Loading...
03-19-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGULAR MEETING MARCHI9TH 2O24 INDEX Site Plan No.12-2023 David Howard 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No.2S9.1S-1-2S.2 Site Plan No. 69-2023 Foothills Builders/Mead's 3. Petition of Zone Change 1-2023 Tax Map No. 303.5-1-79 Freshwater Wetlands 12-2023 SEQR TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No.73-2023 Lauren&Christian Freyer 21. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.227.14-1-17 Site Plan No.14-2024 AEC Solar Energy Corp. 22. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 316.13-1-1 Site Plan No.5-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 25. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.227.17-1-25,227.17-1-24 (septic) Site Plan No.13-2024 Redbud Development 29. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.226.19-1-S2 Site Plan No.10-2024 Glens Falls Country Club 32. Tax Map No.2S9.1S-1-37,296.E-1-12 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 03/19/2024) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19TK,2024 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN MEMBERS ABSENT BRADY STARK FRITZ STEFANZICK 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, March 19th, 2024. This is our first meeting for the month of March and our fifth meeting thus far for the year. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency,those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interrupt our proceedings, we would appreciate that. We also ask that, during the meeting, aside from when we have public hearings on projects,if you have a discussion amongst yourselves, if you would go to the outer lobby to have that discussion, so as not to confuse the recording of the meeting minutes, we would appreciate that, and I wanted to introduce two new alternates that we have for the Planning Board, Tom and Kimberly. They're going through their orientation so they're not going to be sitting as members tonight. They're going to be observing for a couple of meetings as they prepare to take their position on the Board. We have a couple of Administrative Items this evening. The first is approval of minutes from January 16`h and January 23rd of 2024. Do any of the Board members have any concerns or questions about the minutes of those two meetings? Hearing none,we have a draft resolution,I believe. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16`h,2024 January 23rd,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 16TK &z JANUARY 23RD, 2024, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Warren Longacker: Duly adopted this 19`h day of March,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We have one Administrative Item. This is Site Plan 12-2023 for David Howard. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 12-2023 DAVID HOWARD—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-He's requesting a one year extension. Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MRS. MOORE-So they're requesting a one year extension. They're still looking through house plans,and they will be submitting information, responses to our Town Engineer, and they're requesting a one year extension,and I do have one other administrative item when you're done. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and this would be the first request for an extension on the part of Mr. Howard. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Any questions or concerns regarding that tabling from members of the Board? I think we have a draft resolution to the effect. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#12-2023 DAVID HOWARD Applicant proposed a new 3 bedroom home with associated site work for driveway, stormwater, septic and site development.The project occurs within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes with a driveway greater than 100/o.The Planning Board approved this project on March 21,2023. The applicant is requesting a one year extension, valid until March 21,2025. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 12-2023 DAVID HOWARD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 19`h day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Next we move to our regular agenda, and the first section is Tabled Items. MRS.MOO RE-I'm sorry. Sothis evening to the Board members I provided you with The Woods At West Mountain Planned Resort Development. The process this is the first blush that you have at this. At next week's meeting the only resolution that you can proceed with is acknowledging your receipt of the application,but I did want to be able to give you the whole packet. I put a tentative schedule in there for you to review. It is tentative. So take a minute to read through it. There's no questions at next week's meeting,but at least you're aware that there is a packet of information that has been submitted. MR. MAGOWAN-You're just giving us a week to read it? MRS. MOORE-Because it's only acknowledgement. Hopefully if you look at the schedule it'll spread out. Right now I have it going into July. So there's quite a few times that you'll get to review and provide comment. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would add Laura has given us a draft timeline for review of this project, and it is tentative. So some of those dates are likely to change,but we appreciate that she provided us at least with a guideline of what it may look like to go through this process. Laura, do we need to make a resolution formally acknowledging receipt of the packet,or just go on the record. MRS. MOORE-You're going to do that next week. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So next week we have a reso all prepared for that,and then you also have a very,very brief presentation by the applicant at that point just to give you a very broad brush of what's going on. MR.TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from members of the Board regarding that discussion? It's a little bit unusual,but it's going to be quite a large project to evaluate. So we've been given some time to study it. I would add it's also available on the website under our meeting materials for tonight's meeting. It's over 200 pages long, but you can download it if you want to look at it on the computer. Okay. Anything else,Laura? All right. So moving on to tabled items. The first one is Foothills Builders/Mead's Nursery. This is Site Plan 69-2023, Petition of Zone Change 1-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands 12-2023. TABLED ITEM: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) SITE PLAN NO. 69-2023 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): MEAD'S NURSERY. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 361 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A ZONE CHANGE OF A 10.99 ACRE PARCEL FROM COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE TO MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF 16 BUILDINGS WITH 4 UNITS EACH AS WELL AS COMMUNITY BUILDING AND PATHS. SITE PLAN REVIEW PENDING TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE REVIEW. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-10-040 AND CHAPTER 94,SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AND WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO COMPLETE SEQRA AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 26-1990,DISC 8-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 1099 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-79. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-040,CHAPTER 94. JEFF MEYER&MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And I understand we're going to have a Board member that's going to recuse himself. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,due to the last minute letter that arrived at the Town without our Town Attorney I will be recusing myself this evening from this project. MR. TRAVER Just this one application. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,this one application right now. Until it's been reviewed by the attorney. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. So,good evening. Welcome back. MR. MEYER-Again for the record my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney with Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell in Lake George and with me tonight is Matt Huntington from Studio A who's happy to answer any engineering and technical questions this Board may have. When we were last here in December we were essentially asked to produce a traffic study in order to better evaluate for the purposes of SEQR whether there's any potential environmental impacts associated with traffic. We finally got the traffic study back. Creighton Manning put together the assessment. There was an in-depth examination of sight lines, trip generation traffic volume, queuing and essentially it confirmed out hypothesis that there will not be essentially any impact. In looking at sight distance there was more than enough sight distance. The proposed additional trips was negligible in terms of impacting traffic,they approved of the single point of egress or single lane of egress, I should say, for both access points in order to assist with traffic flows. We know that, we know the existing traffic levels on Quaker, Meadowbrook, Ridge, and this proposed development,if it were to be approved,isn't going to have an impact on these already fairly busy areas,but they're not overly burdened. The assessment numbers are well within acceptable ranges. In terms of SEQR, that was kind of the big ask from this Board. There were also a lot of questions from the public which were geared more towards general site plan review questions which,you know,we certainly heard and will absolutely be addressing,but I do feel it's important just to kind of note for the Board and reassure them that our engineer reviewed the stormwater plan, has reviewed the test pits, essentially made sure that all the calculations and assumptions were correct, just kind of re-state the fact that all our construction is going to be on slab. There aren't going to be foundations. It's designed to not have any impact and to maintain all stormwater on site. MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, and I would clarify for the Board and for the audience as well that we're not doing Site Plan Review this evening. We're really just looking at the State Environmental Quality Review and the Town Board would have to look at this with all of that involved for a potential change in the zoning for this site. So that would involve them to conduct their own review and public hearing to change the zoning. So they have asked us for a recommendation and we may,one of the actions that we're hoping to do tonight is make a recommendation to the Town Board regarding their consideration of your application for a change in zoning,but we will not be looking at the site plan, so we won't be dealing with all of the issues, although that would come,presumably, down the road, should you get the zoning change and the project move forward. So with that, questions, comments from members of the Board with what we've seen? Which is basically the main change in the information is the traffic study. MR. LONGACKER-One question on the traffic study. I see that Creighton Manning used land use code for single family attached housing, and I think that's relatively new in the ITE. I'm just kind of curious why you possibly didn't use multifamily low rise? Your application physically says multi-family. I'm just curious what the difference was, because if I'm not mistaken a multi-family low rise would probably produce more trips than the one that was selected. Was there a reason why you used that one? To be honest with you,I don't think it's going to create a huge difference,but it will increase,the number would increase,I think. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, I would have to field that back to the traffic engineer, their assumptions and exclusions,because they were sub consultant to us,but,you know,we're not traffic engineers on that. So the specifics of it as to why they chose to do that. MR.LONGACKER-Okay. I'd be curious if you could find that out. I don't think it's going to make a huge difference in the level of service,but I think it would definitely change the number of trips. MR. MEYER-My uneducated opinion is that they're essential townhomes. MR. LONGACKER-Correct. MR. MEYER-It's called multi-family by a function of the Code,but if you're looking at the actual use,it's. MR. LONGACKER-And the ITE isn't very clear on that. It gives descriptions that to me mesh almost identical. MRS. MC DEVITT-I had a question. It said in the traffic report that future traffic volumes did take into consideration going on in the area. Does that include like Bay Road or is it just Ridge Road and part of Quaker Road? Do you have any notion of that? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, I believe, I don't know what the exact distance is, but it's within the general area for development. I believe there's a certain percentage of growth rate that they predict. MRS. MC DEVITT-I guess the reason that I ask is that I know that there's two places going up on Bay Road and you just wonder about creep. As more of this gets developed,is there an issue of creep and does that ultimately affect the traffic? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think if we had a project that involved a significant change in traffic that we probably would get a traffic study from that project as well. MRS. MC DEVITT-I guess I'm just thinking about it collectively. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I don't believe that the traffic study's going to impact Bay Road, but it would be great for clarification just to have it in there and have Warren's questions clarified,too. That was a good question. It might not generate a lot more trips,but it would be nice to know if we could get a close figure. