Loading...
06-20-2023 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING JUNE20TH 2O23 INDEX Site Plan No. 37-2022 AC Power 31 1. Freshwater Wetlands S-2022 Tax Map No. 303.20-2-50,303.202-4S.1 Special Use Permit 2-2022 IS-MONTH EXTENSION REQUEST Site Plan No.5-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.227.17-1-25,227-17-1-24 (Septic) Site Plan No.45-2023 Bay Road Self Storage 3. Freshwater Wetlands 9-2023 Tax Map No. 302.S-2-17,302.S-2-21; ZBA RECOMMENDATION 302.E-2-20 (Lot Line Adj.),302.E-2-24 Site Plan No.41-2023 Roaring Brook,LLC/Valvoline 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.6-1-52 Site Plan No.44-2023 Great Escape Theme Park,LLC 9 Freshwater Wetlands S-2023 Tax Map No.2SS.20-1-20 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No.4-2023 Sean Palladino& Sarah Lockhart-Palladino 12. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.265.-1-43 Subdivision No.5-2023 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 6S-2022 Faden Enterprises 14. Freshwater Wetlands 13-2022 Tax Map No.2SS.-1-5S Site Plan No.43-2023 William Levett 20. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.226.19-2-9 Site Plan No.42-2023 Lisa&Charles Munzenmaier 22. Tax Map No.239.12-2-95 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 06/20/2023) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY NATHAN ETU WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK FRITZ STEFANZICK,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN 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,June 20`h,2023. This is our first meeting for the month of June and our 13`h meeting thus far for 2023. Please note the illuminated emergency exits. In case of an emergency, those are the emergency exits. If you have a cellphone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to disrupt our proceedings, we would appreciate that, and aside from the public hearing, which we only have two items of public hearings toward the end of the meeting, if you wish to have a conversation amongst yourselves, if you would go out to the outer lobby for that conversation we would appreciate that. To start the evening we have a couple of administrative items. The first is the approval of minutes from April. That's April 18 and April25, and if there's anyone on the Board that has any adjustments,corrections to those minutes? Okay. I guess we're ready for that motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 18`h,2023 April 25`h,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 18`h AND APRIL 25`h,2023,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark: Duly adopted this 20`h day of June,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR.TRAVER-All right. Thank you,and the next item is a request for an 18 month extension for Site Plan 37-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 8-2022 and Special Use Permit 2-2022 for AC Power 31. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 37-2022, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 8-2022 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2022 AC POWER 31—REQUEST 18 MONTH EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is requesting an extension. They're in the process of working with the Town to finalize their decommissioning plan,which I feel is very close and they're at naming a private road and addressing and things like that. So I think it's pretty close. It's just the fact that we need to finish those up and this application actually runs out before those will finish. So they're asking for a year extension I believe. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. TRAVER-Yes,I understand. MRS. MOORE-Actually they're asking for an I8 month extension if that works for everyone. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood. All right. Any questions,comments on that request? All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING IS-MONTH EXTENSION SP 37-2022 FWW 8-2022 AC POWER 31 The following application for Site Plan 37-2022 was submitted: Applicant proposed to utilize 44.1 acres between lower Warren and the Hudson River of a 62.72 acre parcel for a new solar farm of 5MW AC with fixed panels. The project proposes disturbance less than 25 acres. The number of panels would be 11,804 to be installed over 9 acres of property. The project includes preparation of the property for installation of the panels, access drive areas on the site and access through an adjoining parcel to the east. Stormwater management,landscaping and fencing to be included as well. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 37-2022 on June 23, 2022. Applicant is requesting an 18 month extension. MOTION TO APPROVE AN 18 MONTH EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 37-2022,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 8-2022&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2022 ACPOWER31,LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-The next and last Administrative Item is Site Plan 5-2023 for Geraldine Eberlein. SITE PLAN 5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN—TABLE TO JULY 18,2023 MEETING MR. TRAVER-Note that the agenda calls for a request for a tabling to the July 18`h meeting and we have been notified this evening that that request has been amended to the second meeting in August which would be the August 15`h,2023 meeting. MRS. MOO RE-So it will be the first meeting,sorry. It will be the first meeting in August. MR. TRAVER-The first meeting in August. Any questions,comments on that request? Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN (Revised)Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,411 sq. ft., an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq. ft. and a new floor area of 3,343 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for newpermeable driveway,stormwater management,and shoreline landscaping. The project includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining property and moved to the East property line. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark. Tabled until the August 15,2023 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first item is Bay Road Self Storage. This is Site Plan 45-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 9-2023. This is,I understand,Phase II of an ongoing project. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) SITE PLAN NO. 45-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 9-2023 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): KUBRICKY JOHN &z SONS, INC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 290 BAY ROAD &z BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDEVELOP AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE WITH 11 NEW SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS FOR A TOTAL OF 478 UNITS. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS 61,800 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES ACCESS FROM BAY ROAD AND CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING ACCESS FOR THE ADJACENT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. THE SITE WILL HAVE PARKING AREAS, SECONDARY CURB CUT, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF 302.8-2-20 AND A LOT MERGER OF 302.8-2-17, 302.8-2-21 AND 302.8-2-24. THE SITE HAS A STREAM AND WETLANDS THAT WILL NOT BE DISTURBED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN THE CLI ZONE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND ROAD FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 17- 2002, SP 24-2002, AV 66-2018, AV 22-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2023. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 2.55 ACRES/6.78 ACRES/0.17 ACRES/5.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-17,302.8-2-21,302.8-2-20(LOT LINE ADJ.),302.8-2-24. SECTION: 179-3- 040,CHAPTER 94. JON ZAPPER&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to re-develop an existing industrial site with 11 new self storage buildings for a total of 47S units. The building footprint ends up being 61,500 square feet. Site work includes access from Bay Road and connection to the existing access for the adjacent self-storage. The site will have parking area, secondary curb cut, stormwater management and landscaping. There's a lot line adjustment between a few parcels in this area. The site has a stream and wetlands that will not be disturbed,but the project occurs within 100 feet of that as well as one building that will be within 75 feet. Whereas variance relief is only for the setbacks to that one building. There is not a variance for road frontage because they're going to merge all those lots as one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design and John Davidson, one of the members of the applicant, Bay Road Self Storage is here. So as you know Phase I was approved by this Board, constructed, and it looks very nice with landscaping instead of the bike path. This is an in-fill project if you will because it fills the space in front of Duke Concrete which is an industrial looking site and this is kind of overgrown. The variance that we're asking you to recommend is just one building,as Laura said,which is 65 feet from the wetlands. It's not a State wetland. It's a Federal wetland. There's no buffer under Army Corps. Queensbury has a buffer. So it's just one portion of one building that's 65 feet instead of 75 feet. It's very minor,but more important than that, there's no stormwater that's going into the wetland. Everything's being designed. Brandon will talk about that in a few minutes. There's no impact on the wetland. On Bay Road when you drive by there's nice,mature trees in front of this site. Those are going to remain. There's also a tree line in front of the wetland. We'll show you on the map,but the