake 35 years ago,and we are huge advocates and stewards of the land,and the benefits that it brings to not just the community but also to ourselves and our family and we do understand that we're asking for a certain amount of relief here, and we're doing it because we want to continue to extend that 35 years of enjoyment that we've had and stewardship and understanding the reason for the Board and that you're here for our benefits,and I appreciate,I truly do appreciate and we will always take and always have and always will,take into consideration and understand the importance of the environment and what we're trying to do, and all we're saying here is that we want to spend more time. We want eventually this to be our primary residence as we've downsized,okay,with our family growing and now we're moving on that Missy and I can continue to be able to function and be able to have some storage space,you know,the garage itself,too,not just from a selfish standpoint,in terms of the snow issue, okay, as we get older,but our basement,older basements,you know,cobblestone,not usable,can't store. We were just looking for places to put the ornaments,this,that and whatever as well,too. So we don't come here not understanding what we're asking for,and we appreciate any support that you can give us. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I thank you,and like I said,you know,with the upgraded septic system that was a new system and design,I mean,I just find it all,not that I'm trying to say we're going to compensate you for doing all this because I don't want to set a precedent. MR.BABCOCK-No,I understand. MR. MAGOWAN-But I'm impressed that you have done all this because it costs you all money,but when you say you're a good steward of the lake,I have to say from what I see,I tend to believe in that. I like the size of the large proposed buffer and planting,you know,for this. So I feel comfortable with sending this on to zoning. MR. DEEB-Duly noted. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. DEEB-I had one more question. That garage is an absolute necessity to you? MR.BABCOCK-Yes. MR. DEEB-Silly question. MR. BABCOCK-You've spent time up here. You know what the weather's like. It's a daunting task and we're just looking not to do anything other than the fact to have some cover for the car and also to be able to put our bikes and other types of things that we all use to benefit the whole Adirondacks and the bike path and everything else. Yes,it's pretty much a necessity,and we've discussed this for many years. Right? MARYBETH BABCOCK MRS. BABCOCK-We're getting older. It wasn't an issue when we were in our 20's. It's a little bit more of an issue now. MR. HUTCHINS-Them having a garage where they can actually park vehicles allows them to take up a bunch of this asphalt that they've got outside the garage. MR. DEE&Well as you do get older it becomes much more difficult with snow removal and things like that,and I guess there has to be some flexibility,with the garage included in the ratio, and I guess I realize sometimes that's a burden. All right. I'm done. MR. TRAVER-Do members feel comfortable drafting a referral recommendation to the ZBA? MR. ETU-Can I ask,real quick,how tall is the existing masonry,the stone wall with regard to setbacks? How tall is the existing stone wall that's noted on the survey,given how close you're encroaching into the setback,especially the garage? MR.HUTCHINS-To the north? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. ETU-No,to the south,to the south of the garage? And really to the south of the two story addition? MR.BABCOCK-It's like a foot and a half. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks pretty straight here. MR. TRAVER-So our project tonight is to make a referral regarding the variances to the ZBA and we can identify some areas of concern, or we can not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal upon return for Site Plan Review. Is the Board comfortable with a recommendation that we don't see significant adverse impacts, or do we have specific areas of concerns we want to pass along to the ZBA as they look at this? MR. LONGACKER-I just have one question here, sort of concern. Just the septic field in front of the garage. I know it's pre-existing and I'm sure it was an engineered type system. Do you plan on removing the asphalt in front of that and re-paving it? MR.HUTCHINS-Yes,that system is designed to be under there. MR. LONGACKER-It is? Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-It's highway rated, traffic rated chambers in a stone bed with a foot of highway gravel above it,highway fabric. So,yes,the asphalt will come off and putting a foundation near the garage they're going to have to use some caution there. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. MR.HUTCHINS-They may have to use a little more stone to do that. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. Thanks. MR. DEEB-I know we're only at recommendation,but there's no site lighting information on the plan. MR.HUTCHINS-No site lighting? MR.DEEB-Yes,there's no lighting plan provided,according to the Staff Notes, and I'm just reminding you that any new lighting,this is for next week,it should be Code compliant. MR. TRAVE R-Residential and downcast. MR. DEEB-So we don't have to do it next week. MR.HUTCHINS-It will be downcast,dark sky lighting,yes. MR. DEEB Just a reminder. MR.HUTCHINS-We'll have that for when we come back next week. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. DIXON-Does the Board want any consideration for floor area ratio? MR. DEEB-No,I don't think so. MR. TRAVER-The ZBA's going to be looking at it. MR. DEEB-The ZBA is going to be looking at it. Let's see what they say. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#42-2022 BABCOCK The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes construction of a 2 story addition to the south side of the existing home. The existing home is 1,079.2 sq. ft.with a 357 sq.ft.porch area. The existing floor area is 2,230 sq. ft. The new garage is to be 554 sq. ft. Total new floor area is 2,569 sq.ft.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-13-010,site plan review for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks,floor area and height. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) 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 42-2022 THOMAS &z MARYBETH BABCOCK,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 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.BABCOCK-Thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it. MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,also under Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is Jeffrey Randles,this is 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 BY REMOVING THE FIRST STORY DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR, RECONSTRUCTING THE FIRST FLOOR WITH A SECOND STORY, ADDITIONAL BASEMENT AREA, AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE USING THE EXISTING FOUNDATION. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,968 SQ.FT.AND THE TOTAL FOOTPRINT TO BE 3,348 SQ.FT. THE MAIN FLOOR WOULD ALTER THE NORTH SIDE WITH ANEW DINING AREA AND 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 &z 147, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME 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: 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 &r NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-At last month's meeting it was identified there may be an issue in reference to the measurement from the mean high water mark to a different mark located on the survey. The applicant went back and communicated with the surveyor and it was off a tad so they have to come back before this Board for a new recommendation specific to that setback to the mean high water mark. MR. TRAVER-Understood. So it's the same project but we need to look at it again because of a change in the nature of the variance. Is that the bottom line,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. So we looked at this once before, and I think, if I remember right, indicated no major concerns for a referral for the Zoning Board, and then we found out that there was a,can you explain the difference between the old and the current variance? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. So Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership. I'm here with Curt Dybas, the architect, and the Randles are here as well. So the original setbacks that were presented before the Board last month,the surveyors had measured them from the water elevation on the day of the survey that it was taken. Some shots were taken of that water elevation I believe it was February 23rd of this year. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) So it was taken from that water elevation rather than the Lake George mean high water elevation, which is 320.2. So all the setbacks were used from the present day elevation rather than the 320.2 and that's where the discrepancy in the setbacks were. So we have gone back, coordinated with the surveyor, got the updated setbacks, and that's what's on the plan before you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,what was that difference? MR.ZEGLEN-So it's roughly,on the subject parcel,it's roughly five feet. So the existing house setback is 49 feet. The new setback is 46. Previously the existing house setback was 51,and the setback,sorry,the previous existing setback was 54 and the proposed was 51. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. ZEGLEN-It gets a little scientific. MR. MAGOWAN-I didn't know we had such a tide there. MR. DYBAS-Yes,we didn't,either. MR. TRAVER-So the variance is actually 46 feet where as 50 feet is required. Right? MR. ZEGLEN-No. So on this lot actually the north and the south parcels,it's the average of those two. So that's another wrinkle into the confusion It's not 50 foot setback. So originally the average of the two was 56.71 feet. That was on the application last month. The new average of the two is 53.75 feet average between the property to the north and to the south. MR. TRAVER-So the bottom line is for the Board, we looked at this previously and made a referral that we did not see a major concern. So the question for us this evening is with this change in the setback,has our position changed or do we now have concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA as they look at this presumably tomorrow? MR. ZEGLEN-And the one thing I just wanted to add that was another variance from last month was the stormwater device from the lake and that was SS feet. In the new application we have revised that to hold that SS feet from the mean high watermark. So that will still be SS feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Gotcha. So that hasn't changed. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Anything from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No because the buffer and the plantings,nothing's changed. MR. TRAVE R-Right. It's just that one issue of the measurement of the variance. All right. I think we have a draft resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you have a contractor and materials, all that stuff ready to go? MR. DYBAS-Curt Dybas. They have a contractor. We're pushing to start October I". So it's going to be interesting. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#46-2022 JEFFREY RANDLES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing single family home by removing the first story down to the first floor,reconstructing the first floor with a second story,additional basement area, and an attached garage using the existing foundation. New floor area to be 6,96E sq. ft. and the total footprint to be 3,34E sq. ft. The main floor would alter the north side with a new dining area and 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 new floor area and alterations to an existing home 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; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) 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 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 Nathan Etu. Duly adopted this 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. ZEGLEN-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is actually also under unapproved development. This is Brian Hogan,Site Plan 50-2022. Laura? NEW BUSINESS—UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN NO. 50-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. BRIAN HOGAN. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT: ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 33 HOLLY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A 361 SQ. FT. PAVILION AT 15 FT. 2 INCHES TO BE CONSTRUCTED NEAR THE VICINITY OF THE COTTAGE THAT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,460 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 1,648 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 2,009 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PAVILION IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 68- 2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: .79 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-37. SECTION: 179-3-040. BRIAN&MEREDITH HOGAN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to complete a 361 square foot pavilion. The height is approximately 15 feet 2 inches and the project is being constructed in the vicinity of the cottage that has been demolished. The Board previously reviewed an application for this applicant in reference to demolishing the cottage and amending the garage to have living space. So the applicant's back before the Board to renovate that one space so it's a pavilion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.HOGAN-Good evening. MR.TRAVER-So tell us about the updated project and how did this come to be unapproved? You started a project without seeking approval apparently? MR. HOGAN-My name's Brian Hogan. I'm herewith my wife Meredith this evening. We own the property at 33 Holly Lane which is the subject property and to get to the point of why it's an unapproved project, during the demolition process the contractor removed the existing piers to the building, and at that time they indicated to us that it would be far less expensive and far less disturbing if the new piers were put in at the same time, and rather than dig up our yard twice,I told him to go ahead with that,and I'm fully aware that that was outside the bounds,but unfortunately I could not apply for a building permit at that time because we were still dealing with some issues relative to the Highway Department and the Town relative to some property lines. So I could not get a building permit. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I guess I'm still a little confused. So you were having discussions with the Highway Department and that prevented you from contacting the Planning Department and saying we want to change our plan? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. HOGAN-No, the plans were always the same,but for me to put the piers in, it would have possibly triggered a variance request, which we weren't going to need because if you look to the west you'll see there's the property line,and originally the property line was more to the left and that would have triggered a variance. So I could not get a building permit. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-So you put the piers in at the time you took the old ones out as well. MR.HOGAN-Correct. MR. DEEB-And in order to do it properly you would have had to come before us before you put the piers in. MR.HOGAN-That is correct. MR. DEEB-All right, and you didn't,you just felt that it would be more economical at that time to do it that way? MR. HOGAN-It was much more economical at that time, and I do apologize for that. I know you guys take a dim view of that. MR. DEEB-Okay. Well we get a lot of this. MR.HOGAN-And you know what,I totally understand. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you took the piers out. Were they bad? Were you going to re-use them at the beginning? MR.HOGAN-No,I wasn't going to re-use them. Basically there was a big hole there where they took the original piers out. The original house was built on piers. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR.HOGAN-And then,while we're on the subject,if you guys have any questions on that,on the subject of changes that we're looking for approval for here as well,there were a couple of changes that were made to the stormwater plan. One has to do with the approval from the Town for that type of snow storage area on the northern part of the property. That amounted to approximately 56 square feet,which increases the size of the gravel driveway. The other thing that we noticed, during construction for the previous approved stormwater plan we discovered a pipe which you can see on the, it originally took water from the driveway and directed it down the hill to the west. What we did was re-locate that and drain that into the raingarden area. The raingarden area itself,we increased the size of that. MRS. MOORE-So the plan that we have up here,is this the current plan? MR.HOGAN-That's the current plan. MR. MAGOWAN-This one here? MR.HOGAN-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-So in addition to the changes in the pavilion, proposed pavilion, the changes in the stormwater that you made,those have also already been implemented without approval? MR.HOGAN-They had to. They were doing it at the same time as the,the original stormwater plan didn't show that pipe. We didn't know it existed at the time. So they were in the middle of construction. So all they had to do was put it back in. I did go to Laura with that and told her that was exactly what we were going to have to do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the Town was aware of that change. MRS. MOORE-So does the current permit that Craig issued,is that based on this plan? MR.HOGAN-No. The one that Craig has based on does not show that pipe. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we have the one that we approved? it (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MRS. MOORE-So there was a stormwater permit issued by the stormwater officer, being Craig Brown, and that's the question I'm asking is that there was, Craig had issued one and I guess I wasn't aware that this was a different plan than what Craig. MR. TRAVER-So that permit is no longer valid. MRS. MOORE-It may need to be modified,but I don't know that. MR. TRAVER-So do we need to consider an application for a new stormwater? MRS. MOORE-So stormwater permits can be issued by the stormwater officer. In some cases you as a Planning Board would also refer it to the Town Engineer for review. It's up to this Board at that time if they want to. MR.TRAVER-And that's a good point because the previous proposal had included,obviously,stormwater which was reviewed by the Town Engineer. Right? And that project was signed off on? MRS. MOORE-At this point the Town Engineer has not reviewed this plan. MR. TRAVER-Not this plan,but the one that was approved and then subsequently changed. MR.HOGAN-That was looked at and approved by Craig Brown. MRS. MOORE-As the stormwater management officer. Not as the Town Engineer. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't happen to have the old one there that we can? MRS. MOORE-I believe I do. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean it really doesn't seem like much has changed. MR. HOGAN-No, other than the fact that we've re-located that pipe, and we had to re-locate the pipe because according to the current rules for stormwater you cannot have an infiltration device within 20 feet of a well. So we were forced to move that and what we did we changed it from perforated pipe to solid pipe to accommodate that,and I think we moved it about 10 or 15 feet. MR.LONGACKER-The re-location of that pipe doesn't do anything to increase the flow to the stormwater management area? MR. HOGAN-Not significantly, no. Originally the stormwater just flowed across the ground in that location and then went into that pipe. It's an open exposed end that was next to the well and then the pipe itself was perforated. So I mean the stormwater itself did not increase by any appreciable amount. MR. MAGOWAN-And you found this all out after you started excavating? MR.HOGAN-Yes,because what happened was is a new grading level to allow the stormwater to run from the driveway to the raingarden. As soon as they dug down and dug up the pipe. MR. MAGOWAN-All right,and let's go back to the footings. MR.HOGAN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And that is for the pavilion. MR.HOGAN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So there was a pavilion there. MR.HOGAN-There was a house there, a three bedroom house. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So it's a three bedroom house. So you took that down. MR.HOGAN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And then,and that was on piers. MR.HOGAN-Correct. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-I'm trying to look at, where was the house. Okay. All right. The whole picture is starting to come together now. So basically you tore down the house to put up a pavilion and two pickle balls. MR. HOGAN-Well actually we haven't put up the pavilion yet. That's what we're looking for approval from you folks tonight is the fact that we want to be able to put up. MR. MAGOWAN-And also a revised stormwater. MR.HOGAN-And the fact that we moved that pipe. MR. LONGACKER-The pavilion will increase stormwater, though, too, if you have a new roof on the pavilion. That may increase your stormwater. MR. MAGOWAN-But I thought we approved a pavilion. MRS. MOORE-No. MR.HOGAN-Underneath the original stormwater plan that was approved,the area under the pavilion is listed as non-permeable because at the time it was gravel less than number two stone. So it had to be counted as non-permeable and it was included in the plan that was approved in June. MR. MAGOWAN-I remember them coming. So what did we approve just stormwater last time? MRS. MOORE-No. You approved a demo of the house and an amendment to the existing garage to add living space. MR. MAGOWAN-And why does the pavilion ring a bell? Did it say future maybe pavilion? MR.HOGAN-It might have. MR. MAGOWAN-For some reason I thought the pavilion was in there. MR. HOGAN-It probably was shown. We were originally planning on demolishing the house and replacing it and what we did was left the original fireplace from the old house and you can see that to the north there,the small square. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe it said future pavilion or something. I just remember the pavilion and that's why I'm a little confused here. So all right,and you don't have the pickle ball courts yet. MR.HOGAN-I do. MR. MAGOWAN-They are in. MR.HOGAN-The pickle ball court is in,yes. That was approved previously. MR. MAGOWAN-That's something I haven't started playing yet but I want to. MR. TRAVER-Well my concern is that we haven't had any professional review of the amended stormwater. So we don't know how that's going to function. MR. DEEB-No,we have to have a proper site plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEE&We just can't,it's too convoluted right now. MR. HOGAN-I'm sorry, the stormwater plan actually I had a lot of help with that. Chris Navitsky was very helpful. He came on the site and helped me with the calculations as well, and also I'd like to thank Laura. She was pretty good with dealing with the homeowners as opposed to a professional engineer. MR. TRAVER-Yes,she is. MR.HOGAN-A lot of patience is involved there. But a lot of effort went into this in terms of design. We were very careful in all aspects. We designed the stormwater management on this property to exceed everything. I believe the way the rules are written I think is when you do a minor expansion you have to account for the stormwater for the new,not the existing. When we went into the design for this,I made the effort to make sure the stormwater encompassed everything on the property. That includes all the 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) pavement. That includes the gravel driveway, the Town road, the paver walkways, everything else is included in the stormwater, and not only did we include everything,we also exceeded that because water does come down from the neighboring properties. MR.DEEB-We appreciate everything you had done,but I think we have to have proper paperwork in order which we don't have at this time because what Craig Brown approved is not what was done. Am I right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So it seems there's been a change that needs to be reviewed. MR. DEEB-In order for us to do it properly we have to have that properly submitted in front of us. We just can't. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I agree. MR.HOGAN-On the,just for the fact that that one was moved 10 feet. I mean that's really the only change that was made. MR. TRAVER-Well I understand that that's what you're saying but keep in mind that when we looked at this before you told us you were going to do one thing and you ended up doing something else. So you're saying now all you did was move a pipe,but we don't know what the implications of that are. We don't know what else was changed that we don't know about. So I think the concern is that we need to have a review of what actually has been done. Is the new,the change in the stormwater,is it something that can be approved and is it functional, that kind of thing. We can't have a stormwater, a do it yourself stormwater without proper review I don't believe. MR.DEEB-We could have our Town Engineer review it. I really think that's the proper way to go. I mean I hate to do this but I think we should probably table it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean this is Waterfront Residential. Stormwater is. MR. DEEB-And then you coordinate with Laura everything that has to be done and re-submit it and then probably get this done for you,but we can't do it the way it is. MR. MAGOWAN-Do your new calculations also include the new pavilion that you're building? MR.HOGAN-The calculations include everything. MR. MAGOWAN-All right,well I heard everything else,the pad and the road,but I didn't hear the. MR.HOGAN-Well actually the pavilion itself,the calculations were pre-approved by,because it was non- permeable to begin with. The only difference and actually believe it or not the only reason I thought we were coming here tonight is because we were changing that from a non-permeable surface. MR. TRAVER-All right. So it sounds like we're looking at a tabling. Laura, how long do you think it would take to get all of this cleared up and presented? MRS.MOORE-So if I take this application and the application materials that we have on hand and provide that to the Town Engineer,typically that's a two week turnaround. Not guaranteed,but that would put this application into an October agenda. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Maybe like the second meeting in October. Okay. Well let's see what that does for us. MRS. MOORE-I guess the Board's comfortable taking the application you have in your hand and then referring that to the Town Engineer. MR. TRAVER-That's what's being represented as what the proposed amended site plan is,yes. So we'd be looking at,again,October 25,would be the second meeting. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And would it be possible at that particular time that we could get the old one that we approved? MR. TRAVER-You mean the original? MR. MAGOWAN-Or the one that Craig approved. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MRS. MOORE-I can ask him. MR. MAGOWAN-Well he was here before. MRS. MOORE-But that wasn't part of, that was separate. So this applicant was in front of this Board specifically to amend that garage to add living space. The applicant came to Craig with this proposal for a stormwater improvement and that was a different,that was approved in-house as the stormwater officer. MR. TRAVER-Without Planning Board review. MR. DEEB-And we approved the pickle ball? MR. TRAVER-I don't believe so. MR. MAGOWAN-So some reason I remember seeing a pavilion and pickle ball court. MR. DEEB-But you built a pickle ball court? MR.HOGAN-That's correct. That,to me,is a hole in your Code you could drive a truck through. You do not require zoning or planning for that. MR. DEEB-And you're okay with that,Laura? MR. MAGOWAN-For pickle ball courts. MRS. MOORE-Sometimes courts are considered accessory structures or elements that fit into accessory structures. I don't know how this was determined. MR. MAGOWAN-Well they're not as big as tennis courts. MR.TRAVER-Well in any case when we see this again we'll have all of the proposal and features and we'll have a stormwater report,all the rest of it. So we'll definitely know exactly what it is. MR.DEEB-I'd like to know if the pickle ball court was ever approved or not. I don't really have a problem with building a pickle ball court. MR. TRAVER-I don't believe that it was, but in any case, all that aside, when we see it again all those features will be there, plus we'll have the updated stormwater report. So we'll know exactly what it is that we're dealing with,which is what we need. So that'll work. MR. DIXON-Laura,is there any additional information that you need in by a certain date? MRS. MOORE-I don't believe so. At this time I'm going to take this application and forward this to the Town Designated Engineer and request a comment,review and comment. MR.TRAVER-And do you have the detail that the applicant had represented he had calculated in the new, the change in the stormwater plan? MRS. MOORE-Correct. And that's what's. MR.HOGAN-That's what you're looking at. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you feel comfortable you have enough? All right. Good. So that turnaround shouldn't be that,that shouldn't take that long. Okay. MR. DIXON-We're just tabling it to that date. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-You want to leave the public hearing open. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. So we will open a public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. TRAVER-And we will be seeing this in,when we have the full plan,in October. So if there are folks here to make public comment on this application,please know that we will have full information on this application next month and we'll be hearing it on October 25`h RESOLUTION TABLING SP#50-2022 BRIAN HOGAN Applicant proposes to complete a 361 sq. ft.pavilion with a height of 15ft 2 inches to be constructed near the vicinity of the cottage that has been demolished.The existing home of 1,460 sq.ft.footprint is to remain with no changes. The existing floor area is 1,64E sq.ft. and the new floor area will be 2,009 sq.ft.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan review for a pavilion in the Waterfront Residential zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 50-2022 BRIAN HOGAN. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the October 25,2022 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you next month. MR.HOGAN-Thank you for your time. MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry for the total confusion here. MR.HOGAN-I apologize for that. MR. DEE&We'll get it straightened out. MR. TRAVER-The next item under New Business this is Harvey Roadcap. This is Site Plan 59-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HARVEY ROADCAP. OWNER(S): NORTH HIGH REALTY HOLDINGS. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 7 LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPGRADE THE EXTERIOR PLAY AREA OF THE EXISTING 4,200 SQ. FT. DAYCARE FACILITY. THE IMPROVED PLAYGROUND AREA WILL INCLUDE A 2,000 SQ.FT. SECTION OF NEW SURFACE MATERIAL FOR A PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AREA. THE FENCING TO BE INSTALLED INCLUDES A SIX FOOT HIGH PRIVACY FENCE AROUND THE PLAYGROUND. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FENCING AND EXTERIOR HARD SURFACING FOR THE PLAYGROUND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 46-2002,SP 51-2006. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2022 AND GLENS FALLS. LOT SIZE: AI ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-31. SECTION: 179-3-040. HARVEY ROADCAP,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-So this applicant proposes to upgrade the exterior play area of the existing daycare facility. The improved playground area will include a 2,000 sq.ft.section of new surface material for a playground equipment area. Also to be installed is fencing. There's a couple of different sections of fencing. Some is six foot high privacy fence. The other sections are chain link. MR. ROADCAP-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and I think that's, it's primarily for upgrading the exterior of the site, and since there's a fence involved it comes to Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ROADCAP-Good evening. I'm Harvey Roadcap, co-owner of Building Kidz of Queensbury. So as Laura said we're proposing to essentially replace the fencing in the existing playground. This was previously a daycare center before we moved into the building. So there is already a piece of equipment, play equipment,on premises and we simply want to replace the fencing because it's deemed to be pretty much unsafe for children. It's wooden and it's got splinters. So the State,for our licensing,suggested that we replace that fencing with vinyl and a combination of chain-link to separate two different areas of the 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) playground. So the existing playground is just over 1100 square feet. That's been there. That is mulch basically, wood mulch, which again is not the safest material. It can be approved by the State, but we would like to have a rubberized play surface and I think you'll see a picture of that in the proposal, as an example, and then in the back, the second part, Number Two, we would like to do play turf, which is basically artificial turf for that surface to make that as safe as possible. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well it sounds like very positive improvements. MR. DEEB-They certainly are improvements. MR. ROADCAP-Absolutely. Yes,we're really proud of what we do there. We can't wait to open. MR. TRAVER-So no variances are required. You're simply improving for safety and regulatory purposes. It seems fairly straightforward. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I can see where the wood mulch,wood spores, especially with the allergies going on. Also a really highly needed venture. We're always looking for new daycare centers. So this is great. This is a nice move forward and also protecting the kids with the vinyl and the chain-link. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any takers. Written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DIXON-1 will ask you a quick question,though. As far as drainage for the new area. So without the mulch there,you're going to go to,I don't want to call it hard surfacing,but how is it going to drain? So if you have a storm,where does the water go? MR. ROAD CAP-Yes, that's a good question. So the building is designed ,and it's probably hard to see from the pictures,but the pitch of the roof is actually to the north and to the south,and this is basically on the east side of the building. So there are gutters already in place that drain north and south. There really isn't a lot of runoff from the roof of the building to that surface because it's pitched the opposite way. So there is small stone that will be put down before the surfacing as well to allow for drainage,too. MR. MAGOWAN-They're very sandy soils over there,too. MR. ROADCAP-Yes. MR. DIXON-All right. I wasn't quite sure how that drains off,if it's pervious or impervious. MR. TRAVER-Yes,good question. Okay. So is the Board comfortable moving forward on this? All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#59-2022 HARVEY ROADCAP The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to upgrade the exterior play area of the existing 4,200 sq. ft. daycare facility. The improved playground area will include a 2,000 sq.ft. section of new surface material for a playground equipment area. The fencing to be installed includes a six foot high privacy fence around the playground. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan review for fencing and exterior hard surfacing for the playground 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 9/20/2022 and continued the public hearing to 9/20/2022 when it was closed, 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) 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 9/20/2022; 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 59-2022 HARVEY ROADCAP, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted:g. site lighting,h. signage,j. stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans,q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as the project intent is for an improvement to the exterior play yard areas; 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) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. ROADCAP-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-One question,what is the oldest age you can come here? MR. ROADCAP-We are serving ages basically six weeks, which is infant. So we have a few spots for infants,and then up to pre-school,five years,basically. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Gary Hillert. This is Site Plan 60-2022. SITE PLAN NO.60-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GARY HILLERT. O WNER(S): GARY HILLERT REVOCABLE TRUST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 366 GLEN LAKE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE 9-10 TREES FOR SAFETY REASONS. THE TREES ARE LOCATED ALONG THE SHORELINE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SHORELINE RETAINING WALL. THE TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED TO THE STUMP LEVEL. THERE IS TO BE NO GRUBBING OF THE TREES DUE TO THE ROOT SYSTEM LOCATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4- 030 AND 179-6-050, TREE REMOVAL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPRO VAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 15-99,AV 18-1999,AV 9-2019,SP 31-2019. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE,CEA. LOT SIZE: .69 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.289.10-1-53. SECTION: 179-4-030,179-6-050. GARY HILLERT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to remove nine to ten trees for safety reasons. The trees are located along the shoreline between the house and the shoreline and retaining wall. The trees are to be removed to the stump level. There's to be no grubbing of the trees due to the root system location. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So good evening. MR.HILLERT-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So tell us about your situation. MR.HILLERT-They were planted this big,as my neighbor told me. 104,she's passed away. The pictures don't do justice to what's happening. Okay. I wasn't totally aware of this. I've been there since 2015 and I think they are leaning much more. Each one is actually leaning and it's only,between the cabin and the trees there's only a space of about seven to eight feet, and when they were planted they were little tiny trees and actually it started, I was planning on getting a mortgage at the beginning of the year and the insurance company gave me a hard time in re-insuring it due to the trees. I mean you seethe letter in there. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I saw the letter. MR. HILLERT-And I put my mortgage in jeopardy because I couldn't get a mortgage until the insurance company would allow the additional. Now I'm more concerned and I asked more people,and my question was would these trees fall. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HILLERT-And they said no, the question is when they're going to fall. They will fall, and that has made me very,very nervous living there now. I have a couple of better pictures that really show the things turning. MR. TRAVER-Well, my concern is this. There's always a certain tension and trees and the natural landscape about the lake are critical, obviously very important, and there's always a tension between landowners who would love to get rid of all the trees and have an unobstructed view, and those who are very concerned about the environment and feel alarmed at any tree that's removed. Okay. So certainly when I saw your application and I saw the letter and again I'm only speaking for myself,but when I saw the letter from the insurance company I can certainly understand their position that if these trees are diseased or they are in imminent threat of falling that they be removed,and that's something that obviously happens all the time around the lake and people do cut down trees. The problem I have is with the number of the trees and looking at the photograph I didn't see any obvious signs of disease, an I'm just wondering, I mean,have you provided,have you had an arborist or a professional look at these and can tell us that,yes, all these trees are diseased and they're going to fall over? MR. HILLERT-Well, the real big thing is it's less than from there to there, these trees all together, since there's so many. MR. TRAVE R-Right. Do you know how many houses that are around the lake have trees that are? MR.HILLERT-There's not a place on the lake that has it that close,up against the wall and that many. MR. TRAVER-So my question is you're concerned that these trees are diseased or they're in imminent danger of falling. Do you have any documentation other than your assessment of that? Do you have anyone who is a tree person, an arborist or someone who can evaluate these trees and can say,yes,these trees one through ten are going to fall down, they're diseased, they definitely need to come down. You don't have any of that in your. MR. HILLERT-Everybody that has come and looked at them says they will fall. Absolutely, positively, without a doubt it will happen. Okay. If it were one you could probably get away with it,and one's going to make another one go. If they were further apart and they put them there it wouldn't be a problem. Actually,they're not blocking a view. I love them. That's my favorite tree. I probably planted more white pine than anything. I put one dedicated to my son and my neighbor next door,we both lost our sons and we put a white pine. Like I say my favorite. So I don't want to take them down because of any view. That wasn't the reason. I've been there for seven years and that wasn't the case,but they are tilting more and more because of the height of it. If it were only one or two trees, and I'm not taking the ones that are not next to the wall. I'm only taking,some of them are just ready to fall,just a matter of time. MR. TRAVER-Well,yes, all trees eventually die. There's no doubt about that. MR. HILLERT-Well dying is one thing, okay. We're all going to die. I'm SO years old. I'm not SO feet tall. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Can I ask a question? MR.HILLERT-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-What is the makeup of the soil underneath? Are you on rock? Is it rocky there? Because,you know,looking at the trees and seeing them lean,you know,most trees grow up straight,you know. Why are these leaning toward the house? MR. HILLERT-They're confined to a small area. That's what some of the professionals who came and took a look at them. MR. MAGOWAN-Because see pines have a tendency to,they're not a deep root, all right. They're a wide root, and like especially Number Nine, the picture of Number Nine that I'm looking at, okay. To me it looks like the soil is higher away from the way the tree's leaning. So it looks like the ground is actually coming up,all right The root structure of a pine,like I said. Maples and a lot of them,they go deeper, all right. The pines have a tendency to crowd out,you know,on the surface, and a lot of pines that you'll see, especially after a blow down,you'll see the root structure and everything up,but my concern is what is the makeup of that ground underneath? Because if you're really nothing but rock and soil,because I've actually cut up some trees that have fallen over years ago when I was younger that have fallen over due to a storm on Glen Lake, and the root structure, I remember cutting one and that thing sprung and stood back up, you know, I was young and agile and I was able to zip off that tree quickly. I mean I understand your concerns. My next concern is the closeness. So those trees absorb numerous amounts of water. Your cottage or camp or your home is very close to the water line and usually we don't allow that. So that goes to show me also that, and it's on a wall, all right. So those roots come over and probably go down So I would more or less tend to feel, and then I look at the picture of your walls. So I can see the situation that you're having. My concern is if,you know, and I'm only one of seven here,is if we allow you to take down these trees,what are we going to do for stormwater between your house and the lake? MR.HILLERT-You're talking about a small area,and I have planted about eight trees already since I moved there. MR. MAGOWAN-But have they all been in the front. I'm worried about the stormwater coming across your property and going toward the lake. MR. HILLERT-Well, how it's done now I think it's more, actually I graded the property away from the lake. It was ridiculous how it was when I got the house, and there were drywells there originally. The cabin was built in the 40's,okay,and the rest of the house was built in the year 2000 and they were required to put drywells and drainage. So we pitched it to the drywells. And not only that before there were no gutters or anything on the house. So we had, you know, we pitched the water away from that, which never had gutters on that house. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and the next question I have, you know you have a unique situation here. because if I say,if we say all right cut out the trees that are leaning the most,but unfortunately they're so close together and they're like pick up sticks,but if you leave one, they actually become weaker, and the way the root structure is,you know,this is a difficult one because we're actually allowing you to cut within 50 feet of a waterbody,which is really a no,no. MR.TRAVER-One thing about the application is,what he's proposing is cutting the trees but not bringing up the roots. He's not going to. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,yes,I mean it doesn't look like you can get too much equipment down there. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-But eventually those roots and those trunks are going to rot,all right,and then they're going to create pockets. I don't know if you have any in your front yard because the builder didn't take out a tree trunk. I've got a couple. MR. TRAVER-Well my concern is that we don't have any professional opinion saying of these ten trees, half a dozen of them are fine, and,yes, they'll fall down in maybe 50 years or something but they're okay now and there's a couple of them that are diseased and they're in imminent danger. We don't have any professional assessment of these trees if any of them need to come down,and the letter from the insurance company says if. MR. STARK-I'm just going to offer my take on this here. I'm in favor of the project as is,for the record. I think Mr. Hillert lives there. I don't think we need a professional assessment of the trees.. I think he lives there, I don't think he has any reason to take these trees down. We can all see the pictures. They're very close to the house. They're leaning. I think he needs it done. So I think we're over analyzing it at this point. I'm in favor of this project and I think we should just go ahead with it as is. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HILLE RT-Something that you don't, there's a domino effect. If one goes, they're all going to go. That's what's going to happen. That whole wall,if you look at it,the guy who built it back in the 30's and the 40's,he made that. He was a captain, and the one side of that peninsula, Mr. Farr actually built that. Probably no permit. But the ones in the middle of it I don't want to take down. Okay. The only ones I want, and some are just planted right next to the wall. I mean, and they're higher than they planted. So what everybody says,if one of these trees goes,every one will go. You can forget about your house. MR. TRAVER-Who says that? MR.HILLERT-Sears guy,Hunt guy. All the major guys. MR. DEEB-Can you get a written assessment of that from Sears or Hunt or somebody? So we could look at it. MR.HILLERT-I mean I can qualify for the mortgage. It's one and a half percent more than what I started at the beginning of the year. So this has become another hardship on top of it. Okay,and I was hoping to make the last meeting. Laura's been tremendously helpful to get me through to even get on this meeting and the fellow that I brought,he said this is a no brainer. I've never seen cases as bad as this. They're going to fall one after another and the holes are going to be as big as a car. MR. DEEB-I'd love to see a written statement as to, from a professional, as Steve says, these trees are a danger. They need to come down. That really gives us a basis to work on. MR. HILLERT-Let me ask you a question. I don't want to be rude and sound like,you don't have to be a professional to see,picture one tree going down,what's going to happen. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't have a problem. Actually I can see and doing the driveway,you can see them leaning. So doing the structure up against the wall,close to the lake, and like you said, once one goes it's just going to uproot. They're going to boom,boom,boom. I actually can see this happening. MR.HILLERT-And the roots are coming up higher,okay. MR. DEEB-You can see the roots. MR. HILLERT-Yes,you can see the roots because they have no place to go. It's hard to walk back and forth. You can't walk. I can show you pictures. Originally the roots are coming up out of the ground. MR. DEE&Would you consider replacing a couple of them once they're out? MR. HILLERT-I have put more trees. I've put white pines. I've got a total of eight trees that I have put on the property so far in the last couple of years. MR.DIXON-You put them on the property,but where these trees are located near the shoreline. So if this was anew project, say you were building anew house, we would be looking at the shoreline buffer. So you're proposing taking out nine trees, would you be open, as Mr. Deeb has tried to point out,to put in maybe five mature trees,three inch stock? MR.HILLERT-I'd love to do it. If you're going to leave the roots in and the stumps,I don't think you could dig and put. MRS. MOORE-So I don't think they're asking you to plant them in the same location. I think they're asking,along your shoreline somewhere within 35 feet or rather on Glen Lake it's 20 feet,within 20 feet of that shoreline anywhere on the property to plant additional plantings. You said five to seven. I can't remember,I apologize. MR. DIXON-1 said about five. MRS. MOORE-About five. MR.HILLERT-I have done that recently. MR. DIXON-In this area? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR.HILLERT-Well,along the shoreline,and on the shoreline that's much safer,okay,the shoreline that's where the wall is,but there's about a five foot,there's a wall here and then there's five feet where they were able to park boats there,to dock boats. MR. TRAVER-And those trees that you recently,how recently did you plant those? MR.HILLERT-In the past,last year. MR. TRAVER-Last year. Those are not shown on the plan. Right? MR.HILLERT-Can I point out where they are? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Take the microphone with you. MR. HILLERT-One is here. One is here. One is here. One is here, and I think another one is here, and we put the white pine out there, and I have two more ready to go. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-You have two more you said ready to plant? MR.HILLERT-Yes. MR. DEEB-In the bottom,the one,two,three,four five,placing them down there? Should we move those trees? MR.HILLERT-I have no problem with that. MR. MAGOWAN-If you can get down through the roots. MR. DEEB-I'd feel more comfortable replacing some of those. MR.HILLERT-Yes. I did plant a bunch here, and actually myself dug,took almost a day to put one in,to dig around the roots. And I was able to do it. So I do have ones that I can put in there, and I still have them in the pots. MR. DEEB-How many do you have? MR.HILLERT-I have two. MR. DEEB-I would like to see a couple of more down there,toward the bottom,if that was possible. MR.HILLERT-Yes,I have no problem with that. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HILLERT-The question I asked,and they said they're going to go. They're going to go like dominoes. If they were further apart. MR. TRAVER-I understand what you're saying and I believe when you say that you're concerned about that,but if you,can you understand our position that we represent a lot of the lakefront area,and if people that have trees on their property came in and said,we just want to cut down our trees. We don't have any reason. We don't have any documentation that they need to be cut down,but we would love to get rid of all of these trees,that's not a position that we can really afford to be in. My only concern,I have no question that your concerns are genuine. My only concern is that we have no documentation that your concerns are legitimate. You say that you've had all these different companies come and look at it,but none of them have given you anything for the insurance company or anything else saying that these,I mean if you have an insurance liability issue with some of these trees,for example some of the cost of removing them could be covered by your insurance,and for that you would need documentation. I can assure you your insurance company would say show us that an arborist has said Tree X is diseased and is in immediate danger of coming down and they will cover the cost of protecting your property. You don't have any documentation other than your testimony,your statements that those trees are leaning. They're going fall down some day and I'm worried about them. We've got to get rid of them now. Understood,but can you understand our position that a lot of people have trees between their house and the lake they would love to cut down but. MR.HILLERT-But I don't think anybody has trees between the wall and the foundation within seven feet. Okay. So you're talking about a couple of feet on one side of the tree and a couple of feet on the other side. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. TRAVER-And the longer that we discuss this I'm more concerned because you say that you've had a number of people including Sears come and look at it and yet not at one point have you said yes,I'll provide you information that says these trees are documented. You just want us to approve it without any documentation. Are you concerned that you wouldn't be able to get someone to put something in writing? MR.HILLERT-I guess somebody,if they said without a doubt it's going to happen,without a doubt. I sit here under oath it's going to happen. MR. DEEB-You're not under oath. MR.TRAVER-You're not under oath. Well we've spent a lot of time discussing this. It sounds like there's opinions both ways. MR.HILLERT-I'll put more trees in place of it that's smaller and my daughter can worry about,the house is willed to her. She can worry about another 40 years from now, but I have no problem with planting trees in there. MR. MAGOWAN-This is the way,you know,unfortunately I'm looking at it. I don't know if he's going to be able to get a tree person to come in. I'm just thinking. MR. TRAVER-He's already had people come in and look at it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well look at it,but is someone going to put it in writing and say they're going to come down someday. MR. STARK-Do we really need a professional? Can't we just use some commonsense? MR. MAGOWAN-My question is Number Four and Number Ten on this, on Sheet A. I mean it looks like Number Ten is leaning out over the lake, and that looks like an oak. MR.HILLERT-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You weren't going to take that down. That's not jeopardizing the house. MR. HILLERT-No. True. The one that's leaning towards the lake,A,I don't have a problem with. You want to have it stay. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Is that reflected in your plan? That's not one of the ones listed to comedown? MR. MAGOWAN-And then Number Four, Number Four is off quite a ways from the property, but I'm not sure which way that is leaning,but that's kind of all by itself out there. MR.HILLERT-The big thing against that it's against the wall. MR. MAGOWAN-There's another wall over there? MR.HILLERT-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-But which way is that tree leaning,out over the? MR.HILLERT-Towards the wall. MR. MAGOWAN-Toward the lake. Toward the bay. So if that falls it's going to go into the bay. MR.HILLERT-And take the wall with it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,that's all right. It's not going to jeopardize you sleeping in your bed at night not knowing a tree's coming down. MR. TRAVER-Well that's an example of my concern. MR. MAGOWAN-So if we take out Four and Ten, all right,Number One. Number One is right behind. That one is actually pretty close,if I'm looking on C,right? MR.HILLERT-Correct. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-I mean it would be nice to get a couple of letters from some tree people, you know, stating that these trees are coming down. I mean I actually could see from the pictures, at least the one there, you stating, you know, the roots are coming up. The roots are coming up because the trees are coming down and they're starting to come up out of the ground. So like I said it's just going to be one of those storms that's just going to hit right and you won't have any branches on your house. It looks like you're going to have the trunk right across your roof. So I mean for safety purposes I can justify that. Now how do we re-shore the shoreline buffer. How many feet is it from the cabin to the lake? Or the house. Sorry,I don't mean to call it a cabin. The house. MR. HILLERT-Actually it was a cabin. It's about seven to eight feet between, you know, between the cabin to the wall. MR. MAGOWAN-To the wall, and then how far from the wall to the shoreline? MR.HILLERT-That's it. MRS. MOORE-The wall is the shoreline. MR. MAGOWAN-So you have no structure beyond that. You have a wall and the shoreline. So the trees are leaning toward your house because there is no more root structure on the. Okay. That's all I needed to hear. I don't have a problem. MR.HILLERT-If you don't want the one Number 10 taken down. MR.MAGOWAN-No,Number 10 leans over the lake. I mean and it's an oak. Those things are hardy and they're deep and it's been there a coon's age. They don't grow as quickly as pine trees do. And Number Four,that's leaning out over. What I'm trying to do is maybe a little compromise,but really,and if they're not leaning over your house, if one's not leaning over your house, all right, but I mean, Five, Six, Seven, Eight,and Nine,they're leaning over the house and the patio, and,you know. MR.HILLERT-You say the patio. That tree is big enough,if it goes. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I'm saying Number Nine is right here. No I see that. It's going to take out that, across the patio, and that's going to go right across your roof over there, and that,like I said, I could see this. MR. HILLERT-That's probably the biggest concern, the only reason why we said like Number Ten and take it down,but I have no problem leaving it there. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean any tree that you could leave,that's,you know,not a danger,but I can actually like Three. MR. DEEB-Three's leaning away from the house. MR.HILLERT-There's four oaks on that peninsula. MR. MAGOWAN-Now Three looks like an oak. MR.HILLERT-Yes. There's I think there's like three there. The one that's on the middle of that,I'm going to leave. They're pretty decent,too. MR. MAGOWAN-But Number Three are oak. Which way is that leaning? It looks like,in C. MR.HILLERT-Number Three,I believe there'd be a pine. The only one that's an oak is the one. MR.TRAVER-I don't think we should be doing this. I don't think we should be trying to guess by looking at a picture. MR. MAGOWAN-Three's an oak. I can tell. MR. DIXON-Would it be appropriate if the applicant were to draft, even if it's handwritten, what the shoreline buffer would look like to replace what he wants to remove? Because we require a shoreline buffer. What you put in there, that would be in your plan. We would strongly recommend some trees that are going to have some substance to them over time. MR. TRAVER-What about the trees that he wants to cut down. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. HILLERT-If they're not threatening the house,it would be better to have them done when the guys are there instead of making a whole mess in my whole yard, doing a lot of damage. The real concern is Nine,Eight,Seven, Six,Five and Number Four I can live with. Number One has got to come down. MR. DEEB-The tree looks like it's leaning toward the lake,not toward the house. MR.HILLERT-Which one? MR. DEEB-Three. So I mean if you could even leave that one,you've got One,Two,Five,Six,Seven,Eight, and Nine. And then if you were to replace Five, Six, Seven and Eight with similar something else,I think we could resolve this. MR.HILLERT-I could live with that. MR. DEEB-I'm okay with that. That's a compromise. MR. MAGOWAN-One,Two,Five, Six, Seven,Eight and Nine. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR.HILLERT-You're saying leave Four,Three and the other one Number Ten. MR. DEEB-Three,Four and Ten. I'm not even sure about Number One. MR. TRAVER-How can we be just by looking at a picture? MR. DEE&Well Number One's right on top of the house. I'm not an arborist. MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's what I say. I think it's improbable for the applicant,the trees and for us to just look at this picture and try to guess which ones, and we already know that he's asking to cut down trees that he now admits are not in danger,and I'm just concerned,even more concerned,that we have somebody simply come and look at them and tell us,yes, the applicant is concerned but he doesn't have any reason for immediate concern for these trees,but he does have concern for the following trees and we think that they should be cut down. I don't think any of us would have any problem with that. But to look at photographs and try to figure out which way they're leaning. I mean you can hold the camera differently. It's just,how long would it take to have somebody,he's already said he's had people there. MR. DEEB-You can try that, Steve, but I don't think you're going to get anybody to come up and say definitively this tree's going to fall. MR. TRAVER-Well,if they can't say definitively,then they're not a danger. MR. DEEB-Nobody can see the future. Nobody knows what's going to happen. MR. TRAVER-So what about other people on the lake that have trees around their house? They're going to cut all those trees down,too? And if we cut these down without any documentation,people are going to come in and say I want to cut trees around my house,too. What are we going to say,no you can't but he can? MR. DEE&Well as long as they replace them. MR. TRAVER-He's not going to be able to replace them because of the root structure. MR.HILLERT-I can find a way. I did it on that one side of the house. MR.TRAVER-Well why don't we do this. Why don't we just poll the Board. WE have a draft resolution to approve his application. Why don't we do that and see if he has the votes to pass it. If not then we'll re-visit it. Does that seem reasonable? MRS. MOORE-You're going to poll each member? MR. TRAVER-Well we have a resolution. Yes, I mean we can do it that way. We also have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to make comment on this application to the Planning Board? I'm not seeing any hands. Are there any written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. TRAVER-All right. So then we will close the public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And,yes,why don't we poll the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-So what's the poll? MR. TRAVER-To allow the application,in other words,would you approve the application. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So what numbers are we talking? MRS. MOORE-You can either poll the Board, approve the resolution as is,and it's a poll. MR. MAGOWAN-But we've made some changes to the poll. MRS. MOORE-I think the idea is to determine who has a feeling right now as is. MR. TRAVER-With the information that we have. MR. DEEB-To approve the resolution as written. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Can I read it? MR. TRAVER-No,you don't have to read it. MR.HILLERT-Can I withdraw some of the trees mentioned earlier? MR. TRAVER-So now you have some of the trees that earlier you wanted to cut down,now you're saying are not a threat? MR. HILLERT-Number 10 is leaning over pretty bad. I think it is mostly the ones that are closest to the house. I didn't put that in my application, but I am willing to plant trees in that same area. That I'm willing to do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what trees would you now exempt from being cut down? 10? MR.HILLERT-Number 10,Number Four and Number Three. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.HILLERT-And re-plant all the trees in that same area again. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So now the proposal would be Trees One, Two, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine. Correct? MR.HILLERT-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So how do Board members feel about that? If he were to amend that? MR. DEEB-And you'll replace Five, Six,Seven,Eight,and Nine? MRS.MOORE-I'm just going to say it doesn't sound like the root system would allow newplanting in that same location. I would say within 20 feet of the shoreline. MR. MAGOWAN-Well he's only got seven feet. MR. TRAVER-Plus we're leaving the stump. MR. HILLERT-I think you could plant trees because I did it on the other end, as the other part starts to rot,the other tree starts growing. So it'll take the place of that. MR. DIXON-So you're confident could plant seven trees? You're confident you could replace the seven trees with seven new trees? MR. TRAVER-Well one of the things that we have to bear in mind is he's not, the stumps and the roots are still going to be there. So I don't see how we're going to be able to, I mean maybe some ground cover 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) or something,but I don't see how you're going to be able to plant,but again I'm not an arborist. I mean again if an arborist were involved in this project. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a good compromise is some ground cover to put it on there until a couple of years. At least we're getting some absorption,some stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly. I mean the main thing is the stormwater and so even if we can't replace the trees in that particular location,the trees can be planted elsewhere within 20 feet and there can simply be ground,brush,you know,some kind of. MRS. MOORE-Root vegetation. That's fine. MR. MAGOWAN-Ground cover vegetation. MR. HILLERT-Also I can plant more trees along that area in the middle of here. This goes out like so. I could plant some more trees here. MR. DEEB-You could probably get two at the bottom. MR.HILLERT-When you say the bottom. MR. DEEB-Right where the five trees are there at the bottom. I think you could probably squeeze two more trees there. MR.HILLERT-I think so,too. I think I can get more than two. MR. DEEB-Did you solicit any other insurance quotes? Did you solicit any other insurance quotes after you got your letter from Hughes Agency? MR. HILLERT-I did call a couple people that I knew that dealt with insurance companies, and they said they're not going to give you any money. MR. TRAVER-Well this should solve that issue. MR. DEE&Well I was wondering if it was just them or other insurance companies feel the same way. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm pretty sure if they came out and looked. MR. TRAVER-Yes,they'd probably say,you know,if you find diseased tree,it needs to come down. I'm sure that's what they would say. MR. HILLERT-They won't write it. They won't give you any money. They don't want the exposure of having it coming down. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR.MAGOWAN-We'll insure your house if it burns or floats away,but we won't insure it if one of those pine trees comes down. Right? MR. DEEB-So are you comfortable with what we have? MR. MAGOWAN-Seven trees. The poll was. All right. So we're going back to the poll., right, Mr. Chairman? MR. TRAVER-Well it sounds like we're close to a proposed resolution here. He's now saying that only trees One, Two,Five, Six,Seven,Eight,and Nine would be cut down. Right,am I understanding that? MR. DEEB-You're going to replace them with some other trees. MR. TRAVER-And replace with,how many did we say? MR. DEEB-He's going to put two on the bottom,maybe three,I don't know,to the east. MR. MAGOWAN-He said he's going to plant at least 10 trees. MR. DEEB-He did? MR. MAGOWAN-Not in the front of the house,but all over the property. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR.HILLERT-Well I have in the past year. MR. MAGOWAN-This is tonight's deal. All right. MR.DEEB-So you'll put two where Five,Six,Seven,Eight and Nine were,two or there if you can get them in there, and then you go to the left of that,and you say you can put maybe three or four more,three more. MR.HILLERT-Where Number Four is? MR. DEEB-Yes. Well,yes, actually closer to the house from Number Four. You've got a whole mess of area in there to put trees. MR. TRAVER-Well Four is going to remain. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR.TRAVER-So if you put some,even if it's beyond Number Four,if they're within 20 feet of the shoreline, that's the main requirement. MR. DEEB-That's fine. MR.HILLERT-Well the shoreline on both sides I think is probably only 20 feet wide anyway. We could put them in the middle. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-We were talking the number of trees to be planted within 20 feet of the shoreline. Do we want specifically exactly where they are or are we going to? MR. TRAVER-Well,let's say two trees proximate to the dock area,between the dock area and the cabin. MR. MAGOWAN-I would say three if he can get three in there. Because you could go out past Nine and towards the dock. They're not going to be huge trees. MR. DEEB-He's removing five. So it would be nice to try to. MR. MAGOWAN-He's taking out seven on the property and he is surrounded by water. So I would at least say seven trees need to be planted. Three in the front between the house and the retaining wall, and the other four probably kind of on the side over near the ramp where we're taking out,kind of where you're taking out the trees. MRS. MOORE-So that's really hard to describe. So I'm trying to get enough information so that when Bruce goes to inspect it there's seven additional trees within 20 feet of the shoreline. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Leave it there. MR. DEEB-Fine. MR.HILLERT-That is very possible. MR. TRAVER-So we can say,what,three,Laura,if we say three in the vicinity of the dock. MRS. MOORE-If you want to be that specific,you can be,but I'm trying,there's. MR. TRAVER-You think if we just say seven trees within 20 feet of the shoreline that's adequate? MRS. MOORE-I think that's adequate. MR.MAGO WAN-And if he can get as many as he can in that area,you know,he'll say you know I'm going to try to do that because those guys in that Planning Department were really good to me that night. MR. DIXON-Is there any certain stock that we want,either five gallon pots,three inch stock? MRS. MOORE-We usually do a three inch diameter. MR. TRAVER-Three inch diameter. MRS. MOORE-So the idea behind doing the seven trees within 20 feet is so he doesn't get himself in the same predicament that he's removing these trees in. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-That's going to be a lot of years from now,but. MR. HILLERT-I will say I think that, you're talking about diameter,right? I think the other place is not a problem for the three trees,but I think that to get the trees three inch in that area there,between,I think I could get a good three. MR. TRAVER-So let me make sure that you understand what it sounds like we're going to be proposing. So of your proposal,we're going to remove all except,One, Two,Five, Six,Seven,Eight,and Nine. MR.HILLERT-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Those will be cut down, and they're to be replaced by seven trees. MR. DEEB-You're going to remove those,not except. MR. TRAVER-Well,original proposal,we're going to accept his original proposal. MR. DEEB-Oh, accept. I thought you said except. You're going to remove, One, Two, Five, Six, Seven, Eight,and Nine. MR. TRAVER-I think he knows what I meant. So,yes, what will end up happening is trees One, Two, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine will be cut down, and then he's going to plant seven trees of three inch caliper within 20 feet of the shoreline to replace those, and we can leave it up to Mr. Hillert to decide the best location for those, and I'm sure he'll have an arborist involved in selecting and planting those trees. MR. MAGOWAN-They don't have to be white pines. MR. TRAVER-They should probably be a mix. In fact you might want to consider,instead of evergreen, you might want to consider deciduous trees,you know they'll be hardwood. So they won't,they'll grow slower and they won't be a threat. But again I would recommend consulting somebody. All right. So that would be our proposed,revised proposal. MR.HILLERT-And I'll accept that. MR. TRAVER-You would accept that. All right. MR.DEEB-And we do have a Code that Laura can help you with to decide what trees to choose. We have a certain Code. MR. TRAVER-Yes,there are some that are considered invasive. So how are we doing on the resolution? MR. DIXON-We should be all set. MR. TRAVER-Well let's try it and see how it goes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#60-2022 GARY HILLERT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to remove 9-10 trees for safety reasons. The trees are located along the shoreline between the house and the shoreline retaining wall. The trees are to be removed to the stump level. There is to be no grubbing of the trees due to the root system location. Pursuant to chapter 179-4-030 and 179-6-050, tree removal 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; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 9/20/2022 and continued the public hearing to 9/20/2022 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 9/20/2022; 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, 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 60-2022 GARY HILLERT, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted:g. site lighting,h. signage,j. stormwater,k.topography,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans,q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one(1)year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Only trees identified as 1,2,5,6,7,8 and 9 are to be removed. i) Applicant is to leave the roots and stumps. j) Seven trees of three inch diameter are to be planted in the vicinity of the shoreline. k) Trees will be of a variety of deciduous and evergreen. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So in terms of seven, three inch diameter, we just discussed doing between an evergreen and a deciduous. So you want to be able to say three inch versus I think it's a five foot tree. MR.TRAVER-I think if we just go with the three inch caliper that will be adequate and a mix of deciduous and evergreen. MRS. MOORE-Mix. The other comment you had was in reference to adding ground cover. Do you still want to add that as part of your resolution or no? MR. TRAVER-I don't know. How do Board members feel? MR. STARK-I don't think it's necessary. MR. DEEB-It would be nice to have extra if he could do it. MR. TRAVER-My thought,to tell you the truth,is once those trees are cut down,there's probably going to be ground cover. MR. MAGOWAN-Right now you probably don't have much because of the acidity of the pine trees. MR. TRAVER-Yes,so I would say no. If we just re-plant the seven. MR. MAGOWAN-But if you feel you want to put down a spreading yew or something. They're always great to walk on with bare feet before you go in the water. MRS. MOORE-You can move on. That's fine. I'm done with discussion. MR. DIXON-Do you want an amendment to include? MR. TRAVER-We can say a mix. MR. DIXON-So the amended motion is to add Item K,which is trees will be of a variety of deciduous and evergreen. MR. TRAVER-That sounds good. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. DEEB-When you say evergreen,do you want to put a minimum height? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-I think if we just put a three inch caliper. MR. DEEB-All right. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. DEEB-You did it. MR.HILLERT-No,we did it. MR. DEEB-Thank you for your patience. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is John Arcuri. This is Site Plan 61-2022. SITE PLAN NO.61-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOHN ARCURI. AGENT(S): SRA ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): JOHN &z KATHRYN ARCURI. LOCATION: 46 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,783 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH 755 SQ. FT. OF PORCHES AND DECKS. THE NEW FLOOR AREA OF THE HOME WOULD BE 6,196 SQ. FT. WITH A HOME HEIGHT OF 28 FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW DRIVEWAY,HOUSE AREA,SEPTIC AND WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040&z 179- 6-065, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 11-1991. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.7-1-42. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065. ERIK SANDBLOM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;JOHN ARCURI,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to construct a new 2,783 square foot home,footprint with a 755 square foot area of porches and decks. The new floor area would be 6,196 square feet and the home's height would be at 28 feet and the reason for review is because it's new floor area within the CEA. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SANDBLOM-Good evening. Erik Sandblom from SRA Engineers herewith John Arcuri,the owner and applicant. What is being proposed here is a new single family residence on an existing lot, Knox Road,Assembly Point, and the property right here is actually,it's kind of interesting. It starts out kind of flat from the road here at a gentle grade. There's kind of a high point here and then it's kind of steep around,on this side here. What the plan is,is to put a house on this kind of high point right here and it's a two story with attached garage and various typical development that you'd have for a single family residence. Driveway,paved driveway, on-site septic and on-site water, due to the fact that there aren't municipal services available right there. The site is, currently flows from that high point in two different directions. The plan is to maintain that drainage pattern and so just real,in a nutshell, stormwater wise, we're talking about collecting the roof drainage,and porches on the back here into an,that'll all be directed to a raingarden to promote the infiltration on that side of the property and then where we have hard surfaces and pavements proposed that will be collected in a ditch into an infiltration basin with a sedimentation basin pre-treatment. The stormwater control report identifies that all of the criteria are met for treatment of that stormwater for both the 10 year and the 25 year storm, 10 year volume, 25 year flow. The other kind of aspect from a site plan environmental aspect is the septic system. What is proposed is a raised system,raised only two inches because we're almost three foot separation but we just needed a little bit more. So it's not going to look like a big mound system or anything like that. It should still blend in with the landscape fairly well. Fully compliant. We're not requesting any variances. As far as tree cutting goes,where the house is going is kind of cleared already. There are some very tall pine trees, white pines in close proximity to the improvements and the house and those are identified for removal,but the plan is to keep as much tree, existing trees that are there as much as possible. Much of this area right here where the driveway and the stormwater is proposed is pretty scrubby and there's some poplars in there. There's not really much in the way of value,but back here there actually are some really nice trees of various species,not just white pine. You know those trees better than I do,but that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I'm happy to answer any questions. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR.TRAVER-Well the concern I have is with the engineering. We don't have a complete review because time after time the engineer is saying that either the information is inadequate or inaccurate, and he can't give an opinion as to whether this will work. MR. SANDBLOM-We presented a very detailed response to that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SANDBLOM-And actually. MR. TRAVER-Which we haven't received. MR. SANDBLOM-I haven't received a response from our, I received another response from the Town Engineer to our response,but we provided it in a day and receiving LaBella's comments,and basically,you know, some of the items that were brought up are, you know, there was an interpretation of the groundwater depths we didn't agree with. We evaluated the site quite thoroughly and are very confident that. MR. TRAVER-Well some of the comments are pretty specific. MR. SANDBLOM-They are, and we've responded very specifically to those comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you're saying that these comments are inaccurate? MR. SANDBLOM-Well, as an example, one of the comments that was brought up is that the water table where one of the test pits was performed appeared to be a certain depth. MR. TRAVER-Right, MR. SANDBLOM-Of course I agreed with that, and then they extrapolated that carrying that same elevation to another location on the site would indicate that you don't have enough separation of,two foot separation to the stormwater treatment practice, and that's an inaccurate representation of how a confined aquifer would flow. It generally tends to,it has a slope to it and it generally. MR. TRAVER-So your disagreement is in how LaBella is interpreting the information. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes. MR.TRAVER-So not that the information that they have,that they are saying is inaccurate. You're saying that the way that they/re interpreting it is wrong. MR. SANDBLOM-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well that puts us in a difficult position because this is the Town Designated Engineer and we certainly,we're not engineers for the most part. So we understand that you may disagree with a comment and we do require a signoff by the Town Designated Engineer in any event,but to have you say you can come into compliance is one thing,but to have you disagree with the Town Designated Engineer doesn't sound like you're going to be able to come into agreement because they're position is likely not going to change. MR. SANDBLOM-I think we made a very strong argument for our case, and I would hope that it would clarify the situation for them. I'm not saying that they're wrong. I'm just saying this is our interpretation and this is how we determined what the groundwater depth would be in this location. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I would kind of like to see that resolved so that we feel confident that those issues,those fundamental issues are resolved,especially in view of your presenting your,and I understand that you have a position,and I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with either you or the Town Engineer. MR. SANDBLOM-I understand. MR. TRAVER-But I hope you can appreciate that we need these issues resolved for us to feel confident that this project is appropriate. So my own personal feeling, and we'll hear from other Board members,is that I would like those issues resolved before we consider approval. Does that seem reasonable, I mean since there are these outstanding issues? MR. SANDBLOM-It does, and I also,I do think that we've provided a strong technical rebuttal and we're just waiting for the response, and we provided that over a week ago, and we just don't have that information back yet. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MRS. MOORE-Right. So that information was shared with the Town Engineer. Typically there's a two week turnaround time. So I don't anticipate it right away,but I don't mind, if the Board's, due to other items on next week's agenda, it's possible, if you want to table to next week, to wait for that response. MR. TRAVER-Do you think we'll have a response by then? MRS. MOORE-You might have a response from them. MR. TRAVER-That would work,for me anyway. MR. DEE&Well I was going to say,he has to have signoff from the Town Engineer. If he doesn't get the signoff,the project's not approved. MR. TRAVER-Well, my concern is that, the way I read the current engineer evaluation, to come into compliance with what the Town Engineer is saying,the project may be changed from what we're seeing in some respect. Now he's representing that he thinks he can work something out with the engineer so that what they're proposing can remain exactly as we see it. So I'm just thinking that it would be easier for us to get clarification on that. Because it's one thing to have, and we often have applicants that have outstanding issues, and they just say, well, yes, we'll take care of that and we can come into agreement with the engineer,but here we have a little bit different situation because we're in a situation where there's a fundamental disagreement with what the engineer is saying and they may need to come to a compromise or the engineer may need to drop some of the concerns,but in any case, we don't have a final approval of the project as we have it before us because we're not going to be getting, in this case, an automatic agreement and ultimate signoff by the engineer that may not result in some change in the proposal. MR. DEEB-If that happens,they'll come back to us. MR. MAGOWAN-I agree with what our Chairman has said. A lot of times when you read the engineering, and being in the trade for as long as I have been,I can read, and a lot of times an engineer will say,you know,yes,we can,you know,but these particular,these comments and this engineering are,could have the effect of maybe changing a few things. It's not something that I think can really be worked out. MR. SANDBLOM-It's really just that one item, that one issue of the separation of the stormwater treatment practices to groundwater,and not only did we represent our interpretation. There's actually to take into account additional data or data that was presented to them but I don't know if they didn't see. We did the infiltration tests as well. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds like we may have this all resolved by next week. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-So why don't we just wait and look at it. MR.MAGOWAN-I'd feel more comfortable with that. I mean the engineer comments just seemed a little bit stronger than what I normally see. No offense to your engineering. MR. SANDBLOM-It is,I mean I'm not exactly sure where they're coming from on that. MR. TRAVER-And neither are we. MR. SANDBLOM-But if you use their interpretation of the groundwater and how it's determined, we would have water squirting out of this bank over here and this whole part of the property would be under water. MR.TRAVER-Well,it sounds like we will have an answer,a response of some kind,no later than our next meeting which is just a week from tonight. MR. SANDBLOM-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So why don't we just hold this for next week, and in the meantime we will get that response, and if that cleans up the major issues of the things as they more typically are just typos or a calculation,sometimes they will say you calculated for a 25 year storm and it needs to be,it's almost a very minor type of thing that we can say,okay,you won't have any problem cleaning that up,but some of these things are more significant and the implications of which way the argument goes can be potentially altering in some respect to these plans. We don't want to approve something that turns out to be, and we go through that enough. We don't want to approve something that's going to be different than what it ultimately turns out to be,if we can avoid it, and in this case I think avoiding that is going to be simply a matter of waiting one week to get a response to your suggested resolution from the Town Designated Engineer. So why don't we just do that. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. SANDBLOM-Are there any other thoughts or questions or ideas regarding the proposal that we need to address? MR. LONGACKER-I've got one. Maybe within that week,too,I mean maybe just address the comment number four when they do the test, do some sort of investigation in the actual location of the stormwater management area. You can do that,too. That way you can definitively tell the Town Engineer,yes, we have the two feet minimum requirement or we don't. That might be a heck of a lot easier. MR. SANDBLOM-We'll consider that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anyone else have any comment? Okay. So then we will just table this until Tuesday. MRS. MOORE-There is a public hearing. You want to leave that open. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We will open a public hearing on this application. MR. SANDBLOM-I'm sorry. Is there any way you can give your engineer a heads up that in case he's swamped with work that we'll be here next week? MRS. MOORE-I can identify that with, so the point is I can identify that with them. I'm not going to guarantee that you're going to get a response. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. If the turnaround time is typically two weeks, and it usually is, and he's already had your response,your engineer's response,for more than a week,so it's reasonable,and Laura,there's a lot of communication that goes on with the Town Engineer on this and many other projects. So it doesn't sound like there should be an issue. MR. MAGOWAN-And also to let you know we're not arguing your engineering degree. Our engineer is the one that represents us. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we're not in a position to say you're right or the engineer's right, except that we did hire the Town Designated Engineer on the grounds that the Town Designated Engineer is always right, and you may very well have a very strong case in your position. I assume that you certainly believe that you do or you wouldn't do that,but we don't want to be caught in the middle. So we're going to wait until that issue is resolved, and it sounds,from what you say and from what I could read from the information that we have thus far from the engineer it shouldn't be an issue to resolve it one way or another. There's only a few fundamental issues. They're either corrector they're not,and either way actually it can be dealt with. MR. DEEB-Let's do a tabling resolution. MR. TRAVER-I will open the public hearing and this is, is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application tonight? I'm not seeing any. If there are written comments, we can hold them,right,until next week. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-So we will leave the public hearing open,and now we'll have that resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#61-2022 JOHN ARCURI Applicant proposes to construct a new 2,753 sq. ft. footprint home with 755 sq. ft. of porches and decks. The new floor area of the home would be 6,196 sq.ft.with a home height of 2S ft. The project includes site work for new driveway,house area,septic and well.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&179-6-065,site plan review for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 61-2022 JOHN ARCURI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb. Tabled until the September 27,2022 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We'll see you next week. JOHN ARCURI MR.ARCURI-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Immunotek Bio Centers, Site Plan 63-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 63-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE IL IMMUNOTEK BIO CENTERS. AGENT(S): SRA ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): ALDI INC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 176 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE THE EXISTING 15,500 SQ. FT. FORMER ALDI BUILDING FOR A BLOOD PLASMA DONATION FACILITY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REUSING THE EXISTING SITE, PARKING AREA AND ACCESS POINTS TO QUAKER ROAD. SITE WORK INCLUDES CLEAN-UP OF PARKING AREA AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW USE IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 06-88, SP 48-92, SP 44-96,AV 1340-20049(1988),AV 89-1992,AV 65-1996. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2022. LOT SIZE: 2.32 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-42. SECTION: 179-3-040. ERIK SANDBLOM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to re-use the existing 15,500 square foot former Aldi's building for a blood plasma donation facility. The project includes re-using the existing site. The parking area and access areas are to remain the same. The project includes cleanup of the parking area and landscape areas. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. Sothis is Immunotek. Actually I thought this was kind of neat when I saw this because that poor building has been sitting there, Number One, and, you know, every time I drive by it I think what can we use that for, and it never would have occurred to me for a project of this type,but that's really quite interesting. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, well, that's exactly what's planned here. As you all know, I introduced myself. Erik Sandblom from SRA Engineers and on speaker phone is Aaron Renshaw from Immunotek, the Vice President of Real Estate, and he was not able to attend here tonight. So just in case there are questions that I can't answer, I just wanted to have him here to be able to respond to any questions that you guys have. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So we'll note for the record that he's not actually here but he is on the speaker phone. So give us an overview. MR.>SANDBLOM-So the plan is, as you said,really to re-use this site. I mean there's very little changes proposed to what's there now, and it is my understanding,in working with the folks at Immunotek,that that's kind of what they do. They don't come in and re-build everything like a lot of chains and things like that. They adapt what exists for their own use. So that's pretty much what's going on here. As a result there's going to be more parking than they need. So that's just how it's going to turn out, and they've evaluated all the existing infrastructure of water,sewer,really no need to make changes to that. Electrical is sufficient I believe. They may put in a new buried line to replace the existing buried line that's there, but no significant changes as far as that goes. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry to interrupt, but one of the things that I wondered about, with regard to infrastructure,was the electric. Because one would, are you going to put in like an emergency generator? I would think there'd be some aspects of this, because of the nature of the blood and so on that you're storing,that you would want emergency power available in the event of a power loss. MR. SANDBLOM-That's a good question. Aaron,do you know if an emergency generator is planned? AARON RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW-No. We certainly don't put emergency generators on our buildings. We do have redundancy because we do have multiple freezers within the building itself, and if we do need to remove the plasma or the products from the building because of a power outage or what have you,we have a freezer truck,they have a freezer truck company that we use nationwide. I don't know the name of the company off the top of my head. Actually it's RX Crossroads,but they're on the ready to provide us with a freezer truck. We don't typically put generators on the buildings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So instead of backup electricity you have backup cold storage. That's even better. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. RENSHAW-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-It's really the plasma you've got to keep cold. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR.DIXON-What do you do with the remaining cells? You're going to get the plasma,the red cells. Are you going to the sewer system? How are you disposing of that,or are you using it? MR. RENSHAW-I'm sorry. I was having a little bit of trouble hearing that,Erik. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes. Aaron, the question was, after the separation, is there medical waste involved, how is that handled? MR.RENSHAW-Yes,good question. Very good question. We do have medical waste. We are using soft goods and sterile supplies and things like that. The medical waste that we generate is kept in biohazardous waste containers that are handled only by the people that are trained to handle the bio medical waste. The bio medical waste is kept in a locked and secured room until it's picked up. We generally pick up that, it's generally picked up twice a week by a company called Stericycle. Stericycle takes it to heir facility and they incinerate it. MR. TRAVER-So it doesn't go into the municipal waste drain. MR. RENSHAW-Absolutely not. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Sounds like they've got everything covered. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I would say. Ingenious. Other questions,comments,concerns? MR. ETU-Will Aldi remain the owner,fee owner,and this is the tenant? MR. SANDBLOM-Aaron,is Immunotek purchasing the property or will you be leasing it? MR. RENSHAW-No. We will be purchasing the property. MR. ETU-Is there a PSA or something? MR. SANDBLOM-Do you have a purchase sale agreement currently in place? MR. RENSHAW-We are working through that right now. I believe we are getting ready to. I believe the letter of intent has been signed. We're currently in purchase agreement negotiations as we speak. We cannot finalize the purchasing agreement until we're zoned. MR. DIXON-And is storage just through regular freezers, or are you using liquid nitrogen at all in the storage tanks? MR. SANDBLOM-Are you using liquid nitrogen,Aaron? MR.RENSHAW-No. We just use Freon to make sure our freezers are cold enough. We do not use liquid nitrogen. MR. DEEB-And these are the colors? MR. SANDBLOM-Yes,those are the colors. MR. DEEB-I like the muted colors. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-Is this a typical,I mean it's a great re-using the site. Re-using the building is terrific. You've got 36 beds. I give blood quite a bit to the Red Cross and they're begging me constantly. Hooked before the meeting. In the past week they called me four times to give blood. I mean do you have a lot of donors to necessitate and keep this building going? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. SANDBLOM-Did you hear that,Aaron? MR. RENSHAW-I'm sorry,I heard parts of it. Could you repeat that,please? MR. SANDBLOM-Essentially how do you foresee having enough donors to kind of fill the facility,I guess. MR. RENSHAW Yes,that's a really good question. We'll start off,I know that the facility is,the design is for 36 beds. We will start out most likely with only 12 beds and then we'll have a controlled ramp up until we get to that many beds. We may not need all 36 beds ever. We may only get up to 30 beds,but we'll do a controlled ramp up. MR. DIXON-Are these paid donors? MR. RENSHAW-Yes,we do compensate donors for the time that they spend in the facility. The average payment that a donor receives every time they donate is about$100 per donation. MR. SANDBLOM-I think you just got some new potential donors. MR. TRAVER-So,let's see, did I open a public hearing on this application? If not I will open it now. Is there anyone that wanted to comment on this application to the Planning Board? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there other questions,comments from members of the Board before we proceed? MR. DEEB-So you pay your donors, and then you sell it to different institutions? MR. SANDBLOM-So, Aaron,the question was,I guess,what do you do with your product? Is it sold to medical facility? MR. RENSHAW So what we do is we sell it to a fractionation facility,so a large pharmaceutical company that has a fractionation facility. What that fractionation facility does,it's a large lab,if you will,that they go through a process of fractionation which pulls out,it separates the proteins and the hemoglobin's from the plasma itself. That's what the water portion of the blood is. The water portion of the blood is the plasma an plasma contains proteins and hemoglobins. In the fractionation lab those proteins and hemoglobins are extracted and made into specific medications for hemophiliacs for example or burn victims or other biological products where people are missing a certain factor within their blood and so for example,the example of hemophiliacs,we will replace what's called albumen in order for hemophiliacs to live a normal life. So they don't bleed out, if you will, but we do sell our products to larger biopharmaceutical companies that have the facilities in order to make the medications. MR. DEE&Wow. MR. TRAVER-Very good. MR. MAGOWAN-Boy we've come a long way. MR. RENSHAW-It's quite a fascinating process. I've been in a number of fractionation plants in the United States and in Europe and I can't tell you how amazing the process really is. It's quite astounding actually. MR. DEEB-What's it called? MR. SANDBLOM-Fractionation. MR. DEEB-Fractionation. MR. RENSHAW-Fractionation,yes. MRS. MOORE-What are the hours of operation? Is it a seven day a week operation? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. RENSHAW-Good question. We will start out opening up on Tuesdays through Saturday and we will be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.until we start to ramp up with a solid donor base, and then we would like to open up,expand that to Monday through Saturday and open up from S a.m.to 6 p.m.once we start to mature. MR. DEEB-Aldi's was open a lot longer. Certainly you're going to impact traffic. You're going to have a lot less traffic,fewer cars. MRS.MOO RE-So I have another question. Do you feel that this is,where else are you located that would be the next closest facility from this facility? MR. RENSHAW-The next closest facility will be either Johnson City, New York, Binghamton,Johnson City,or Syracuse,whichever one's closest. I'm not sure which one is closer to Queensbury. MR. MAGOWAN-I would just like to reach out and thank you for picking Queensbury. We are a hub. We take in Vermonters. Now that I understand your clientele base,this is sure interesting. MR.RENSHAW-Yes. We pick communities that we feel we can certainly have a positive impact on. Just the community impact. The economic impact of a typical center on the community is estimated at about five million dollars a year, and that includes both employees' salaries, as well as monies provided to the donor from their donation from the time that they spend at the center. We hire employees directly from the Town of Queensbury. We don't bring people in from other communities. So we provide anywhere between 40 to 50 positions,40 to 50 jobs,and we also provide on the job training. So people can come in without any kind of medical type of background or any kind of skill set whatsoever.. We provide them with that skill set, and on top of that,we provide them with a pretty good wage. So our center directors can make up to $55,000 a year. Most of them start out at around$75,000 a year, and that's for our entire leadership team,and then our line staff,which can be people that come in with no experience whatsoever, we typically pay them about$15 per hour to start. MR. TRAVER-Very good. MR. DIXON-I just have another question,more out of curiosity. So the plasma that you spin down,is it ready to be infused or it has to go for a secondary process somewhere else? MR. RENSHAW-I didn't catch the last part of that. Erik,could you repeat that for me? MR. SANDBLOM-Yes. Does the product, or what you obtain,the plasma that you obtain at this center, is it ready for use or does it need further processing somewhere else? MR. RENSHAW No. It needs further processing because what we collect is just the raw plasma,just the water portion of the blood which is the plasma,and then we send it out to a fractionator and they process it at the fractionation plant. So there's no,basically we just collect the plasma in the facility. It's a very simple process, and it's fractionated and further manufactured at a fractionation facility. MR. TRAVER-So this is a collection for transfusions and stuff. MR. RENSHAW-Exactly. It's very similar to what the Red Cross does, only we're not taking the whole blood. We're only taking the water portion of the blood. We return the red blood cells back to the donor. MR. DEEB-How about platelets? Do you do platelets? MR. RENSHAW We don't do platelets. There are facilities in the country,there are companies that do platelets as well,but we do not do platelets at all. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. I guess we're ready for that resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#63-2022 IMMUNOTEK BIO CENTERS The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to reuse the existing 15,500 sq. ft. former Aldi building for a blood plasma donation facility. The project includes reusing the existing site,parking area and access points to Quaker Road. Site work includes clean-up of parking area and landscaping. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for a new use in a CI 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; 3S (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) 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 9/20/2022 and continued the public hearing to 9/20/2022,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 9/20/2022; 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 63-2022 IMMUNOTEK BIO CENTERS;Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:g.site lighting,h.signage,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as there are no proposed changes to the site it is a reuse of the building and parking area; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20`h day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you very much. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/20/2022) MR. DEEB-Thanks for the education,too. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank my client. That was all him. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-If not I'll take a motion to adjourn. MR. ETUS-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20,2022,Introduced by Nathan Etu who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 20`h day of September,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody. See you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 40