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. I mean certainly. The other thing to keep in mind here is that the traffic study was reviewed by the Town's Engineer and they provided no comments in acceptance of the report. So their traffic engineer reviewed our traffic engineer's work and there were no comments that came back on it. MR. TRAVE R-Creighton Manning,prior to conducting their traffic study,reviewed or was familiar with the concept that you were outlining for your project? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly. That's actually in the description. They looked at it two ways. They looked at it as developed and undeveloped. MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's on the first page of your report. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,and they looked at it as the former nursery that it was and they compared them both. MR. TRAVER-I was actually surprised that the numbers didn't change much from this proposed use versus what the nursery use was. It just seemed like there would be a bigger difference there and there really wasn't. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes, actually I thought this would be less honestly,compared to a full-time retail. MR. TRAVER-I think one of the differences perhaps might be, as I think was mentioned last time,is that in the nursery operation there were more different types of vehicles like trucks and so on versus a residential use,potentially,but I guess a vehicle is a vehicle. Other questions,comments from members of the Board before we go to the public hearing? I'm not hearing any, so there is a public hearing on this application. So we will open up the public hearing for comment. Are there members of the audience who would like to comment on this? Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) JACKIE CORDELL MRS.CORDELL-Hi,my name's Jackie Cordell. I live on 349 Ridge Road,bordering the property. I'd like to piggyback on some of the great points that you guys brought up,the collective thinking. The report did say that the Town of Queensbury noted that there were no known developments approved in the vicinity, and that is true, however the vicinity being considered, like maybe that part of Quaker Road and Ridge Road,there is,I know we're not here to talk about that today,but we have seen in the media the property over by Windy Ridge where the F.W. Webb project fell through,the considerations of building a 100 unit complex over there. So I think it is important to collectively think, looking towards the future, other projects that could actually impact the traffic flow though not approved yet. With the traffic, the trip generations and the trip assignments that were discussed in the report, I have questions about the LUC 215 that was used, the single family attached unit code that you had referred to, and I was wondering if that had included the assumption that there would be City school buses going into that area, because I, too,was very surprised at the anticipated number of trips generated being lower than what I would have expected. For example, the morning peak hour indicated that there would be 21 cars exiting and then Figure 2-4 indicated a breakdown as to which directions those cars would actually be traveling in, and those 21 predicted cars in the morning peak hour only 10 cars would be heading towards Glens Falls exiting right from the Ridge Road egress and left from the Meadowbrook egress,five cars each. Considering that there's 64 three-bedroom units,I would expect that there would be families there and that's implying that only 10 cars would be leaving to bring their children to school in a district that does not provide school buses. So that kind of made me think that maybe this was operating on an assumption that there are City school buses that would also just kind of limit the number of trips out in the morning because ten heading towards school is not that many cars considering there's 64 units of three-bedroom apartments. Alternatively, if that is actually an accurate assumption, I would assume that there would be a lot of pedestrian traffic associated with this,which is where my concern for safety comes in. It is indicated that 35.30/o of vehicles were in excess of the 40 mile per hour speed limit on the Ridge Road, and that's within 700,that sensor was placed about 700 feet away from a major intersection. So that is saying that 30,about 3S%, one-third of cars are already speeding coming out from a major intersection or 700 feet away from going into a major intersection and that is the area where the sidewalk is that children would have to cross the street from this development to walk to school. So that is concerning to me. I had a question about the table,it looks like this,it says ITE 1147191. MR. TRAVER-Do you have the page number that that's on? MRS. CORDELL-It's Page One of Four and one of the sections, it's the 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Thursday morning, January 11`h. On the far right column, it's the Ridge Road southbound. So these, if I'm interpreting this correctly,this is counting the number of turns from each direction and the through traffic heading southbound on Ridge through that intersection and it gives a total of 427 total cars,vehicles going in the southbound direction on Ridge Road through that intersection. However, on the page with the picture on it here that is from the same timeframe,7 a.m.to 9 a.m.on Thursday,January 11`h,that morning, it's saying that 30S cars are coming out from that intersection. So that's a discrepancy,if I'm interpreting this correctly, of 119 vehicles that aren't accounted for, and my question, and I don't know if you would have the answer or this would have to go back to the company that did the traffic study,but are those 119 vehicles coming out of Cumberland Farms or that chiropractor practice that is right next to where the site is, because that's a lot of cars and that's where, again, not to harp on children walking to school, but crossing that street where 3S%of cars are in excess of the speed limit and then you have those cars coming and going from that area. It just seems really unsafe, and I did notice an error in the report. It describes the sidewalk on the east side of Ridge as being four foot wide. It doesn't really matter but just to establish that there's potentially more errors in this report,that sidewalk is not four feet wide. I did not measure it, but it's like two,two and a half feet wide,enough for a small child's bike with training wheels and an adult to walk half on the grass and half on the sidewalk next to them. And the traffic over by Jackson Heights school, I know that they've been making a lot of attempts to make it safer over there during pick up time. There's been a police presence lately. They have attempted many different things. They've closed the parking lot to parking at pickup time. They've tried directional flow. It's just kind of very congested over there. So if people choose not to walk to school, there's going to be an added congestion over in that neighborhood and I was curious as to how the Town or the developers in the Town of Queensbury work with the school districts when they're not part of their Town,in this case it's Glens Falls School District. What kind of collaboration exists between these two departments to prepare them for an influx of students,make sure they have the resources? Would there be crossing guards over by the ingress/egress area of these developments? I think these are important things to consider in regards to the safety, and then I just want to end by asking you as the Planning Board just to consider our concerns as property owners in the vicinity of the area. There's two parties involved that stand to make a profit off of this transaction and we just kind of have to accept the traffic study for the truth that is presented to us and we have to accept what we're told,but we also,we're the ones that are impacted on this on a day to day basis with the increase of traffic and to compare the traffic and the trip report,the trip generation studies, as to what it was previously with a nursery that was open seasonally during business hours,not 24/7 365,is just I just wanted everybody to consider that as well. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-I might be able to clarify a couple of items. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MRS. CORDELL-Sure. MR.TRAVER-In regards to the schools,I do know that the Town and the City do collaborate,particularly when there's a residential change and therefore change in the demand or the nature of the layout in transportation, all those things are discussed at length, including safety and that type of thing, so that would definitely be done should residential happen and increase in this area. There would be conversations and some discussions on planning between the school systems to accommodate that. However,whatever magic they do to make that work,but they generally are pretty good about it. With regard to the speeding,I mean obviously that's an enforcement issue and generally when a report generates an indication that there is excessive speeding in a given part of the Town or the City or a given area, generally it results in a spike in enforcement. They'll put up, you know, the radar signs or they'll have additional patrols,but that's really outside of the purview of the Planning Board or the applicant to deal with speeding. That's really something that can be reported and complained about by residents. That too happens, and generally law enforcement is pretty good about responding to that. It's an ongoing problem. I think we're all familiar with that. The road on live on has people zinging by when it's well above what makes sense. So that's kind of a common problem. Sidewalks, I think when they speak to, and the applicant can discuss this further,but I think when they talk about the four feet, I think they're talking about the area not necessarily that is concrete,but the area that the sidewalk,because the sidewalk actually takes up more space than the actual concrete itself, because there has to be drainage and so on, part of the construction of the sidewalk. That's what I think is going on with that. I would add,too,that as far as the report itself, you know, it's presented to us for the information that we requested from the applicant, and we are not in ourselves necessarily traffic experts, although we have a good deal of experience looking at traffic reports,but I would add that the Town Designated Engineer is contracted to represent us,from an engineering standpoint, and they would look at this report in detail. It will also be subject to review for any hypothetical review that the Town Board conducts when they're evaluating whether or not they might change the zoning in this area. That would obviously be a consideration that the Town Board would have, and they would also have public hearings for that discussion as well. MRS. CORDELL-So this would move forward and it would be evaluated. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and including in Site Plan because in Site Plan we would talk more specifically about signage,potentially more sidewalks, all of those kinds of things are really Site Plan issues that there really isn't much point in discussing now because we don't even know if the project will move forward. It can't unless there's a zoning change. So that would be part of the process moving forward depending upon what happens in the life of this particular application. MRS. MC DEVITT-Can I just ask a hypothetical question. I don't know if you're able to answer it. It's certainly not for everybody, I'm sure, that lives there, but I mean what would your preference be? This kind of issue or a like a big retail center? I think the nursery was a perfect fit in the neighborhood. I bought my plants there, all my garden stuff. Their customers never made it back that far because my backyard abuts right there. You never saw any customers over there. You'd see a couple employees watering plants back there every once in a while. They kept to their own. I would hope that whatever goes in there,it would preserve my backyard and my view and my privacy. As far as retail I think at least it would bring jobs in. I would hope it wouldn't be a 24 hour 365 business where you'd have cars going in and out. I work all day. I'm not even home during the day. So I guess that wouldn't bother me as much as having,you know,four families in one unit directly behind my backyard while I'm out there,you know, gardening or playing with my child out back and just wanting that privacy. So it doesn't really great answer your question. The answer would be neither. Or a nursery. That was perfect. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MRS. CORDELL-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to speak? Yes,sir. BRIAN STRAUB MR.STRAUB-I'm Brian Straub. I live at 329 Ridge which is just up over the hill from Mead's to the south. I'm often not very brief. So I'm going to try to be as brief as possible today. I have three simple points, and the last one ends in a discovery that I made this morning,which was astonishing to me. I have,first, in the second part,I think I've discovered two material errors in their application. I maybe misinterpreting it,but I think they're errors. First,though,I want to read a quick statement from Dan and Marilyn Tallon. They're neighbors who live at 2S Meadowbrook Road. They got together with Joann Zales of 14 Douglas Street. So the three of them do not support the project because the density of the project is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. It will double or triple the population of the neighborhood. Sixty-four rental units will probably add 12S or more additional cars in the neighborhood. It will have significant negative impacts on the quality of life for current neighborhood residents from increased traffic, increased noise,increased light pollution,lowered property values for neighboring properties,safety issues 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) with increased motor and pedestrian traffic, especially on Meadowbrook where there are no sidewalks. It'll impact local utilities and local schools and it will damage the wetlands and that can easily negatively affect,reduce or eliminate birds,other pollinators, amphibians and small mammals,and also they said it c can lead to negative impacts on the groundwater for local properties. So my concern has been mainly surrounding the wetlands. In 19711 was elected at the first student member of the then governing council for the brand new New York Department of Environmental Conservation. So I've been a fan of them for a longtime. So there are two things in their application that seem tome to be in error. First,D-2 Operations BU-1 says identify the wetland that would be affected, and it's listed, what is listed is their freshwater pond. The real answer is the much larger wetland to the west of Meadowbrook, and I'll explain why in just a moment. The second error is will the,again,D-2 Project Operations,B Number 3. Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments. The listed answer checks the box labeled no. I believe the correct answer is yes. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me,this is bottom sediment of the pond? MR. STRAUB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STRAUB-I believe that will. Now, as I was trying to understand this project and going through this stormwater section and so on, I'm not an engineer. So I'm asking lots and lots of people who are smarter than me about this stuff. Two things kept coming back to me. One is I've lived here for 20 years and I mean we all know last year it was terrible for rain, and on even a normal year we get rainstorms on my backyard is about the same as the backyard of Mead's. I can have two inches of water in my backyard after just a regular rainstorm. So I'm looking at this design and you've got one road is coming straight down from Ridge, a little bit of curve, and right down the Meadowbrook, and you've got other roads, and so I'm saying I believe this stormwater surge thing, how can it collect every bit of the water in a heavy storm coming down through there, and how is it true that none of it is going to go directly into that pond? So I asked that question to some people, an ecologist,a couple of environmental consultants. MR.TRAVER-I can give you a quick answer to that,and that is,should the project move forward and they get to Site Plan Review and all of the rest of it, the stormwater management, along with all of the other engineering items, are reviewed by our independent Town Designated Engineer and the Town Engineer has to literally signoff on the stormwater plan according to the computer model that is pretty much universally used, hydroCAD, which addresses those questions, and by law no stormwater can leave the site. It has to be managed on site. We don't have the answer to your question yet,but the project cannot move forward unless those issues are resolved. MR. STRAUB-Okay, but what you just said is factually false. Because the stormwater is going to be diverted through culverts into that pond and the culvert from there goes to the wetlands on the other side of Meadowbrook Road. So that water will be,in fact,going into those wetlands. The other question, as an amateur, that I was just saying, well this doesn't make any sense to me, was, you know, you look at anybody's driveway,you look at any parking lot out there and you'll see there's stains. Cars and trucks and mail trucks and UPS trucks, they're constantly dropping things. Okay, if we've got all this water coming through and some of it's going to be collected through the culverts and the drains,but some of it's not. It's going to be picking up these things and it'll be picking up salt leftover from the winter. Why won't some of this pollution, some of which is heavy metals and such, why won't that go into the pond? So I asked these people,including one in an informal conversation this morning at the DEC headquarters, a biologist in the permitting office, I asked two questions, is it reasonable to think that some level of pollutants will get into the pond, and is it reasonable to think that the storm surges will not disturb the sediments of the bottom of the existing pond? Each person I asked said the same thing, it's absolutely going to disturb that sediment because you're going to have a greater of volume of water coming in in a shorter period of time,and some of those pollutants are going to end up in that existing pond. That pond is more than 50 years old. It's been sitting on that property relatively undisturbed, at a nursery, where there've been lots of chemicals, lots of fertilizers used, lots of heavy machinery with gasoline and diesel engines. Who knows what's in there. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, do you know if the people you spoke with at DEC are they planning on submitting written documentation to that effect regarding this application? MR. STRAUB-No. It was an informal conversation,but let me tell you the part that I found today. Now I went up there because the big question that I had,the one I haven't been able to understand at all, New York says if you've got two wetlands and they are hydrologically connected,above ground or below ground, and they are less than 50 meters apart, 164 feet, they are to be considered as one wetland. The pond is obviously a wetland. It fulfills all three characteristics of a wetland. On the other side of Meadowbrook we've got an IS.2 acre wetland, and there's a culvert. MR. TRAVER-You're questioning the delineation of the wetland. S (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. STRAUB-I'm asking why that wasn't considered. Why is this pond not being considered a wetland under,by the DEC. I respect DEC,you know,they do the best job they can,and so why are they not doing this? MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. Yes,Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the pond is considered,part of their project is a Freshwater Wetlands Permit,part of the Town process. MR. STRAUB-Right,but why wasn't DEC, why did they say non-jurisdictional? I couldn't understand why they would just say, okay, not do this, and this is what I found out today. They are limited by the lines in their wetland measuring system. You go online and pull it up and it shows the wetlands,and that came from, this sounds so silly given where we are in technology. That came from drawings that were actually drawn by pencil and some of the lines on that today are literally the width of a pencil blown up a little bit. Because the freshwater pond is on that side, and a lot of times there were the roads where we, they said, okay, this is the delineation of the road, if it's Meadowbrook, they were legally unable to say we're going to take jurisdiction over this pond. That's the reason,not for any science based reason,or not for any desire to be able to control the materials going through that culvert into there, very limited, and then she said tome,next January I"the regulations are changing. They are freeing us from the restrictions of being held back by this wetland system because it's letting too many bad projects go forth,and so I said to her,if this application came to you, and she's in the permitting department,violations and permitting section, I said if this application came to you next January 15`h, what would you do, she didn't hesitate. She said,I would immediately assert jurisdiction over that pond. I would create a 300 foot buffer all the way around it. I would insistent on no disturbance of the soils in that 300 foot buffer, and no pollutants going into the pond. MR. TRAVER-Had she visited the site? MR. STRAUB-The guy she works for has. MR. TRAVER-And are they planning on providing any documentation of this concern? MR. STRAUB-I just had this conversation with her today,but we know those regulations are changing. I asked her one other question. I said if, after January I", last July they created a Statement of Non- Jurisdiction. There's a letter that states that. So I said next January I", when these regulations change, will this letter of Non Jurisdiction still be in effect, and she said you ask me a great question, and none of us know. We have no guidance. We think it could go either way. MR.TRAVER-Yes,I understand what you're saying,but that's a bit hypothetical for what we have in front of us this evening, and I must say we're going on a bit long with your public comment now, so could you kind of wrap it up a little bit for us. MR. STRAUB-Sure, it's very simple. That pond, regardless of the legalese, the pond's part of that big wetland. The wetland goes through,there's a culvert under Quaker Road. I found out today when I went and took a video of it. It flows north from there. Any pollutants going through that pond into the wetlands on the other side of Meadowbrook,those pollutants are 400 feet from the connection over to the wetlands on the other side. That's miles of wetlands. So those pollutants can go all the way through. You guys have the chance to be the good guys and keep this pollution under control. So be the good guys. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. I would just add for others that may be making public comment, generally the tradition is a three minute limit on public comment,and I don't like to restrict people to that,but please try to keep your comments relatively short and also please do not repeat comment that's already been given. I'm sorry,sir,yes,sir. Go ahead. VINCE MORIARTY MR. MO RIARTY-Thanks. I'll try to be brief. My name is Vince, and I live at 320 Ridge,so just down the street from the development. I have two points I would like to make and I will try and keep any overlap to a minimum,that deals with the traffic report and the wetlands issue. I did take,the previous gentleman said that he didn't see any impact from the traffic report. I agree the traffic report seemed rather rosy,but there's still some impact. In particular,I know that Jackie mentioned that Table 2 seemed a bit light. I, too,went and looked up the Land Use Unit,Trip Generation Summary in Table 2 listed 2 S in the morning, 34 in the evening. I went and calculated that myself. I'm not an engineer. I'll be the first person to say that. Their numbers,I'm using,the latest tool they have is 11,Version 11,which is behind a pay wall. I did a Version 10 it's free, so I can't say for sure, but their numbers are within the margins but they're on the light side. I believe that is a bit of a low ball estimate,but my real concern here is that that traffic report really seemed concerned about peak traffic control in those intersections. My main concern, in living there, are more of these quality of life issues, so as was brought up, noise, air quality, speeding is a huge 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) issue on that street. My main concern, I was here the last time this came up, was the intersection at Meadowbrook and Ridge, which is wide intersection that has a stop sign on one, but there is a really confusing yield situation coming up if you're coming from the south. It's a poorly designed intersection. No one here was involved in that,but I don't mind saying it's a really poorly designed intersection that has poor signage. There have been accidents there. If you go there there's a bunch of stuff from past accidents. I'm not a gambling man,but I would bet that if this apartment complex went through, there would be a major accident there because a lot of that traffic is going to be funneled to the south. People go through at 40 miles an hour. That was not covered in the traffic section. I mentioned I'm not a traffic engineer,but I am a water research scientist. I've spent the last 15 years working in water research. I can speak to some of the concerns about the wetlands in particular. I mean I assume you guys are familiar with why wetlands are important. I don't need to go there,even though I could talk about wetlands for hours. I think we all agree that they're sensitive to inputs,and they're incredibly important for both urban and wild habitats in terms of nursery for juvenile species,amphibians and fish. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we are aware of that and we are trained extensively on that. MR.MORIARTY-Good. Thank you. Then I will just say there's a reason why there's a lot of federal,state and local regulations around these wetlands. I'm a bit confused by the DEC position. If you look at their maps,it definitely shows that that area is within the buffer. I went and looked at the application from the builder. They checked off,because DEC gave them a pass,they checked off that none of their plans were taking into account that there was a wetland there. I do have some concerns that they're more focused on flood management and not protecting that wetland area. I agree with everything else that's been said. I just,I'll second it. MR. DEEB-When did you do your study? What day and time did you do your study? MR. MORIARTY-I didn't do a study. MR. DEEB-You said you went out,didn't you say you went out and you counted cars? MR. MORIARTY-Did I? MR. TRAVER-He did not do a study. MR. DEEB-But unless I misheard you. MR. MORIARTY-I used the tools from the DEC. Okay. Sorry. Yes,if you go online there are,that LUC 215 has a number,it's 570/o,570/o of the units,there's 64 units,will send out,so basically half the number of units you would expect to have one car in that peak hour. So it's a simple multiplication, 64 times .57 yields you an approximate number you would expect in the peak of the morning and the peak in the afternoon. I don't want to do that math in my head right now,but it is lower than, or is higher than the numbers that were presented in their unit. So, I'm sorry, yes, I didn't do my own study. I wasn't out counting,but I'm just using the tools available, and again,it's Version 10 versus Version 11,but it's a very simple mathematical formula, amount of units times .57. For a single family house it's closer to 1, so .95, and then you mentioned other units and so each one has its own percentage point that you just multiply it by the number of units. I try to do it for the agricultural designation,but it's much more difficulty,but it's Pretty straightforward for residence units. I'm sorry,I misunderstood your question. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Thank you,sir. MR. MORIARTY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,in the back. JONATHAN DE LAPPA MR. DE LAPPA-Good evening. My name's Jonathan Delappa. I live at 324 Ridge Road. I will be extremely brief. I promise. I left my crystal ball at home, but I actually have a business, a commercial business down in Glens Falls that is very close to Broad Street Commons. I know these projects aren't comparable, and then I've had nothing but problems from that for my business from the Broad Street Commons, and my backyard property is adjacent to Colonial Gardens. I've had nothing but problems from Colonial Gardens since improved in,people trespassing,trying to break into my equipment,dumping garbage, chasing some young folks through the woods, and then so I see this, and all I'm going to say is I don't,as a taxpayer,I don't love the re-zoning idea and I left all the homework to my friends here,but as a taxpayer I simply would just like to say I'm getting,I'm almost 40 and I don't feel so young anymore, and I have enough problems in my life certainly, and I know the gentleman has put a lot of work into this,but just as somebody who lives in the neighborhood, I have two young children who go to Jackson Heights. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) It's a beautiful neighborhood, and I just don't want to see this simply, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Laura, are there written comments? MRS. MOORE-There were no new written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well then for this evening we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Next steps. So, public comment, there's concern about density, obviously this would increase the residential density. I mean that's the purpose of the project. Sidewalks, I think that's a Site Plan issue. I think we mentioned that, the Board mentioned that the last time we had discussion with you. I think sidewalk development is something we may want to see as part of this,but that's a bit down the road. I was concerned, and I'm sure you were, with the quite lengthy discussion regarding concerns about the wetlands and pollution and so on, and I'm wondering do you have any specific comments in response to those discussions? MR. HUNTINGTON-Again, regarding that, I think part of one of the driving forces between the DEC jurisdiction is that we're not just taking this development and dumping it into the pond. There are certain water quality and quantity goals that are required for the DEC to issue an ultimate permit for the stormwater as this thing goes. MR. TRAVER-You have to submit a plan. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, we have to submit to them. They have to review all of our values, all of our calculations. So the water quality goals that are specifically geared toward addressing any type of pollutants that would come into the storm system, and the DEC Stormwater Design Manual has prescriptive practices depending on your soil conditions, site acreages, a whole litany of inputs that have certain values for water quality and water quantity and that's essentially,I mean you choose your practices in a nutshell as you go through the site design process. So prior to getting into the pond,the stormwater processes that are designed on site are there not only for quantity but also for quality. So the water entering the pond is going to actually enter it at a lower volume than it currently is and it will be meeting the State's water quality rules. MR. TRAVER-Would that include any water that is going into the culvert which goes under Quaker Road? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,because before it even gets to the pond, the pond was actually a design point for our hydrologic and hydraulic study. So prior to it getting into the pond is where we compared all of our existing conditions to post construction values. So we had to increase the water quality. We had to decrease the water quantity entering into the pond. MR. TRAVER-And is there, I'm trying to recall, as part of your stormwater management plan, are there follow up checks following construction and so on to make sure that the plan is working? MR. HUNTINGTON-During construction there are and then part of the Town's standard procedure is there's a standard maintenance agreement between the applicant,property owner and the Town that says if any issues arise essentially the Town has the ability to come onto the property and investigate. MR. TRAVER-And potentially require you to make changes. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,or any consultant really,it doesn't necessarily have to be us. MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Board? MRS. MC DEVITT-I mean I do worry about the DEC change of rules and I remember going to a meeting in Saratoga and they talked about that,and I do respect,I have to listen to what came right from the DEC biologist that this gentleman talked to and listen to it and have concern. MR.TRAVER-I think if we get written correspondence from them,we can make it part of the record,take that into account,but a conversation in a,I mean we have to be very cautious about second and third hand information. If it's not considered significant enough to submit written opinions or recommendations,and that may happen. I mean this project is not done tonight. So it may very well be that DEC does additional review if they wish or if they wish to comment,that's fine,but we have to look at what we have in front of us,really, or what potentially might be in front of us. Laura, do you have anything you wanted to add in that respect? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MRS.MOORE-I was just going to say that the DEC regs,even though they're coming out this coming year, the next coming year,we don't know what they're going to say or what jurisdiction they'll ultimately have. MR. TRAVER-And they're not written yet. MRS. MOORE-They're not,well,they haven't been approved yet. MR. TRAVER-They haven't been approved yet. MRS. MOORE-And they may have to go back to the drawing board at some point because I don't know if it's happening. I know people are allowed to make comments on those items. So we're not at that point. This applicant has submitted an application that actually goes back to DEC anyway for the stormwater pollution prevention plan. So we're still looking at quality and quantity. MR. TRAVE R-Right. All right. Thank you. MR.DEEB-I agree with you,Steve. I understand your point. Unless we have a written confirmation from DEC it has to be part of the record that it's going to be detrimental,the project is going to be detrimental, if we don't get something like that,we have to go on what we have now. MR. TRAVER-That's right. MR. DEEB-We can't go on speculation. MR. TRAVER-And there's an additional review process that the project is going through,you know,with the Town and we'll have Site Plan and so on. So it's possible that things may come out of those various discussions,but as we sit here tonight,what we have in front of us is what we have. So,okay. Anything else? Okay. Well we have to consider, let's see, we've already accepted Lead Agency. So we have to consider SEQR tonight. Correct? MRS. MOORE-You're considering the SEQR and possibly a recommendation to the Town Board and just a reminder that you don't have a full Board this evening. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant could request a tabling if they wish to. MR. TRAVER-Right. We have a quorum,however, but,yes, that's a question. So, okay. Thank you, Laura. So we do not have a full Board. We do have to do the State Environmental Quality Review process and also further consider the potential for a recommendation to the Town Board. I don't know how comfortable the Board is going to be with four members present doing those things,or how you feel as an applicant. Do you wish us to table this until another meeting with the Board? MR. DEEB-You have to have four yes votes for this to get approval,or it ends. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. MEYER-I guess in terms of the SEQR and doing a Long Environmental Assessment Form, I just, I haven't heard the Board vocalize any concerns that would trigger a potentially large impact,which would be the threshold for an additional environmental studies. MR. TRAVER-For a positive dec. Yes. MR. MEYER-So short of hearing that, I guess I would be inclined to I guess hear more in terms of what your concerns are and what additional information this Board would look to see,because I guess the other avenue that I'm looking at is,yes, we have the SEQR and whether or not there are potentially significant environmental impacts,but,you know,we're also cognizant that Queensbury's Site Plan Review law has similar language in mitigating potential impacts and environmental hazards. So I guess while we're sitting here it would appear more prudent or more appropriate for the Board to really examine those site specific impacts within the confines of Queensbury Code versus an environmental assessment form that would be necessary just as a global project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well the State Environmental Quality Review is quite specific,and so we deal with that as a separate issue from Site Plan and potential issues that might be exposed during that process,but certainly we can discuss SEQR. So we did receive the form from the applicant. Do Board members have comments or questions regarding environmental impacts on this project? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. DEEB-I think we should do it individually. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to go through each question? MR. DEEB-I think I'd be more comfortable with that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That's fine. MRS. MOORE-All right. So Question Number One is Impact on Land, Proposed action may involve construction on,or physical alteration of,the land surface of the proposed site. Questions that are asked in here is, a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet, and you have an opportunity to say no or small impact may occur or moderate to large impact may occur. MR. TRAVER-I think no. I mean these are built on slabs. MR.LONGACKER-You said in the beginning of your presentation,you indicated that test pits were done. We do have the five that you guys had done before. Were additional ones done? MR.HUNTINGTON-No,we haven't performed any additional ones. The site was relatively uniform,you know,we scattered them out. So,I mean,that's a pretty good indicator of what's out there. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. Thank you. I'll be commenting on that more probably in Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I'm going back to the page that is relevant to this and see where. So I'm in Part Two of the EAF. MR. TRAVER-While she's doing that,there's a couple of questions that came up regarding site lighting. Are you planning on providing a lighting plan? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,there is one included. MR. TRAVER-There is? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-My apologies. Okay. I did not see that. Maybe I didn't download it. And then signage? MR.HUNTINGTON-Signage we have not yet addressed. MR. TRAVER-That will be needed. MRS.MOORE-So the answer to that question,I apologize,the application has six feet. So this was saying is the water table less than three feet. So the answer would be no. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 150/o or greater. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. MR. TRAVER-I don't believe so. This is all glacial moraine I think. Right. Yes. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. MR. TRAVER-I hope not. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. MR. TRAVER-Possibly in multiple phases. Right? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR.HUNTINGTON-It may. MRS. MOORE-It may, but is that no or small impact may occur or is it moderate to large impact may occur? MR. TRAVER-Small I think. It's going to be based on Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-Is that the general consensus of everyone? MRS. MC DEVITT-I feel like it's hard to project. I mean I don't know. MRS. MOORE-So is construction over more than one year considered, would you consider it a large impact? MRS. MC DEVITT-I see. MRS. MOORE-So general consensus is no? MR. LONGACKER-I'd say small. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MRS. MC DEVITT-Maybe for the neighbors it is. MRS. MOORE-This is the physical impact on the land. I understand what you're saying,but that's not part of this question. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal. MR. TRAVER-Erosion? I would say no. Anybody disagree? MR. DEEB-I agree. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action is,or may be,located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-And Other impacts versus impacts on land. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. None identified. So Impact on Land would be answered no. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS.MOO RE-Question Number Two is Impact on Geological Features. The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site. Letter A is identify the specific land form(s). MR. TRAVER-Yes,I think we have correspondence on that. Don't we? Isn't that part of the application? MRS. MOORE-For geological? MR. TRAVE R-Geological. I'm sorry. I heard zoological. MRS. MOORE-That was Letter A. I don't know of any specific land forms. MR. TRAVER-Yes,no,I don't believe so. MRS. MOORE-Letter B, The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a registered National Natural Landmark. MR. TRAVER-No MRS. MOORE-And Other Impacts. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-So Impact on Geological Features would be no. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Question Number Three,Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies. Letter A, The propose action may create a new water body. MR. TRAVER-No MRS. MOORE-b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 100/o or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-C. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS.MOORED. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland,or in the bed or banks of any other water body. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-E. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s)for withdrawal of water from surface water. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s)- MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. MR. TRAVER-Well that would be no because they're going to get a required approved plan to prevent that. Correct? MRS. MOORE-They have to follow the rules and regs of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. MR. TRAVE R-Right. So that would be a no. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Letter J. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Letter K. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing,wastewater treatment facilities. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-And then Letter I is any other impacts that are listed for Impacts on Surface Water. MR. TRAVER-No. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MRS.MOO RE-So the answer to Number Three would be no for Impacts on Surface Water. Number Four, Impact on Groundwater. The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS.MOORE-So I'll read through the questions with it. Letter A. The proposed action may require new water supply wells,or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is,or is suspected to be,contaminated. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS.MOORE-Other Impacts. So Question Number Four,Impact on Groundwater,is no. Number Five, Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. Letter A. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in,or require,modification of existing drainage patterns. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may change flood flows that contribute to flooding. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action,the dam has failed to meet one or more safety criteria on its most recent inspection. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-And other impacts. Question Number Five, Impacts on Flooding, is no. Question Six Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-I'm not going to go through any of the questions on that one. Okay. Seven, Impacts on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. I'll go through these questions. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on,over,or near the site. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare,threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site,or are found on,over,or near the site. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS.MOORE-The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS.MOORE-The proposed action may result in the removal of,or ground disturbance in,any portion of a designated significant natural community. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding,foraging, or over- wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Proposed action involves use of herbicides or pesticides. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS.MOO RE-Impacts on Plants and Animals is no. That's Question Seven. We're onto Question Eight. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-I'm not going to read through those questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Question Nine, Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from,or in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-They have questions with that. Do you want me to read those questions? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR.TRAVER-I don't think it's necessary. This is not in apart of the Town that's associated with a scenic area. MRS. MOORE-Number Ten Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. And I'm also not going to read those questions,either. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Number Eleven,Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-They have questions here. I don't necessarily think I need to read those questions. Number Twelve,Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-It's not. I'm not going to read those questions that are associated with that either. Number Thirteen Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. I will read through these questions. a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Any other impacts? So Impact on Transportation is a no. Number Fourteen Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I'll read through the questions. The proposed action will require anew,or an upgrade to an existing,substation. MR. TRAVER-I don't believe so. I don't think we know the answer to that. It's not going to create any. MR.HUNTINGTON-I wouldn't imagine so. MRS. MOORE-Letter B. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-Sixty-four. MR. LONGACKE R-Sixty-four. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MRS. MOORE-Sixty-four. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So then the question will be yes. MRS. MOORE-So is it a small impact or is it a moderate to large? MR. TRAVE R-Small. They wouldn't make connection if it was a major impact. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity. MR. TRAVER-I hope not. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So you had originally identified it as yes, and so all these items have been marked as no or small impact may occur. So I'm going to change the answer to no. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Okay. Number Fifteen,Impact on Noise,Odor and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise,odors,or outdoor lighting. MR. TRAVER-Well,yes,I would say yes it will. MRS.MOORE-So let me ask the questions. A. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulations. You don't have them. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school,licensed day care center,or nursing home. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. MR. TRAVER-Well,no. MRS. MOORE-We have rules and regulations regarding downcast fixtures. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Any other impacts you can identify with lighting,noise or odor? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So you've answered no or small impact may occur in regards to Impact on Noise, Odor or Lights. So I'm going to check no. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Question Number Sixteen Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I will not read through all those questions. Number Seventeen Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. It's a double negative and it's a DEC nightmare. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. DEEB-So they're saying it is consistent with the. Yes. MRS. MOORE-It is consistent. I can read through those questions if you would like me to. MR. DEEB-No. MRS.MOORE-Okay. Number Eighteen Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MRS.MOORE-Okay. And I don't feel I need to read through those questions,either. Okay. That's it. So you've answered all of them as no. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we can consider the resolution,then. Okay. Do members of the Board feel comfortable voting on a SEQR resolution? Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP#69-2023 PZ 1-2023 FWW 1-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S Applicant proposes a zone change of a 10.99 acre parcel from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density Residential. The project includes construction of 16 buildings with 4 units each as well as community building and paths. Site Plan review pending Town Board and Planning Board Petition of zone change review. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040 and chapter 94, site plan for construction of a new multifamily building and work within 100 ft. of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Planning Board to complete SEQRA and provide a recommendation to the Town Board. 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 Long 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 69-2023, PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S.Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 19`h day of March 2024 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So I'm going to ask you to amend it because you have to read through the resolution. So you're going to amend it in reference to Part Three of the Long EAF. MR. DEEB-Has been reviewed and completed. MRS. MOORE-Is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. MR. DEEB-I see it. It's been a long time since I've done this. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. I'm going back to have you amend it. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr.Traver 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-All right. So the next question is the recommendation to the Town Board as favorable or unfavorable for a zoning change from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density Residential. How do Board members feel about that? I should poll the Board. MR. LONGACKER-I can see Cumberland Farms from my dining room window so I'm very close to this. I'm just outside the 500 foot radius myself,and Ellen brought up a really good question to the public when she asks what would you like to see in there. I have my comments and I'll get to those during Site Plan, but I would personally rather see a change in the use to residential than commercial. I personally don't want to see something in there that's very large with a lot of lights. I'd rather have it residential. I do have issues with the size of what's being proposed. I'll get to that later. So I'm okay with this one, to make that recommendation. MR. TRAVER-So you'd rather see a change from Commercial Intensive to Residential. MR. LONGACKER-I don't have an issue with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. David? MR. DEEB-Well we'll put it in the Town Board's hands. It'll be up to them anyway. I'm fine with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MC DEVITT-I'm fine. MR.TRAVER-All right. So are there any comments or concerns regarding specifically,again,not site plan, but regarding a zoning change that we want to communicate to the Town Board,or do we just respond as favorable? Does anyone have anything to add? MR. DEEB-I don't. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: SP#69-2023 PZ 1-2023 FWW 12- 2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a zone change of a 10.99 acre parcel from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density Residential. The project includes construction of 16 buildings with 4 units each as well as community building and paths. Site Plan review pending Town Board and Planning Board Petition of zone change review. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-10-040 and chapter 94, site plan for construction of anew multifamily building and work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Planning Board to complete SEQRA and provide a recommendation to the Town Board. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Town Board is proposing a zoning change to Moderate Density Residential. The Town Board referred this proposed change to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020,resolution number 365,2023 dated 10/16/2023-1 MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM CI TO MDR; The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with this proposal. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 19`h day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-You're off to the Town Board. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. MEYER-Thank you very much. MR.HUNTINGTON-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,under Tabled Items,is Lauren&Christian Freyer, Site Plan 73-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 13-2023. SITE PLAN NO.73-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER. AGENT(S): RU HOLMES, PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: PULVER ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,573 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,874 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR INCREASED PERMEABILITY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVED BY LOCAL BOH IS PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACROSS PULVER ROAD AND CONNECTING TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BY THE SAME OWNER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 94, 179-3-040, 179-6-065, &z 179-6-050, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,WETLANDS,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.227.14-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,CHAPTER 94. MR. TRAVER-I understand they've made a request,Laura,for a tabling until April? MRS. MOORE-Yes. They weren't able to get the necessary information back to the Board, so they requested a tabling. MR. TRAVER-So they do have additional information on their application they're submitting? MRS. MOORE-It's possible. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We didn't get a tabling resolution on that,did we? MRS. MOORE-You should have. MR. DEEB-I got one. MRS. MOORE-So do you want to leave the public hearing open? MR. TRAVER-Yes. So it remains open and we will leave it open until the project is re-heard on. MRS. MOORE-It should be April 16`h MR. TRAVER-April16. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. TRAVER-All right. MR.DEEB Just a quick comment before we do this. I passed out some forms to the Board from the meeting last month. I'd just urge you to consider that and look at that because they will be back before us again. MR. TRAVER-Next month. MR. DEEB-And I think it's something that we really have to take a look at. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #73-2023 FWW 13-2023 LAUREN&CHRISTIAN FREYER (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 1,573 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,874 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for increased permeability, stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across Pulver Road and connecting to adjoining property by the same owner.Pursuant to Chapter 94,179-3-040, 179-6-065&179-6-050, site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 73-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Warren Longacker. Tabled until the April 16,2024 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 19`h day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-Okay. So moving on on our agenda, the next section is Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Planning Board. The first item is AEC Solar Energy Corp. This is Site Plan 14- 2024. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO.14-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. AEC SOLAR ENERGY CORP. AGENT(S): AEC SOLAR ENERGY CORP. OWNER(S): HUDSON ORIGINS,LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 119 BIG BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL 1,118 SQ. FT. GROUND MOUNTED SOLA ARRAY OF 20.8KW DC. THE EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PANELS ARE TO BE INSTALLED ON A RACK SYSTEM AND CONNECT TO THE HOUSE VIA TRENCH. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-5-140, SITE PLAN FOR GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR ARRAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND LOCATION OF SOLAR ARRAY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 17-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2024. SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. LOT SIZE: 5.00 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.13-1-1. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-5-140. JEFFREY KATT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; TODD JORGENSON,OWNER,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to install a 1,118 square foot ground mounted solar array of 20.8KW DC. The existing home and detached garage remain unchanged. The panels to be installed on a rack system and connect to the house via a trench. The variance request is for setback to the property line of 67.1 feet where a 75 foot setback from any property line is required, as well as locating a solar array in the front yard. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. KATT-Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Katt. I'm here representing AEC Solar Energy Corp.,the solar contractor for this project. MR.JORGENSON-And I'm Todd Jorgenson. I'm the property owner. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tell us about your project. MR. KATT-Our standard,pre-engineered, ground mount system,using ground screws for connection to the ground and below the frost line, asking for the variance for the setback because to meet the 75 foot setback requirement would put it in the shade of the tree line. So it needs to be away from that to get its full potential production, and the variance for being in the front yard is that there is no back or side yard in this case. The property is right on the water line. So it is all front yard. So that is it. MR. TRAVER-Yes,understood. I wondered about the setback,or the reason why you couldn't move it a little bit more. Interesting. Okay. There is,typically one of the issues we have with these solar projects is that they don't last forever, and we generally like to have some assurance that when these panels cease to function properly that they will be,if they're not going to be replaced,that they will be removed and the property,you know,restored to its pre-solar panel condition, and we're going to likely require that when we get to Site Plan Review,that that be a condition,just so you're aware of that. I would imagine,it seems that you're familiar,you've done these installations before. So you're familiar with them. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR.KATT-Yes,. and I can speak to this particular type of installation for removal of the racking system is a lot easier than something that's done with concrete footings. It's just removing the frame and the ground screws. It's a lot easier. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So you don't feel there'd bean issue providing such a plan to remove the array when it becomes necessary? MR.KATT-I mean we're talking 25 years down the road,but sure,absolutely. MR. DEEB-We usually require a decommissioning plan be put into the Site Plan. MR.KATT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So you can think about that as you prepare for Site Plan Review,if you can have that information at that time that would be very helpful. The only variance is a setback issue,apparently. Do Board members have any questions or concerns regarding the setback? Apparently it has to do with shading of the solar panels. MRS. MC DEVITT-That makes a lot of sense. MR. LONGACKER-Can your neighbors see it? I seethe edge,I drove down Big Bay Road. I didn't drive up your driveway. I wasn't sure. I know there's trees there. You look at the aerial,it looks like it might be deciduous. I can't tell. MR.KATT-I do have some additional photos. MR.JORGENSON-So I can just talk on that. So this was the least obtrusive to neighbors. So you can't see it from the road where we have it,where the plan is. If we pulled out into the middle of the field there's plenty of sun there, like there's a small field you can see where the red mark is and then there's a much larger field in the bottom right corner. That would be plenty of sun. We wouldn't have to worry about setbacks, but everyone driving down the road could see it. All of our neighbors could see it. This is backing up to woods. If I pushed it back,or I pulled it forward or down the page a little bit towards those trees,I'd have to takeout a row of trees. So I didn't want to do that,and just pushing it back,we wouldn't' have to take down a row of trees. MR. TRAVER-So based on your project planning,it's the most favorable site. MR.JORGENSON-Yes, the least obtrusive certainly. Like it would produce more if I was out in the middle of the field because there is still a little shading, but we thought it would be better for the environment around and the view from the rest of the road. MR. KATT-Right now it's screened on all sides by trees from the road. They aren't deciduous. You can see it a little bit,you know,during the winter,but there's actually one really large trunk that is directly in line with where the array is going to be,looking from the road,that blocks most of the view. MR.JORGENSON-Yes. That's it, if you're looking from the road, if we put it in the middle of the field, you're going to see the array. There's nothing shading it. So that's why we pulled it back. MR. DEEB-So you're sacrificing some optimal for sight view. We appreciate that. MR.JORGENSON-Yes. MR.KATT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I know I have a tiny panel that's only about this big that I take on my camping expeditions and I have to adjust it during the day because of the trees and so on to get light. I think it's only 27 watts. It's barely enough to provide my equipment. Okay. All right. So the Zoning Board is looking for us to make a recommendation on their request for that setback variance. Do Board members have any concerns with that? Hearing none,I guess we have a draft resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question if I may. Just curious, what is the amount of power you're going to be trying to achieve? MR.KATT-I believe it is 20.S Kilowatts DC. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-No. That was it. I do like the mounting screws system over the concrete. I will just let you know that after 25 years in the ground they won't come out easy that way, but hopefully you're 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) making such a great investment that you'd probably just get new panels and put them on, but like our Chairman said,I'd be looking for a decommissioning plan. MR. KATT-Maybe in 25 years the one that's this big that's on your boat will be able to power the whole house. MR. MAGOWAN-You know what,you're probably right there. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#17-2024 AEC SOLAR ENERGY CORP. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to install 1,11E sq. ft. ground mounted solar array of 20.Skw de. The existing home and detached garage to remain unchanged. The panels are to be installed on a rack system and connect to the house via trench.Pursuant to chapter179- 3-040&179-5-140,site plan for ground mounted solar array shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and location of solar array.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 17-2024 AEC SOLAR ENERGY CORP. Introduced by David Deeb 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 19`h day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR.KATT-Thank you. May I ask a procedural question? MR. TRAVER-Certainly. MR. KATT-The meeting on the 26`h, would that be Site Plan Review, assuming the Zoning Board of Appeals gives their okay? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR.KATT-Okay. So I should have a decommissioning plan ready for that meeting? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That's my recommendation. It's actually, it wouldn't be required. We would be conditioning it,any approval,on that being included. So it would be to our advantage that you have that. It's not absolutely necessary that you have it by then,but if you can,that would be great. MR.KATT-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The next item on our agenda, also under Recommendations to the ZBA,is Geraldine Eberlein,Site Plan 5-2023. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) SITE PLAN NO.5-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GERALDINE EBERLEIN. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SEELYE ROAD NORTH. (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 NEW PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE LANDSCAPING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS,FLOOR AREA AND PERMEABILITY. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 70- 2007,AV 4-2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.227.17-1-25,227-17-1-24(SEPTIC). SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050. MATT HUNTINGTON&KATIE REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application, the applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a newhome with a footprint of 2,411 square feet with an outdoor kitchen of 234 square feet and anew floor area of 3,343 square feet. The variance that's being sought is proposal of anew home where the front yard setback is proposed to be 13.5 feet where a 30 foot setback is required. The shoreline setback is proposed to be 54 feet where 65.77 foot setback is required. The permeability is proposed to be a 70.4%where 750/o is required. The floor area proposed is 3,343 square feet at 25.50/o floor area where 220/o is the maximum allowed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Tell us about your project. MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening. Matt Huntington and Katie Loffon with Studio A here on behalf of the applicant, Geraldine Eberlein. So hopefully this will be a little bit more brief than that last one. So essentially what's there right now is an antiquated two-story wood house and a guest cottage. Currently there's no stormwater management on site. The existing septic system is I'd probably say within 60 feet of the lake right now, consists of an antiquated leach field and septic tank. The septic tank did pass the Lake George Park Commission inspection recently,but the leach field,you know,it's too close to the lake. Doesn't comply. So part of this project, it's going to be a complete demolition of the existing structures on the property,new structures proposed with it. We will have stormwater management practices in the form of permeable pavers for the driveway,patio and a raingarden on the east side of the lot, and also as part of this project we'll be replacing the on-site wastewater system. I don't think that plan necessarily shows it,Laura. But we'll be replacing the wastewater system in that open field area to the right of where the residence is right now, with an enhanced treatment system. It'll have a Fuji system, which they're similar to the Clarus,I think the Board's familiar with those,in lieu of a septic tank,and that goes out to a conservatively sized mound system that'll be out in that area. There you can see it on the plan to the left of the house. In conjunction with that,their neighbor actually will be replacing their septic system at the same time. So we went to the Town, the Board of Health with this,because we need a variance due to groundwater levels. The wastewater system went through an extensive review by the Town review engineer and it was recently approved by the Town Board of Health for the wastewater system. On that same note,the stormwater system has gone through a review by the Town Engineer as well. We've gone through it back and forth with them as well and received a signoff for the stormwater system. That's really the project in a nutshell and,you know, we'll have to continue on at the Zoning Board for the variances that we're requesting. A lot of them are really generated by the fact that we have an existing non- conforming lot at.3 acres. So in terms of permeability,our permeability is actually going to improve,even though, I'm sorry, it's not going to improve. The permeability, though, is really driven by the size of the lot,but we are providing a lot of the stormwater practices to address that. MR. TRAVER-So it's sort of a pre-existing,non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot basically. MR.HUNTINGTON-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Well, it is a concern, the number and extent of the variances, because it's a Critical Environmental Area in particular. Is there anything you can do to reduce any of these variances? I mean they're quite significant. MR.HUNTINGTON-Well,what we have done is currently right now there's a guest house that's actually touching the property line on that front setback. So we've increased that separation distance by locating the house,you know,further back from that front yard setback line. Our shoreline setback,we're greater 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) than 50 feet for it. I know we looked at the average of both lots. What happens with the average is it gets a little bit skewed because the one to the east is almost right on the water, and the one to the west is much further back. So that averages around 60,but we're pulling the house back so we're greater than 50 feet on the shoreline setback. In terms of the floor area ratio we're a little bit limited again because we have such a small existing lot. It's such a very,you know,it's a small,non-conforming lot as it is. So we're doing our best to reduce the amount of structures on the property and just replacing them with one structure that we want to have compliant stormwater and wastewater and we feel those are,you know, Pretty significant upgrades to the environmental conditions that are out there currently. MRS. MC DEVITT-I have some real problems,I'm just going to say that,with all the variances,being too close to the water, and I know that property is wet. It gets very wet. I know that. So I do have problems with this. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So in terms of recommendation,again,we're not here for Site Plan tonight. This is for the variances. So you would wish to express concern with the number and size of the variances. MRS. MC DEVITT-Yes, and here's the problem. I feel like we've run into this before, and if we approve the variance then we get into a problem with the Site Plan. So I'm just going to come right out and say I'm not going to approve it. MR. TRAVER-Well,we're not approving the variance. That's the Zoning Board of Appeals. MRS. MC DEVITT-No, I know, but what I'm saying is you're going to ask me if I would make a recommendation to the Zoning Board,and I'm going to say no. MR. TRAVER-Yes,okay. Other comments,questions,concerns? MR.LONGACKER-I just have a concern with the permeability,but the lot lines themselves,it's small,it's a postage stamp sized lot. I mean I'd like to see you try to reduce it down, the permeability, when you come back for Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-So you're concern is with the permeability variance. MR. LONGACKER-Permeability. MRS.MC DEVITT-The other question I have is are you saying,about the septic,are you sharing the septic system with the neighbor,basically? MR. HUNTINGTON-No,they're two separate systems. I was just mentioning that that was part of the consolidated. MR. TRAVER-They were reviewed at the same time. MR.HUNTINGTON-Exactly, at the same time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mr. Magowan? MR.MAG OWAN-For one,I see the size of the house,but I don't see any plans of the house,which I'd like to see. MR.HUNTINGTON-I have them,if it's all right,I could pass them around to the Board if they want. MRS. MOORE-So,because of the length that this project has been in front of this Board,it's been over a year,so the original application that you received,probably last January,had all the building elevations to it. MR. MAGOWAN-It's funny you say that, because I did go through my pile of papers, because I remembered that name. MR.HUNTINGTON-Would you like me to just pass them down,just so you can look at it? MRS. MOORE-That's fine. I would do that. MR.MAGOWAN-I'm concerned,you know,one with the size of the variances and permeability,all of the above, and moving it forward. I'm always for increasing and,or,you know,upgrading the septic, and also the shoreline buffering. I see that you've done plenty around the sides,but the front yard,the grass goes right down to the shoreline, and I believe it's a rock,is that a rock wall? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,I just. MR. TRAVER-There is buffering on the site and proposed to be expanded. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,it's on either side. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,the buffering,I mean it's pretty extensive what we have there, and then you do have some lawn area in the middle,but prior to leaving the patio,if you look, there's a pretty substantial plants before the patio,before you actually get to the lawn area. MR. MAGOWAN-But the lawn doesn't absorb the amount of water that sometimes does appear most likely with the hard rains that we get. MR. HUNTINGTON-Certainly, however we don't have any impervious surfaces directed to the lawn. They're all directed to a stormwater practice. So it's simply whatever rain lands on the lawn is what's on the lawn,in terms of runoff. MR. TRAVER-The total of trees and shrubbery and plants and so on that are proposed are slightly below the suggested guidance. Would you be willing to expand the proposed buffering so that it's equal to the guidance? It's a Critical Environmental Area. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, I believe so. We will look into that. I know in the past there've been some issues in terms of physically being able to meet that number that's set forth within the Code in the shoreline with the allocated area that's there and have the plants actually survive,but we can certainly take a look at it and see what we can do to improve it. MR.TRAVER-Yes,but it is a requirement. I understand that it's a Site Plan issue,it's not a variance issue, but I wanted to mention it because it is one of the, I mean with all of these other concerns we don't need to add another one that we have to have control over. MR.HUNTINGTON-No,certainly we will expand it to the best of our ability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Dave? MR.DEE&Well I see you had a lot of meetings,2/23. I guess I'm a little confused as to whether or not the recommendation to the Zoning Board is going to get through again, whether the recommendation to the Zoning Board will get passed. MR. TRAVER-You mean the variances? MR. DEEB-No,the recommendation resolution to send it to the Zoning Board. We need four out of five here to send it. MR. TRAVER-I see what you're saying. We have one no vote. MR. DEE&We have one no. I suggest you poll the Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And give them the option to table if they want to do that MR. TRAVER-That's a good point. MR. HUNTINGTON-I want to add before, some of these variances that we're requesting are not uncommon for some of these smaller, lakefront properties that we have been before the Zoning and Planning Boards before. MR. TRAVER-And we're trying to reduce them. MR.HUNTINGTON-Understood. MR. TRAVER-All right. So you're a no? MRS. MC DEVITT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LONGACKER-I'll recommend it. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. DEEB-Brad? MR. MAGOWAN-I'm a no. MR. TRAVER-So,yes,we only have. MR.HUNTINGTON-I think we'll re-visit then. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-I think that might be a good idea. MR. TRAVER-All right. Do you have a suggestion for a tabling date,Laura? MRS. MOORE-I have to put it out to May at this point because April's applications are already, I was going to say, applications that are already in for April. MR. TRAVER-May? MRS. MOORE-It has to be. MR. TRAVER-One of the problems we have is we call this the growing season. We tend to have busy schedules. There's a lot of development going on in the spring. So,Laura,April agendas are pretty full it sounds like? MRS. MOORE-I'm trying to have the third meeting. MR. TRAVER-In April? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That would be the 25`h MRS. MOORE-You know what,why don't we table it to April 25`h and then if I need to move it I'll let the applicant know. If they need to move it they can let me know. MR. TRAVER-So that would be a potential third meeting next month. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-A potential third Planning Board meeting in April. MR. HUNTINGTON Just may I ask in terms of, aside from the planting, is there anything, specifically, that the Board would like to see that I could address? MR. TRAVER-Permeability was mentioned three times. That was one of the concerns I had, and two other Board members specifically addressed permeability. So if there's anything you can do about that,I think that would certainly alleviate some concern. MRS. MC DEVITT-Setback was it for me at the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean all of the, again, you know, this is a Critical Environmental Area, and I understand this is a small lot,but I think there are things that you could do,if you changed the proposal, to reduce some of those variances, and I know it's not what you would like to do, or what the customer would like to do. MR. DEEB-It's a.3 acre. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I'm going to have you table it to the first meeting in April, and that was only because I knew that the Zoning Board was tabled tomorrow, and so it was going to adjust the schedule anyway. So I can schedule it for April. I just don't have my agendas in front of me. MR. TRAVER-Okay,so that would be,if I had to guess,that would be the 16`h MRS. MOORE-Correct. April 16`h is what you're tabling it to, and I'll explain. The applicant had requested that the Zoning Board be tabled tomorrow. So it would have adjusted the entire schedule anyway. So you could tentatively put them on for the first meeting in April for the Planning Board. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. DEEB-All right. So my comment,we've got to remember it's a.3 acre lot. They're pretty constricted on the lot. MR. TRAVER-No question. MR. DEEB-We're on a tight path here a Board and I just think that we need to look at the whole picture. MR.TRAVE R-Right. So,to get back to your question as to what can you do,I mean one of the things that we have to make sure that we avoid,we cannot make this our project. So we cannot tell you well if you do this,it'll be fine,if you do that it'll be fine. You heard the concerns. You know what the variances are. We understand the context in which you're asking for these variances. So the only suggestion I can give you is to try to look at each of them and see if there's anything you can do to reduce them. There were three specific concerns voiced with permeability. So that might be a good place to start. Okay? MR.HUNTINGTON-Okay. Thank you. 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. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance:Relief is sought for setbacks,floor area and permeability. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the April 16,2024 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 19`h day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT:Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR.HUNTINGTON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-See you next month. The next item on our agenda, also under Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals,is Redbud Development,Site Plan 13-2024. SITE PLAN NO.13-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. REDBUD DEVELOPMENT. AGENT(S): REDBUD DEVELOPMENT. OWNER(S): LAKE PARKWAY RETREAT,LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 226 LAKE PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 565 SQ. FT. PAVILION ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND TO ALTER TWO OF THE HOME'S DORMERS. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES IMPROVING THE SITE'S PERMEABILITY, A NEW PLANNING PLAN, UPDATED PATIO WALKWAY AREAS, RETAINING WALL, AND NEW BOULDER WALLS. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES EXISTING AND NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE SHORELINE AREA WILL BE IMPROVED WITH A PLANTINGS AND A RETAINING WALL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-080 &z 179-6-050, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND RETAINING WALL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DRAINAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 72- 2005, SP 53-2005, AV 16-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2O24. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, L G P C, APA. LOT SIZE: 0.62 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-82. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-080,179-6-050. GEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MRS. MOORE-This application is to construct a 565 square foot pavilion addition to an existing home, and to alter two of the home's dormers. Project work includes improving the site's permeability, a new planting plan,updated patio walkway areas,retaining wall and new boulder wall areas. The project also includes existing and new stormwater management. The shoreline area's improved with plantings and a retaining wall. The variance that's being requested is in reference to setback issues,13 feet S inches for the pavilion to the side of the home,side setback where 20 feet is required. There's a covered walkway that is to be 13 feet 5 inches, also requires a 20 foot setback. The shoreline setback is to be 36 feet 7 inches where a 50 foot setback is required, and then the new stormwater devices on the retaining wall are less than 35 feet. New floor area is also triggered. To explain this,the house was built in 2005 and sometime prior to current zoning the basement area wasn't necessarily included in the original floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. REDICK-Good evening. My name's Geff Redick from Redbud Development. I'm here with Dave Krenshaw the owner of the property. In short,Laura did a good job of explaining what we're planning on doing. I'd like to bring your attention to the current site conditions and expand upon that a little bit. The property was about 20 years old when the house was built. The current owner, and nothing's been done to it since. I mean there's been some minor improvements and what not,but essentially it's come with a lot of challenges we'll say. The owner bought the property about three years ago and some of the current site conditions, some of the lot coverage issues were above the impervious. We've got some erosion all along the lakeshore. There's never been any kind of mitigation or mediation with regard to plant materials or retention. You can see we've submitted some pictures of that erosion. We also have a stormwater management system that was constructed during the time that the house was built, but there's no documentation that verifies what those were or what kind of capacities those hold, and as briefly mentioned there's very limited plant material that's on the property. Our proposal,yes,we are asking for a couple of variances, and I would like to confirm one thing, Laura. In your description you talked about a covered walkway. It's really,I think what you were referring to,it's really the coverage going over what we want to do as a basic entrance. I'd like to clarify that,because it's really not a covered walkway. It's the location entrance. Part of our goal for doing that is we have no access to the basement other than one interior door. So any type of improvements that you want to make to the basement,even replacing a boiler or a hot water heater, something like that, has to be covered through the house down through a set of narrow stairs. It really gives you limited access into the basement. So by incorporating the exterior set of stairs and then putting a roof structure over the top of it,we can prevent a lot of, any types of drainage or water issues in the basement. So to kind of start from the lakeshore,you can see in the picture in the lower right,there is virtually no retention along the shoreline. So any wave action that happens is really coming in at that lakeshore, and I wish the pictures were larger because there's actually a bit more of a challenge in there than what the pictures represent. So what we would like to do is not take any trees down. We would like to fix some of that existing vegetation, build some, we'll say boulder walls, that obviously we have to get approvals from,from DEC and LGA, and then re-vegetate that slope with more appropriate materials. As we continue to move up the property,the existing walls that you can see they are not going to change. They've obviously been there for quite a long time and they're in real good shape. The real project starts,or the project,if you look at the picture in the upper right hand corner,you can see a small set of furniture. That's where we're proposing to build this outdoor living space. The property faces due west. So for the latter part of the day there's really very little shade protection. So part of the goal of this structure is to be able to help us do that and all this,we'll call sea of existing patio,is going to be removed and significantly reduced. So not only are we reducing a lot of this,the patio material on the lakeside of the property, we're going to expensive, even on the opposite side of the road, that bisects the property, and removing a lot of parking at the street to improve our impervious that's going on. There is a stormwater management plan that has been reviewed by the Town Engineer,LaBella,and in essence their comments were very positive. They would like to see a couple of minor changes to the documents, assuming that the Board approves and sends it Site Plan,but in short that stormwater management plan has a, a new infiltrator is going in on either side of the house,or both sides of the house,which is going to come back and not only capture patio materials,but the new roof structure that we're proposing,but it's also going to capture existing roof structures. So we're going to be able to take an existing system that's there, that's not documented and come back and reconfirm it and document it to the extent of what it really should be and know that we're providing a good project. There's a small existing shed on the property that we're removing and getting rid of as part of this application as well, and then, as Laura had mentioned, we are proposing a couple of new dormers on the second floor of the house, and the reality is after the house was built,and the current owners are living there now,those upstairs bedrooms really don't have any views to the lake. It looks like they do,but with the size of the dormers and the way that they restrict use of the room,you literally have to go to the window to be able to look out and appreciate nature. So the idea of making these dormers slightly larger allows for a new floor arrangement within those bedrooms and allows for better views of the lake, and then architecturally we just think it blends better with the house. So in short that's kind of where our application sits. We're happy to open it up to comments from the Board. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, for the Board, we're here tonight to talk about the recommendations on the variances to the ZBA,much like the previous application. So, questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS. MC DEVITT-So I just want to understand. The shoreline setback is going to be closer,but you're not really going out farther on the patio area,or are you,from what exists now? MR. REDICK-We're actually reducing it. We're pulling it in from where it sits currently. MRS. MC DEVITT-So how,so what is the setback currently,then,as it exists? MR. REDICK-It's required to have a 50 foot setback from the shoreline. MRS. MC DEVITT-Right,but what is the existing? When it says the shoreline setback is to be 36 feet 7 inches. So that's really not changing,right? MR. REDICK-Correct. We're actually making it better. MRS. MC DEVITT-Okay. I was reading it incorrectly,then,I was interpreting it incorrectly. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-The planting list,it's all been pulled from the recommended list? MR. REDICK-Yes,the Town of Queensbury list,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Some of those names I just can't pronounce. MR. REDICK-Understood. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Any questions, concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA on the variances for this project? Hearing none,we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#16-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to construct a 565 sq.ft. pavilion addition to an existing home and to alter two of the home's dormers. Project work includes improving the site's permeability, a new planting plan, updated patio walkway areas,retaining wall, and new boulder walls. The project also includes existing and new stormwater management. The shoreline area will be improved with a plantings and a retaining wall. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-OSO & 179-6-050, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area & retaining wall stormwater management drainage. 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 16-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 19`h day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-You are off to the ZBA. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) MR. REDICK-Thank you very much. DAVE KRENSHAW MR. KRENSHAW-As an additional comment, as a Navy veteran that deals with a lot of solar power and all that, I do appreciate all the comments you made about removing these projects when they become abandoned. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR.KRENSHAWI'm originally a farmer from Iowa. We're stuck with those windmills. MR. TRAVER-Yes. They'll be taken down. All right. So the next section of our agenda is New Business, and the only item we have is Glens Falls Country Club,Site Plan 10-2024. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR, RR-3A. LOCATION: MANNIS ROAD, 211 ROUND POND ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 6 NEW PICKLE BALL COURTS TOTALING 13,349 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE 45,500 SQ.FT.OF DISTURBANCE. THE COURTS WILL BE SURROUNDED BY A CHAIN LINK FENCE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PLANTING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE DISTURBANCE AREA INDICATES A GRADED AREA TO CREATE THE AREA FOR THE NEW COURTS. THE SITE IS THE EXISTING GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB AND THE ASSOCIATED CLUB HOUSE, GOLF COURSE, CLAY AND STANDARD TENNIS COURTS,AND ASSOCIATED COUNTRY CLUB AMENITIES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE TWO COUNTRY CLUB PARCELS WILL ALSO BE COMBINED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040 &z 179-5-020, SITE PLAN FOR PICKLE BALL COURT INSTALLATION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: RZ 2-2023, SP 62-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2O24. SITE INFORMATION: PORTION IN CEA,STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 24.66 ACRES,111.18 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-37,296.6-1-12. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-020. TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application proposes to install six new pickle ball courts totaling 13,349 square feet. The project includes disturbance of 45,500 square feet. The courts will be surrounded by a chain link fence. The project includes new plantings and stormwater management. The disturbance area indicates a graded area to create the area for the new courts. Similar to the existing tennis courts, there's an area that they're going to cut away an embankment to install the new pickle ball courts,and it's adjacent to the tennis courts. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering,Ed O'Hara and Jamie Hayes from the Glens Falls Country Club. Pretty straightforward project. Looking to add some additional amenities to the services that the Country Club provides,to construct six new pickle ball courts just to the north of the existing tennis courts and basically cut into the esker hill that's there right now. Right now about the same grade as we're proposing in here is the existing grade that grades down to the tennis courts. There's no real stormwater runoff from that area. Kind of did a good job of,you know,I walked around it looking to see how much water was coming off there, expecting this area to grow back to be brush and trees over time. It's not going to be mowed grass. As you can see with their other projects,when they did the golf course,they did all the proper netting and sloped erosion control and everything on their project,got grass growing really quickly. These guys know what they're doing,can get grass growing and topsoil and seed and move the project along. We've also got a small stormwater swale to manage the stormwater coming off of the pickle ball courts and infiltrating the ground,and we're 600 feet from the closest property line to the northeast and then if that pond ever were to overflow it's going down and around a way into a low depression on the site. MR.TRAVER-Okay. It seems fairly straightforward. Adding pickle ball. It seems like everybody's doing that. MR. CENTER-They're trying to increase the social membership at the Club. So folks that might not be interested in golf might be interested in the tennis and pick ball court and paddle ball, So they can also 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) get a membership and do it that way and use the facilities. So this is going to increase, hopefully, their social membership. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? There were engineering comments. I think they were manageable. I didn't see anything. MR. CENTER-There's a couple of clarifications on the stormwater report and one of the details,but the rest of them are just MS-4 coordinator issues. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 10-2024? I'm not seeing any. Laura,are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No,no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is there anything else from members of the Board? If not,I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#10-2024 GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB Applicant proposes installation of 6 new pickle ball courts totaling 13,349 sq.ft.The project would include 45,500 sq.ft.of disturbance. The courts will be surrounded by a chain link fence. The project includes new plantings and stormwater management. The disturbance area indicates a graded area to create the area for the new courts.The site is the existing Glens Falls Country Club and the associated club house,golf course, clay and standard tennis courts, and associated country club amenities to remain unchanged. The two Country Club parcels will also be combined as part of the project. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040&179- 5-020, site plan for pickle ball court installation with associated site work 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 3/19/2024 and continued the public hearing to 3/19/2024 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 3/19/2024; 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 10-2024 GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB.Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted for items: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal; 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 year expiration date of 3/19/2025-1 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; 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2024) 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 19`h day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening,Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don't have anything else. MR.TRAVER-You said next meeting we're going to acknowledge receipt of the Woods at West Mountain project? MRS. MOORE-Correct. You'll have a draft resolution that's already been prepared. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there's nothing else,then I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 19Tx 2024,Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt: Duly adopted this 19`h day of March,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned,everybody. See you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 35