wetland's sort of at the center of the site and those trees will be maintained as well. Then in terms of operations,because this is a Phase II, the office and bathroom are in Phase I. So they don't have to be repeated because they'll function together as one project. So it's just a nice way to fill that space,which has been sitting therefor awhile and the first one came out very well. So with that I'll turn it over to Brandon to give you some details. MR. FERGUSON-Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership. The existing lot is 9.18 acres. It's mostly vacant now. There is an area near the front that is used by the current owners for occasional storage of construction equipment,materials. A lot of it's wooded now. It's in a CLI zone. It's bounded by Duke Concrete to the east. To the north is kind of small commercial sites. To the south is Phase I of the self storage and to the west is a small commercial,residential and then Bay Road. Across the street I think it's like manufacturing. So it fits well within the area. The applicant's proposing 11 new self storage buildings with a total of 47S units. As Laura said,the access would be from the private road. That currently serves Phase I as well as secondary access from Bay Road. There's no office space on this side. It's going to,they're going to be using the Phase I as office and stormwater. This is over an acre so we did stormwater design in accordance with New York State DEC standards. So everything from the paved and building areas is going to sheet flow off into swales at the edge of the pavement. It's going to convey everything to some infiltration basins. They'll be allowed to attenuate and infiltrate into the ground. So nothing's discharging through those wetland areas. As far as the variance goes,it's Building 10,which is kind of on the private road side of the lot that's within the 75 foot setback. It's only actually 100/o of that building that falls within that 75 foot shoreline setback. The closest is gets is 65 feet in one 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) location, and this building is actually in the area where there's an existing clearing and the existing now, so it's not like we're putting that building within an existing buffer. As far as protecting the wetland on site, we're maintaining a buffer around the wetlands, 35 feet in most areas. We're doing the stormwater management to prevent anything from running directly into it. There's actually a fence going around the self storage, as far as self storage security,but also would prevent any debris or anything,like if somebody drops a box, it would prevent any litter from blowing into those wetlands. So the wetlands on the site will be well protected. We did get an e-mail from Army Corps saying that there's no permit required on this site. So they looked at what we're doing on the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I know our discussion tonight is for the variance that you're requesting,but I did want outline a few additional pieces of information you're going to need for site plan review and the ZBA may have these questions as well, and that is the light impact, the average foot candles for the site with pole and wall mounted fixtures. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,I believe that was submitted with the application to the Town. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then that's taken care of. Snow removal locations be provided. And details of the storage buildings,footprint. So that's. MR. FERGUSON-I believe that we submitted a typical footprint for the buildings. They're all, I mean a little different makes,but they're all constructed the same way. Sorry I didn't mention that. As far as the look of the building, I know we submitted a few pictures with the site plan application of the existing buildings in Phase I because they're going to match that style. So it's kind of a brown doors,red roof. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STEFANZIK-Is it going to look the same as Phase I? MR. FERGUSON-That's right. MR. STEFANZIK-Any lessons learned from Phase I? Especially like in terms of how the access is used for the people to get there,traffic and all that? MR. FERGUSON John's here. JOHN DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-It went very well. MR.STEFANZIK-And then access to all the storage facilities. What usually goes in there,like trucks and vans and trailers? MR. TRAVER-If you could state your name as well. MR. DAVIDSON John Davidson with Kubricky Construction. So at times there may be a tractor trailer parked like a North American group van or something,but most of them are like U-Haul van and they all get around fine. MR. STEFANZIK-You can access that 24/7? MR. DAVIDSON-We have limited access unless you need special access. So I think it locks at 10 o'clock at night until five or six in the morning. If you need overnight access there's another fee. We just try to limit the number of people that are coming in and out 24 hours. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from the Board? MRS. MOORE-I'll just jump in. In reference to lighting, it doesn't show the lighting foot candle, the average of the site, and then the other was in reference to like the color scheme of the units. I'm assuming that they're going to be similar to the previous ones. It just needs to be clear. MR.DIXON-In regards to the variance,not that it necessarily has a major impact,but are you planning on storing any RV's or boats,any vehicle storage whatsoever there? MR. FERGUSON-So RV's and boats wouldn't fit within the structures. MR. DIXON-I'm just thinking,as close as you are to the wetlands. MR. DAVIDSON-We'd like to do a temporary,you know, as we phase this,we'd like to do some RV and boat storage,yes. We can keep that well away from the wetlands. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. DIXON-Okay. And I guess be prepared to speak to that when we get to Site Plan as well. MR. DAVIDSON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-The concern there is obviously fluids and so on endangering the wetlands. MR.DIXON-The other item that I had in my notes,again,that it won't be a variance,but probably for Site Plan,you're showing an extra curb cut. It looked like two cuts on the private road and then one on Bay Road. It didn't look like there's really a real reason why it should be there. It'd be nice to limit the curb cuts on that road. So, again,be prepared to speak to that. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,we can look at that. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR.DEEB-Building 10,you're asking for a variance. If you cut the scale down on Building 10,you wouldn't need a variance. Right? I mean you've got 400 and something units. MR.ZAPPER-The answer is yes,but because it's only a very small portion of that building and because no stormwater is going from that building into the wetland, there's no impact. It's still 65 feet from the wetland. So that 10 feet,there's just no impact to taking that away. It's protected. MR. DEEB-I know you said it was only 100/o of the building. MR. TRAVER-Of the building,yes. MR. DEEB-And the other thing is, I know Jon's going to hate me,but the landscaping, and I know we're not doing site plan tonight,but I was kind of disappointed with the other buildings with the first phase, because I would have like to have seen it hidden more. Everybody knows I'm not a fan of storage sheds. MR. ZAPPER-There's room in the front of where the existing trees are on Bay Road that that can be augmented. We'll talk about that. MR. DEEB-All right. Because I'd like to see it,I mean I wouldn't even like to see it if possible. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, and I know on Phase I there really wasn't a buffer existing along that road there. There is here kind of a mature buffer. MR. DEEB-And then I know we can't look at Phase I. We're already done with that. I'd love to see more landscaping there. MR. ZAPPER-Okay. We'll be prepared to talk about all that. Thanks for giving us a heads up. MR. DEEB-I'm not trying to hurt Jon,but. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments regarding the variance? Are there any specific issues that we want to forward to the attention of the ZBA as they look at this variance? Okay. I guess we're ready for a resolution. MRS.MOO RE-I'm just going to offer one other item. In reference to storage of certain exterior items such as boats and RV's,that actually probably falls under a separate review process. So that it's something that I'll look at and talk to the applicant about, but that may not be, this is specific to self-storage with the building's interior. So there may be other processes that need to be followed if they were going to do something exterior. MR. TRAVER-Right. I think that they were, well,you're going to have discussions with them. I think that they were talking about during the construction phase, but, whatever. That certainly needs to be clarified. MR. DEE&Well,I'm not sure,you're talking about permanent storage. Just during construction? MR. DAVIDSON-We did it in Phase I. In Phase I we did it on the access land at the beginning of the project,and then we push them all out of there. MR. TRAVER-Staff will follow up with you on that. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. STEFANZIK-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I do have just another question. I did read somewhere in the report about parking problems on historic sites in this area. Is that something that you've looked into, archeological? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. We reached out to SHPO. We got a letter of no impact. MR. STEFANZIK-Nothing there. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. I guess we're ready for that resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#22-2023 BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to redevelop an existing industrial site with 11 new self-storage buildings for a total of 478 units. The building footprint is 61,800 sq.ft. Site work includes access from Bay Road and connection to the existing access for the adjacent self- storage facility. The site will have parking areas, secondary curb cut, stormwater management and landscaping. Project includes a lot line adjustment of 302.8-2-20 and a lot merger of 302.8-2-17, 302.82-21 and 302.8-2-24. The site has a stream and wetlands that will not be disturbed. Pursuant to chapter 179-3- 040,site plan for a new commercial use in the CLI zone and hard surfacing within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance:Relief is sought for setbacks and road frontage. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 22-2023 BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE., 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 Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 20`h day of July 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everyone. MR. FERGUSON-Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is William Levett. This is Site Plan 43-2023. This is also a recommendation to the ZBA. Laura? MRS. MOORE-I just want to make sure someone's here in the audience for Mr. Levett. Is anybody here for Mr. Levett? MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will set this aside and continue on with our agenda for now. So we move on to the next item on our agenda,which is Roaring Brook,LLC/Valvoline. This is application Site Plan 41-2023. This also is a review for a recommendation to the ZBA on that application. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROARING BROOK, LLC/VALVOLINE. AGENT(S): JOHN REILLY, AIA. OWNER(S): ROARING BROOK, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 740 GLEN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A FACADE UPGRADE TO AN EXISTING 2,201.83 SQ.FT.BUILDING AND NEW SIGNAGE. THE NEW FACADE INCLUDES A FALSE FACADE FOR A PORTION OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE ROOFLINE WOULD BE UP TO 19.5 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE REMAINDER OF THE ROOFLINE WOULD REMAIN AT THE 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) EXISTING 14 FT. HEIGHT. THE FACADE CHANGE WOULD INCLUDE A NEW 30 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ANEW 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AS WELL. THE FACADE COLORS ARE SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS COLORS: BROWN FOR THE BUILDING WITH RED, WHITE AND BLUE SIGNAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR FACADE UPGRADES AND PRE-EXISTING SHED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 60-1990,AV 43-1990,AV 87-2003,AV 18-2023, SV 1345-20003, UV 42-1990. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2023. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: .3 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-52. SECTION: 179-3-040. SAM BURDEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is primarily for the facade upgrade to an existing 2,201.53 square foot building and new signage. The new facade includes a false facade for a portion of the building where the roofline is raised almost to 19.5 feet. The remainder of the roofline would remain at the existing 14 feet.. The facade change would include anew 30 square foot wall sign. The project includes also anew 45 square foot freestanding sign. So they're moving a non-compliant sign to a compliant location The fagade colors are similar ,browns, with some red and white and blue signage, and then in reference to the variance it's relief for setbacks to the new portion of the false facade that's raised over 19 feet. So the building itself is not moving. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you,Laura. Good evening. MR. BURDEN-Good evening. Sam Burden,for the record,with Bohler Engineering here on behalf of the owner, Roaring Brook, LLC. The project, as Laura said,is located at 740 Glen Street in the Town. The site is currently developed with a 2200 square foot automotive service facility, four bay facility. Site's located in the CI, Commercial Intensive zoning district. Seeking Site Plan approval, but tonight recommendation to the ZBA for the setback variances as Laura said. The applicant, again, as Laura mentioned, is proposing some facade upgrades with new brick veneer, a raised roof element with brick veneer and stucco piers. That's all on the elevations we've provided. New pylon signs and wall signs are proposed as well. Really just trying to clean up the existing sign and make a new more in line with the Commercial Intensive architectural elements of that area. It's pretty minor in nature,but the applicant is seeking a recommendation to the ZBA for the front and side yard variances and no changes in operation, personnel or parking are going to be included as part of this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So am I correct in understanding that the variances come into play because of the pre-existing,non-conforming building and not because of the fagade? MR. BURDEN-I believe it's because of the new facade. The new brick veneer actually sticks out slightly further. MR. TRAVER-Okay. It can't stick out too much. MR.BURDEN-No,it's the veneer. I believe the variance is a foot and a half. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.STEFANZIK-Is there one owner for that entire building,that entire strip that has Sherwin Williams? One owner of that entire building? MRS. MOORE-So that's a separate property. MR.BURDEN-That's a separate property. I'm sorry,I wasn't aware if there is or there isn't. MR. STEFANZICK-Okay. Because now it's part of a longer strip of buildings. MR.BURDEN-No,this is a freestanding. MRS. MOORE-Freestanding building. MR.BURDEN-Directly across from the Aldi and Five Below there. MR. DEEB-It's been there a while. MR. BURDEN-Yes. The idea is just to really clean up the site and make it more up to date with all the new development that's going on in the area. S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. LONGACKER-How tall is that existing sign out there? MR.BURDEN-I believe it's 20 feet. MR. LONGACKER-So you're going to match it. MR.BURDEN-Yes,all the signage is compliant,making the non-compliant in conformance with the Code. MR. DIXON-You have limited options of what you can really do there. When you do return for Site Plan, if you can look and see if there's any possibility of improving the greenery on the, I guess it would be the southeast side. There's a little swath of grass. Even if you can get a tree in there. Anything would be an improvement. MR.BURDEN-Southwest side you said? MR. DIXON-Southeast. MR.BURDEN-Southeast. MR. DIXON-Adjacent to the other plaza. There's a little piece of grass. It's just there's so much asphalt. It would be nice to cool it down a little bit, if possible, but the variances themselves I don't have any problem with. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Does anyone have any other questions or comments and/or concerns that we wanted to share with the ZBA on this variance request? If not I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#IS-2023 ROARING BROOK,LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes a facade upgrade to an existing 2,201.53 sq. ft. building and new signage. The new facade includes a false facade for a portion of the building where the roofline would be up to 19.5 ft. in height. The remainder of the roofline would remain at the existing 14 ft.height. The facade change would include a new 30 sq.ft.wall sign. The project includes a new 45 sq. ft. free standing sign as well. The facade colors are similar to the previous colors: brown for the building with red,white and blue signage.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for facade upgrades ad preexisting shed shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 18-2023 ROARING BROOK, LLC/VALVOLINE.,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 Brady Stark Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.BURDEN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone here for the Levett application? No? Okay. We'll continue to hold on that,and we'll move along. The next application,which is also a referral to the ZBA for a variance,is Site Plan 44-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands application 5-2023. This is for Great Escape Theme Park,LLC. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) SITE PLAN NO.44-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 8-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK,LLC. AGENT(S): BARTON AND LOGUIDICE. O WNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC. LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SITE PLAN FOR THE PATRON ENTRY AREA AT THE GREAT ESCAPE. THE EXISTING 2,830 SQ. FT. BUILDING IS TO BE MODIFIED WITH A 490 SQ. FT. PERGOLA AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND A 430 SQ. FT. PERGOLA AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. PREVIOUS PLANS FOR A SEPARATE 1,150 SQ. FT. TICKET BUILDING ARE NOT BEING COMPLETED AT THIS TIME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND CHAPTER 94, SITE PLAN FOR NEW PERGOLAS IN AN RC ZONE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 5- 2017, SP 28-2017, SP 15-2018, SP 3-2019, SP 54-2019, SP 67-2019, SP 3-2022, AV 6-2022, FWW 1- 2022,AV 21-2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JUNE 2023. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 237.64 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.288.20-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040,CHAPTER 94. BRAD GRANT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to modify an existing site plan for the entry area of The Great Escape. There is an existing 2,830 square foot building that is to be modified with a pergola at the front of 490 square feet and then a pergola to the rear of that at 480 square feet. The previous plans had a separate ticket building. Instead they're incorporating their ticket sales into, or their ticket information into this one building that's pre-existing. They're not constructing this ticket building that was previously proposed at this time. The variances are in reference to setbacks and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GRANT-Good evening. My name is Brad Grant,Project Manager with Barton and Loguidice. Here to answer any questions, but I kind of wanted to start with the purpose of this project. There's two pergolas, as Laura mentioned, at the front and the rear. Both will be attached to, as an addition to an existing building. It will have some modest improvements to it, but the essential purpose of the front pergola is to provide a shady cover for both the guests who are in line getting tickets and particularly to the staff and the computer systems that face the direct sunlight. It comes across there. The computer systems don't always operate well when they're over-heating. So it would reduce glare for the staff. The pergolas will have a permeable roof system that will provide some shade structure that really doesn't exist now. The rear pergola,very similar area,with a similar purpose. That's for a hospitality area,people for, you know,membership services or kind of guests that have issues would go there to get some assistance from staff. So that's kind of the purpose of the structures. The front pergola is 24 and a half by 20 feet and extends out towards Route 9. Part of the setback requirements,DOT had a fairly large taking for that stream that comes underneath the Northway and then Route 9 and into the site,but a taking that is well into the site beyond your typical DOT right of way. So both pergolas will need variances for setbacks. The rear pergola is 21 and a half feet by 20 feet. That has front setback variance and then to the water of the swan channel and receives some of the natural runoff. That will be 52 and a half feet versus the 75 feet from the water. There's a number of materials for this,some of which were the waivers that we're asking from the Planning Board which would be landscaping and stormwater management,grading and lighting plans. The lighting will be provided by the, on the building itself underneath the pergola roof,if you will, and while there's really no landscaping there,the front is kin of a paved area there for significant pedestrian traffic coming up to get their tickets. The other things from the Planning Board,waivers we're asking for, is stormwater management. These are existing potentially hardscaped areas. The rear pergola will have a permeable paver system and will infiltrate runoff mimicking the natural cycle and it is attached, as we said,to an existing structure. We're asking for a waiver from the as built survey also. Each pergola will have four posts coming up, attached to concrete footings, and then have like a louvre type of roof that'll give some shape,structure that doesn't exist now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You mentioned DOT. Are you going to need to get any variances from DOT for this setback issue? MR. GRANT-No. There are existing structures that are close to that indentation in their right of way, but they really don't affect what they're taking for the land. Essentially it's an addition to the existing structure. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I know you're here for the variance this evening,but just in preparation for the Site Plan Review,and I don't remember if I saw it in your application,a maintenance plan for the permeable pavers. We generally like to see that because they become clogged and they need periodic maintenance, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) otherwise they just cease to function. So something to think about with that. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.STEFANZIK-I wasn't able to figure out how to get back there without paying for a ticket,but by that rear pergola,there's a wall in the picture. Does that exist there now or is that going to be added,that stone wall? MR. GRANT-There's a fence, an iron fence. MR. STEFANZIK-That's an iron fence. MR. GRANT-So it's going to be inside that. MR. STEFANZIK-That iron fence is there now? MR. GRANT-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. DIXON-Mine will be more Site Plan. You're talking about waivers from having included on your plans as far as plantings, anything of that nature. You're not proposing anything. It still looks like the front pergola would have an opportunity to improve the greenery there as well,too. I always get twitchy any time I see a lot of blacktop out there. If you could improve that. I mean I think it would be beautiful if you added a couple of trees out there. I know I would probably drop dead out there in the heat. MR. GRANT-Yes. Another alternative to that is planters,you know,with perennials that might not be as tall as a tree,versus having to penetrate the hard scape that's there now. MR. DIXON-Yes, and I'm thinking more in terms of trees that would provide shade that will provide a cooling effect also on your pergola. So, again,be prepared to speak at Site Plan. I know you've got your purpose that you're going through and I think there's an opportunity there. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. DEEB-Could you repeat the setbacks that you stated in your presentation. Did I hear 50 something feet in there? MR. GRANT-Yes. Let's do them one at a time. The front pergola,the front setback,which is to the DOT taking there,is 16 and a half feet,which is less than 30,thus the request for the waiver. MRS.MOORE-So that really is,that setback is a 75 foot setback requirement no matter what. The 30 feet sort of goes away because you have a requirement of the 75. MR. DEEB-But the second one,I thought I heard 50. MR. GRANT-I was talking about the rear pergola, but the water does come in in that DOT taking. So there is a shoreline setback of 75 feet and there's some 50 feet in there. The rear pergola front setback is, again,to the DOT taking. The 66.5 feet from the 75. MR. DEEB-Okay. I'm okay now. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So is there shorelines? You have 32.5 feet to the shoreline to the swan boat area, and then 50,I didn't catch that one. What's the other one? MR. GRANT-Fifty-two,for the rear pergola? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. GRANT-Yes,there's water in the back,which that is 52 and a half feet,which is less than the 75 feet, and then from the closest point of the rear pergola it is 6S,66.5 feet to the taking which the water,edge of the stream coming in is close to that. So again less than the 75 feet. MRS. MOORE-So I guess I'm not following. So if you look at the information you sent to us, this rear pergola is 32.5 feet to the shoreline,but it sounded like, and this is what I think David's looking for, that this pergola needs a setback from water this way? MR. GRANT-That's the way I interpreted it. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MRS. MOORE-Okay. So what's the distance from this pergola to the water, and I apologize,I don't even know where the water line value is. MR. GRANT-Sixty-six point S. MRS. MOORE-That's the setback to the front setback. MR. GRANT-Yes. MRS. MOORE-But what was,you made it sound like there's a shoreline setback from the rear pergola to the front. MR.GRANT-Yes. I kind of,the exact point of where the water ends and enters a pipe and that DOT taking is pretty close to that property line,the taking. So it's not the 75 feet. It's something less than that, and about 66.S. MRS. MOO RE-I just want to make sure I'm covering. You talked about 55 something. What was the 55 value that you,52? Because it's not marked on here. There doesn't appear to be any shoreline setback. MR. TRAVER-Is there a scale on that,Laura,that you could measure? MRS.MOORE-So this is 16.5 to here,24.6 to here,and then whatever this building width is,but this value from hereto here is 66 because they have a survey that marks that. I just don't have that drawing. MR. GRANT-I've looked at my blown up plan. The water is farther towards Route 9. So it's,you know, that 66.5 is to the DOT right of way. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So there's not a setback to some shoreline that appears up here? MR. GRANT-No. MRS. MOORE-Good. All right. MR. GRANT-It's farther than 75 feet. MRS. MOORE-Perfect. That's what we want to make sure of. MR. GRANT-Yes,thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions,comments from members of the Board? Do we have any concerns regarding this variance request that we want to communicate to the ZBA that we can't resolve at Site Plan? MR. DIXON-I didn't have any. I know it's a tough piece of property. It's been there forever. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then I guess we're ready for that resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#21-2023 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to modify an existing site plan for the patron entry area at the Great Escape. The existing 2,530 sq.ft.building is to be modified with a 490 sq. ft. pergola at the front of the building and a 430 sq. ft. pergola at the rear of the building. Previous plans for a separate 1,150 sq. ft. ticket building are not being completed at this time. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 and Chapter 94, site plan for new pergolas in an RC zone,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for setbacks and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 21-2023 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) 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 Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. GRANT-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone here yet to represent Mr. Levett? MRS. MOORE-So I actually called him on the phone and he'll be here shortly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. All right. Well let's proceed with our agenda then. The next application,also for recommendation to the ZBA,is Sean Palladino and Sarah Lockhart-Palladino. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 4-2023 and Subdivision Final Stage 5-2023. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 4-2023 SUBDIVISION FINAL 5-2023 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. SEAN PALLADINO &z SARAH LOCKHART-PALLADINO. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): WALTER&z KAREN LOCKHART. ZONING: LC-10A,RR-3A. LOCATION: 1635 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 25.1 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 WILL BE 15.05 ACRES AND WILL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. LOT 2 WILL BE 10.5 ACRES AND WILL BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE SECOND LOT WILL ALSO REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, MAJOR STORMWATER AND 15% SLOPES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183, SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT WIDTH. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 23-2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 24.79 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-43. SECTION: 183. LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER- This is Unlisted SEQR. MRS.MOO RE-Yes,because there's a variance involved in this subdivision. So it's not Site Plan,but it has to go through the Preliminary Stage. So you'll eventually have to do SEQR. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR.DOBIE-Thankyou,Mr.Chairman. Good evening,Board. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering representing the Lockhart and Palladino families and my clients are in the front row, Sean Palladino and Carol Lockhart who's one of the landowners that's at 1635 Bay Road along with her husband, Walter. It's a 21 acre site which has been in the family since 1925,the Lockhart family, and I believe they owned property east of Bay Road once upon a time,before it went to the Land Conservancy. So it's called the 100 and something year old family homestead and we're just looking to do a two lot subdivision where Lot One would be just over 15 acres, will retain the Lockhart's home, the barns and then to the south of that will be Lot Two,upon which the Palladino's propose to build their new home,just over 10 acre lot. Presently there's a logging trail that was cut some years back which we're going to build a driveway over, the majority of the driveway over that logging trail. Most of the driveway's already punched in,if you will, and the house site is approximately 250 feet west of Bay Road. So it's tucked up in the woods. We did look at going higher up the hill,but it just got to be too cost prohibitive for the length of driveway. The length of driveway is right at 350 feet. By building it over the lower portion we were able to reduce our clearing as well, and our variance request is because Bay Road is an arterial or collector road, whichever the proper terminology is, each lot needs to have double the minimum road frontage within that zone, which is 400 feet. So each lot by Code would have to have S00 feet to have their own driveway, unless they shared a driveway. We looked at that and it's just not feasible to construct a driveway in the middle. It would be tremendously more earthwork and it would basically have to parallel Bay Road to the north to get back to the Lockhart's home and go right through their septic and garden area. So we propose to keep 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) the Lockhart's driveway as is and to construct our new driveway to the southernmost point of Lot Two where the existing logging trail is. So by Code they need 1600 feet of road frontage in total. They have 1,015. So we don't believe it's a significant variance request at all. We believe the home is a nice benefit to the neighborhood. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood and for the density of the subdivision,I calculate that we have enough acreage and usable land for four lots. So we don't believe it's overtaxing the land at all. So we're hereto ask for your positive recommendation to the Zoning Board and we thank you for your time and hope to see you Thursday night to wrap everything up. They plan to build their house,start late summer around Labor Day if possible. Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board on the request for a lot width variance? MR. DEEB-Are you planning to subdivide the second lot? MR. DOBIE-No. The proposal,Mr. Deeb,is for Lot One at 15 acres and Lot Two at 10 acres. MR. DEEB-You mentioned there's room for four. MR. TRAVER-Well he could. MR. DEEB-You could. MR. DOBIE-You could. He'd have to put in some kind of private road or something. MR. DEEB-He wants the 10 acres. MR. DOBIE-He wants it for himself. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? Okay,I guess we're ready to hear that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#23-2023 PALLADINO&LOCKHART The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 25.1 acre parcel. Lot 1 will be 15.05 acres and will maintain the existing home and associated site work. Lot 2 will be 10.05 acres and will be used for the construction of a single family home and associated site work. The second lot will also require site plan review for the construction of a single family home,major stormwater and 150/o slopes. Pursuant to chapter IS3, subdivision of a parcel shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot width. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 23-2023 SEAN PALLADINO &z SARAH LOCKHART PALLADINO.,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 Fritz Stefanzick. Duly adopted this 20th day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. DOBIE-Hope to see you Thursday. Thank you so much. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the next item on our agenda is under Old Business, and it's Faden Enterprises. This is Site Plan 65-2022,Freshwater Wetlands Permit 13-2022,and Special Use Permit 6-2022. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 68-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2022 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 6-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES. AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SARATOGA PRIME PROPERTIES,LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1471 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE TO CONSTRUCT 3 NEW BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ONE BUILDING OF 8,355 SQ. FT. THAT IS DESIGNATED AS 3 TENANT SPACES; 2,000 SQ. FT. FOR A DRIVE-THRU, 2,500 SQ. FT. FOR A RESTAURANT, AND 3,855 SQ. FT. FOR RETAIL SPACE. THE SECOND AND THIRD BUILDINGS WILL CONTAIN A TOTAL OF 24 UNITS OF SELF-STORAGE: EACH BUILDING WILL BE 1,740 SQ. FT.AND HAVE 12 UNITS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10-040, &z 94, SITE PLAN FOR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SELF-STORAGE FACILITY, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF A SHORELINE/WETLANDS, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT,AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 43-2002,SP 34-2004,SP 8-2006,SP 52-2011,SP 59-2014, SP 45-2015,SV 48-2014,DISC 1-2022,AV 49-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 199 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.288.-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-040,94. PAUL LUBERA,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; RUSS FADEN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So overall the applicant proposes removal of the existing building on the site to construct three new buildings and associated site work. The project includes one building of 5,355 square feet designated for three tenant spaces. Right now it includes a 2,00 square foot drive thru,a 2500 square foot restaurant and a 3,555 square foot retail. The second and third buildings would be a total of 24 units of self storage. Each building would be 1740 square feet and have 12 units each. Project occurs within,hard surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline,freshwater wetlands permit and special use permit for the self storage. In reference to the variances, the applicant received the variance approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals and that was back in April of 2023 for some minor items in reference to site plan that the applicant had to address and then there's a couple of other items that I just sort of had. The Board,if they wish to have further discussion about the building elevations,the color scheme in relation to the Route 9 corridor and just noting that final plans need to include building elevations with dimensions for the storage units, and then retaining wall detail with the dimensions and materials. So most of that information that I had listed previously has been addressed. So these are fairly minor. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LUBERA-Good evening. My name's Paul Lubera from Lansing Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the owner and applicant. As Laura had said,they're proposing to demolish the existing building and erect an 5,355 square foot building in front. That includes a restaurant and retail space along with two, 12 unit self storage units in the rear. The self storage is situated to be screened with the building and the natural vegetation as well as the proposed landscaping. We did add a couple of trees since the last revision we submitted to Laura. We also changed the site lighting,the parking lot lighting,to be more antique style. We also received technical signoff from LaBella on May 30`h. We also submitted architectural renderings. So we're here tonight to answer any questions and respectfully request consideration of approval tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and I know we spent sometime discussing this once before and you've made some improvements to that. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-Do you want comments for site plan as well just yet or do we want to? MR. TRAVER-Yes,this is not for a variance. MR. DIXON-Because the SEQR I didn't see any issues with. For Site Plan,the only,I did have a couple of concerns. One,the awning that you're demonstrating, and whenever I see the metal roofs I always think of what's on that corridor already and the one plaza that has metal roofs,the snow,rain,everything comes straight down. I would like to see either peaks or something put on there because in the wintertime,this is from personal experience,that water sets down on there. You could put a ton of salt down,but it gets very slippery, and I'd hate to see somebody slip and fall on your property. MRS. MOORE-So you're talking about the building, the elevations to the rear where they'd bring in product? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. DIXON-Elevations at the front actually. The rear,you'd like everybody to be safe,but realistically I was more concerned about anybody that's just traversing the area. So if you look at the very front you can see everything slopes towards the cars. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR.It's consistent with what's out there already. It's going to be covered. So hopefully if somebody does get out of the car they'll be on the sidewalk. MR. DIXON-So to get to that sidewalk, are you saying that they go to the far right or to the far left to get under that awning,or are they going to dodge the rain? MRS. MOORE-I guess I'll just offer that usually everyone in the middle of the winter you'll see this long yellow don't cross this line across everyone's property that says you need to be careful to not enter those areas where the snow's falling because of that tilted. I get what Mike's talking about. So most of them have a barrier that they'll throw up in the middle of winter because they have the same issues as Mike's talking about is that the snow is coming off the roof and I would assume that they have the same problem that people are complaining that they're going to damage somebody's car. So they put a barrier across those areas to keep people out of the parking spots that are too close to the building or just push them back a little bit. MR. DIXON-And at the very least I would expect, I would really make a requirement that you put snow guards on that. We ran into that with one other project,just because of our winters around here.,but I'd really like to see you do something different with that entrance. I don't know how many points of entry. I couldn't really tell that from the pictures,unless it's all,you can enter underneath any one of those spots. MR. FADEN-Any of those spots. MR. DIXON-Is there any guttering system. Even gutters are tough here in the Northeast. MR. FADEN-We have the flat roof on the main building. MR. LUBERA-It is limited to around five feet of roof width. So we're not talking the entire roof. MR. DIXON-So I guess in the winter or it's probably not even as much the winter,but when we have the thaws, it could be the winter,it could be the spring, I guess what's your game plan? So the cars,you're going to end up having to have those cars backed off probably another three feet, which could put their back end out of a parking spot. I just think that t here's got to be a better solution to it. That style roof doesn't work well in the North Country. MR. TRAVER-Although that same style is pre-existing on the other part of the building. Have you had problems with people getting struck by snow or? MRS. MOORE-It doesn't exist. He doesn't have that now. MR. FADEN-No. MR. LUBERA-It's in the same vicinity. So we're trying to stay with the same architectural concepts that are already there,to be in line with the other buildings. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR.FADEN-Like my other project in Queensbury has the peaked roof with all the entrances. It's designed to walk from store to store. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-So I'm just looking at the Staff Notes and the design guidelines for that area,you know, looking for continuity in that corridor,sufficient greenery,Adirondack theme designed. Did you say that you've changed this design or landscaping and greenery in the front part? MR. LUBERA-We added some more trees in the last go round to comply with the Town Codes,yes. MR. STEFANZICK-So that. MR. LUBERA-It meets the Code,yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. STEFANZIK-And how about on the storage building? I just have a tough time thinking that that's an Adirondack themed design, especially in a heavily touristy area. Is that covered? I mean, can you see that from Route 9? MR. LUBERA-So as positioned behind the main building between existing vegetation and proposed vegetation,it will be very hard to see that back there. MR. STEFANZIK-Even in the wintertime? MR. LUBERA-In the wintertime. MRS. MOORE-Is this the one that,this is a cross section? MR. LUBERA-We did a cross section because you were concerned about drainage with those buildings. MRS.MOORE-Right. So I just didn't know if the cross section showed,my concern was,and I think he's highlighted it, is that the way the special use permit works is the idea is it's supposed to be screened completely from public view so I didn't know if the cross section showed that or if there's some other document that showed that. MR. LUBERA-The site plan shows that building behind it,there's a slim corridor where that accesses on the one side, and depending on the angle you might be able to see, but the way, with the vegetation. It would have been with the first submittals during site plan review. MR. DIXON-The pictures,the renderings that you have,that is the color scheme that you're going with? MR. FADEN-Yes. 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? Laura,when you're ready,if you could look for written comment. MR.DEEB-When you were at the Zoning Board you kind of squeaked it out,four to three. What did they say specifically,the naysayers? MR. LUBERA-I don't remember. I can get back to you on that. I'm sorry. MR. DEEB-I just noticed it was a close vote. MR. LUBERA-It was close,but at the time we had just gotten the wetland permit. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOO RE-I'll just read this quick. This was addressed previously,but it wasn't read into the record. This was the gentleman,or the company that has property to the north of them, and so this is, "Attached is the amended plan that Russ Faden presented to me when I met him before the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on Wednesday evening. The change to the ingress/egress on the shared northern curb cut is acceptable to MT Associates." And this wasn't read into the Planning Board's records. It's been addressed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LUBERA-We did add some trees here and along here. So if you're looking back from the main road, between the building and existing vegetation,the plantings,it would be very difficult to see the proposed storage units in there. MR. STEFANZIK-The other comment I had,that corner being close to 149,that's a heavily trafficked area. Most of the time in the summertime people are crawling there and you see that in other storage facilities they're bringing in tractor trailers, they're bringing in trailers, U-hauls. How is that going to work with that traffic with them trying to cut in and cut across? MR. FADEN-I mean ideally if you have a storage unit, the best time to go there is probably not July and August. It's probably the other ten months of the year. I myself will probably have three storage units there. I try to time it so I'm not going in and out during peak season, and they're not large units. There'll 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) probably be U-hauls going in and out but it's not going to be,you know, there's only 24 units so I don't think there's going to be a lot of traffic. MR. STEFANZIK-So are you going to control when people have access to it? MR. FADEN-No. MR. ETU-Can you talk a little bit about, if you're looking at the northern proposed curb cut,is that one way only? MR. LUBERA-No,it's two. It was originally one way. We picked up the extra curb cut there,so we did make that change. MR. ETU-And then there's an escape lane it looks like next to the drive thru? MR. LUBERA-Yes. MR. FADEN-And that plan was with the other owner that reached out to me before the last Planning Board meeting. MR. LUBERA-The south is one large curb cut that extends across the property line onto the public road. MR. DEEB-Laura,can you pull up the rendition of the storage units? MR.FADEN-We kept the renderings of the storage units kind of similar to the building,building and color scheme. MR. LUBERA-I have a copy of it here. MR. DEEB-So the color scheme is quite muted. We had storage units earlier today and it just seems like so prolific in Queensbury all of a sudden. I've never seen so many storage units,but I will say that I like this rendering a lot more than bright colors,orange,green. So you softened my position somewhat on the storage units,because they do look nice, a lot nicer than the other ones. MR. TRAVER-Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act we also have to do a SEQR review for this application. Does anyone have any environmental impact concerns regarding this project? MR. STEFANZIK-I do have another question. It's more of a clarification,but when I look at this report here,it talks about higher volumes of runoffs than pre-existing conditions,and then it says about the Town Board should look at a variance for the volume. Is that part of the Zoning Board approval? MR. LUBERA-That's more of a waiver from you guys. How we looked at that,you guys have jurisdiction over that,it's because there's no infiltration on the site. So we're treating everything. We're releasing it at peaks,but there's a slight volume increase, and worked with the engineer on that. MR. STEFANZIK-So that's something that this Board is being asked to approve? MR. TRAVER-Yes,well for the waiver,yes. MR. STEFANZIK-That's part of the waiver. MR. LONGACKER-And the potential high groundwater, does that take into account high ground water as well? MR. LUBERA-It is. We're going to do some more test pits at time of construction. MR. TRAVER-So if there are no environmental concerns,first we can consider a SEQR review. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#65-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The project includes one building of 5,355 sq.ft.that is designated as 3 tenant spaces:2,000 sq. ft. for a drive-thru, 2,500 sq. ft. for a restaurant, and 3,555 sq. ft. for retail space. The second and third buildings will contain a total of 24 units of self-storage;each building will be 1,740 sq.ft.and have 12 units. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040, & 94, site plan for new commercial development and self- storage facility, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a shoreline/wetlands, freshwater wetlands permit, and special use permit for self-storage facility shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 68-2022,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2022 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 6-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Next we can consider the Site Plan, Freshwater Wetlands and Special Use Permit approvals. MR. DIXON-All right,and before I read that,Laura,did you want the final plans to include the elevations and facade,from what I heard earlier? Okay. MRS. MOORE-In reference to elevations, it's talking about dimensions and height and things like that. You were talking about waivers. Were there waivers being requested? MR. LUBERA-For the stormwater,LaBella suggested a waiver for the increase in volume. MR. DIXON-And as an applicant,were you willing to put on the snow guards at least? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#65-2022 FWW 13-2022 SUP#6-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The project includes one building of 5,355 sq.ft.that is designated as 3 tenant spaces:2,000 sq. ft. for a drive-thru, 2,500 sq. ft. for a restaurant, and 3,555 sq. ft. for retail space. The second and third buildings will contain a total of 24 units of self-storage;each building will be 1,740 sq.ft.and have 12 units. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040, & 94, site plan for new commercial development and self- storage facility, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a shoreline/wetlands, freshwater wetlands permit, and special use permit for self-storage facility shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/1S/2022; the ZBA approved the variance on 4/19/2023-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/25/2022 and continued the public hearing to 6/20/2023,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 6/20/2023; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) 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 68-2022, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2022 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 6-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted—see letter n; 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. 1) This Special Use Permit will be permanent. m) Final site plans to include elevations which will have dimensional height as well as the facade. n) Waivers granted for stormwater volume. o) Applicant to include snow guards on the front awning. p) This Special Use Permit will be permanent for the storage units. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2023 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Also in reference to Special Use Permit, I'm assuming you're, there's opportunity for Temporary, Permanent, or Renewable. So in reference to the storage units,how does the Board wish to handle that? MR. DIXON-Laura,that's just for the storage unit alone? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DIXON-Please amend that to include, L, This Special Use Permit will be permanent for the storage units. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Dixon ABSENT: Mr. Magowan 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. TRAVER-Okay. You're all set. MR. FADEN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there someone here for the Levett application? MR. LEVETT-Yes. I apologize for missing the meeting start time. MR. TRAVER Just a note for the audience and the Board,we're going to return to an earlier portion of our agenda which included the referrals to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we are now considering William Levett. This is Site Plan 43-2023. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO.43-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. WILLIAM LEVETT. OWNER(S): WILLIAM LEVETT&z JANELLE LEJUEZ. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 27 SUNSET LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING 900 SQ. FT. DECK WITH AN 810 SQ. FT. DECK THAT CONTAINS A SCREENED IN PORCH PORTION OF 270 SQ.FT. A 144 SQ.FT PORTION OF THE DECK HAD BEEN REMOVED DURING THE SEPTIC ALTERATION. THE EXISTING 1,112 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME, 563 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND 120 SQ. FT. SHED WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-4-080, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 30-1997. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: .26 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.226.19-2-9. SECTION: 179-3-040,179- 4-080. WILLIAM LEVETT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to replace an existing 900 square foot deck with an S10 square foot deck and a portion of that deck will have a screened in section covered porch area of 270 square feet. The applicant has indicated 144 square feet of the deck had been removed earlier during the septic alteration. The existing 1,112 square foot footprint home, and garage and shed will remain unchanged. The variance relief is for setbacks and floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LEVETT-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MR. LEVETT-So our current deck right now was not installed properly. The footings are not into concrete. They're about a foot in the ground to a concrete ball about this big. We have some rot and the decking was not flashed to the house. So we have some rot on the house. So I've removed the deck to repair the rot that's effecting the deck,the side behind the house and then what we'd like to do is replace the deck that was there. The previous deck had three different levels to it. So we want to re-build it so it's all one level and then the outside of the house,you can see where that's the proposed deck. It kind of juts out there in the center. That follows the outline of the house. The previous deck did the same thing. So we want to just draw a straight line out to that and that's the change for that,and then that front portion there kind of looks like a little arrowhead up there. That is existing,but there's a 12 by 12 section that was to the right. That covered the previous septic tank. So we removed that and addressed the septic tank with a new treatment tank and then when we replace that portion there, we'd like to add a roof line and screen it in. It's quite a considerable safety hazard the past few years to the point we haven't been using the front of this deck. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I was looking at some numbers. Your house is 1112 square feet and it looks like, when this proposed deck is completed,it's going to be I,OSO square feet. So it's going to be almost as many square feet as the house? MRS. MOORE-No. So there's only,the deck,the 270 square feet is the added floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but there's an existing deck of 900 square feet, and so that's going to be replaced with S00 square feet. Right? MRS. MOORE-But it's not all covered. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. TRAVER-No, I understand it's not covered. I'm just talking deck. It says,under the fourth bullet, building, the 1,112 square foot home is to remain. The existing deck of 900 square feet is to be removed and replaced with S10 square feet of deck area. In addition there is to be a 270 square foot covered deck. So if you add 270 to SIO,you get l,OSO. MRS. MOORE-It's over and top the SIO. MR. LEVETT-I'm sorry. That might be my error the way I worded it. That 270. MR. TRAVER-Is part of the SIR MR. LEVETT-Yes,sir. MR. TRAVER-All right. That's why I did the numbers. I was trying to figure it out. All right. Understood. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. ETU-Have you already fully demoed everything? MR. LEVETT-The majority of the front part of the deck that's gone, the long stretch of it, that's off, and then that'll and then the front part references the arrowhead. There's a section there. So there's a section there that's still there,but the rest of it is off and I have rot. There's one section on that bump out portion that I repaired about three years ago, and those joists,because of that repair,were sistered, and I'm taking it off. I'd rather just repair what was there than have to go through the whole process of putting a new deck,but it was literally falling apart when I was taking it off and I have rot on the southern part where the arrowhead is,the southern part, and then that indented part on that end as well there's quite a bit of rot on the flashing. MR. STEFANZIK-It looks like you also have a little rot around the house,too. MR. LEVETT-Yes. MR. DIXON-Overall you're reducing the deck by 90 square feet MR. LEVETT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So for this evening we're looking at the referral to the ZBA, and that's for new floor area in a CEA and the setbacks. Any concerns, comments regarding those two items that we want to communicate to the ZBA? Okay. I guess we're ready for that referral. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#20-2023 WILLIAM LEVETT The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to replace existing 900 sq.ft. deck with an S10 sq.ft. deck that contains a screened in portion of 270 sq.ft.. A 144 sq.ft.portion of the deck had been removed during the septic alteration. The existing 1,112 sq.ft.footprint home,563 sq.ft. garage and 120 sq.ft.shed will remain unchanged.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&79-4-OSO,site plan for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and floor area. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; 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 20-2023 WILLIAM LEVETT.,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 Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. LEVETT-Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Again,I apologize for being late. MR. TRAVER-So now we return to our regular agenda under New Business and the next application is Lisa and Charles Munzenmaier, Site Plan 42-2023. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LISA &z CHARLES MUNZENMAIER. OWNER(S): LISA&z CHARLES MUNZENMAIER. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2760 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF A 964 SQ.FT.DECK TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH A 6,595 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 336 SQ.FT.SCREEN PORCH AND ADDITION FOR A PORTION OF THE DECK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 64 SQ. FT. MUDROOM. THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING,AND STORMWATER WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-6-065,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 42-92,AV 25-2001. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JUNE 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,LGPC,WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 2.69 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-95. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065. LISA&CHARLES MUNZENMAIER,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes removal of and replacement of a 964 square foot deck to an existing home with a 6,595 square foot footprint. The project includes a 336 square foot screen porch and addition for a portion of the deck and construction of a 64 square foot mudroom. The existing landscaping, lighting,and stormwater will remain unchanged. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Hello. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MRS.MUNZENMAIER-We have an existing deck made out of pressure treated wood. It's been there for over 20 years. It definitely needs to be repaired and replaced because it's obviously very old and it's starting to really rot. So we're proposing to replace it in its exact same footprint. So no added square footage to the deck itself,just replacing it with the engineered wood. I know it's not wood,but I don't know what it is and adding onto the,so it's similar to the previous applicant. Our screened in porch is just part of the existing deck. So we're just covering 3,whatever,36 square foot of the deck.. We live right next to Harris Bay Yacht Club. So we have marshland right by us,and so it can get very muggy, as you can imagine, and so we've been there for 25 years and it's time to try to avoid the bugs. MR.TRAVER-So you're not enlarging the deck. You're just taking,you're going to repair/replace the deck. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And then a portion of the new,but same size deck,is going to be screened in. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STEFANZIK-You're just going to rip up the surface of the deck. You're not taking out the joists and the? MRS.MUNZENMAIER-No,for the bottom part of the deck,yes,we will,just because we're also,our deck now also has a second step. One of the things we've found is one's become a safety hazard,especially with young children,grandchildren and such,and then we've also,when the original deck was installed,under the basement windows, although it's an unfinished basement,the deck was installed. So it's covering all the windows in the bottom. So we're looking to just make it one level,so it's all just. MR. STEFANZIK-So you're going to need new footings and everything for the deck? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Well there's already a base so that it's the base of where the footings sit, so it doesn't need to go into the ground. It's just part of what was already there. Those little metal. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-So that's the deck,and then any other questions on the deck? MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS.MUNZENMAIER-And then for the mudroom,our existing entrance to our house has,we're adding, we'd like to add a 64 square foot mudroom,which is,we're not taking any more permeable land because it's already a covered breezeway. So it's an entrance that's already covered. We're just looking to enclose that because right now when you walk into the house,you walk right into our living room area and so I'm trying to just provide some place for people to take off their coats,leave their shoes and such. In addition, the entrance to the house,when we had put on the original addition,or the addition,the roofline,we hadn't really thought about it too well,but it's literally the two roofs come together, the existing house and the addition, and all the water in the winter from the ice and snow,everything falls right where you walk into the house. So it is another,it becomes a safety hazard. So we're trying to change the roofline so you have more of a peak when you're walking in,obviously making it more attractive as well,just making it so that all the water from the ice and stuff will fall to the sides not where you're walking. So that's what we're going to do. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application,but since we no longer have an audience,I'll just ask Laura if we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will open and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any other follow up questions? MR. DEEB-Are you going to do the work yourself? MRS. MUNZENMAIER-All by myself. No. I've got a full time job. MR. ETU-Are you going to have screening underneath the deck? MRS. MUNZENMAIER-No. Let's not get all ambitious. MR.TRAVER-All right. Well if there's nothing further,we'll entertain a motion to approve this Site Plan. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#42-2023 LISA&CHARLES MUNZENMAIER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of a 964 sq. ft. deck to an existing home with a 6,595 sq. ft. footprint. The project includes construction of a 336 sq. ft. screen porch addition for a portion of the deck and construction of a 64 sq.ft. mudroom. The existing landscaping, lighting & stormwater will remain unchanged. Pursuant to chapter179-3-040 & 179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6/22/2023 and continued the public hearing to 6/22/2023,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 6/22/2023; 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, 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 42-2023 LISA&z CHARLES MUNZENMAIER; 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, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal are reasonable to request as they are associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: 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 Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-May I ask one favor,if you're going to throw away our stuff,can I have it back? MR. TRAVER-You're welcome to it. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-You're going to need some of that for final plans to give back. MR. DIXON-Good luck. I'm sure it does get muggy out there. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Thank you. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2023) MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Just I guess a reminder that we're to reconvene again on Thursday night because of the Primary next week on the 27`h. If there's nothing else,we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF TUNE 20TH 2023,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael Dixon: Duly adopted this 20`h day of June,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody. See you day after tomorrow. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 26