The URL can be used to link to this page

07-16-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 44-2018 Mike Baird & Julie Jarvis 1. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-44 Site Plan No. 31-2019 Gary Hillert 2. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-53 Subdivision No. 1-2019 Jeremy Entwistle & Cassie Leonard 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-73.1 Subdivision No. 5-2019 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 45-2019 Jeremy Entwistle & Cassie Leonard 6. Tax Map No. 265.-1-73.1 Site Plan No. 42-2019 Mike Shearer 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.5-1-6 Site Plan No. 39-2019 Pizza Hut 15. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-34 Site Plan No. 40-2019 Target Corporation/Kimley-Horn 22. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.12 Subdivision No. 4-2019 Clear Brook, LLC – Hudson River Landing 26. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 288.8-1-6 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 07/16/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, July 16th, 2019. This is our first meeting for the month of July and th our 14 meeting thus far this year. Please take note of the illuminated exit signs. Those are the emergency exits in case we have an emergency. There are agendas on the table at the back of the room if you are looking for an agenda and don’t have one. There’s also I believe sample applicant letters that go out if and when projects are approved to help provide some guidance on interacting with the Town once the application has been approved. We have a couple of administrative items this evening. The first one is approval of minutes stth for May 21 and May 29. I believe we have a resolution for that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21, 2019 May 29, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF STTH MAY 21 & MAY 29, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We have a request for an extension for Site Plan 44-2018 for Mike Baird and Julie Jarvis. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SITE PLAN 44-2018 MIKE BAIRD & JULIE JARVIS – REQUEST FOR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you? MRS. MOORE-Actually that’s been withdrawn also. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-The two administrative items have been withdrawn. In regards to Mike Baird & Julie Jarvis, they started their project. So they did not have to ask for their extension. SITE PLAN 31-2019 GARY HILLERT FURTHER TABLING MR. TRAVER-Okay. And in chatting with Laura regarding the Gary Hillert application, you might recall that that was the gentleman on Glen Lake that had a deck that actually had an extension over the lake and we had a conversation with him about that and he went to the ZBA. He has removed that decking and has withdrawn his application for a modification to that deck. So that issue is off our agenda for now. MRS. MOORE-And I’ll explain further that if, for the Site Plan, it was specifically for the deck and the applicant will move forward to the Zoning Board for the fences. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. So we can now move on to the regular agenda, and the first section being tabled items, and the first item being Jeremy Entwistle and Cassie Leonard. Subdivision Preliminary Stage 1-2019 and Final Stage 5-2019. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2019 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 5-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 1434 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 54.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 3 ACRE PARCEL FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A 51.8 ACRE PARCEL WITH AN EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: RC-169-2015 SF HOME; BOTH-359-2015 GARAGE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 54.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-73.1. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEREMY ENTWISTLE, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So there’s two applications for the Entwistle project and in front of you now is the Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision of a two lot subdivision of a 54.8 acre parcel into three acres and 51.8 acres. The three acre parcel is the one that will have a new home on it and the 51.8 acre parcel has an existing home to remain. MR. TRAVER-One question. Maria, can you confirm that the mics are on and we’re recording? MS. GAGLIARDI-As far as I know, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I believe it’s just my mic that’s not working too well. I believe the applicant’s mic. It is recording. I apologize. So I did check this before the meeting and all I know is that’s a lower volume. Mine is very minimal. And your mics are working. So you will be recording. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Sorry for the interruption. Good evening. Welcome. MR. DOBIE-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good evening, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and with me is one of the applicants, Jeremy Entwistle who resides with his family at 1434 Bay Road and he bought the property last July or August and now they’re looking to subdivide off three acres of the northwesterly corner. Provides a nice building site down. It’s been lightly previously logged. There’s not a tremendous amount of clearing, and if everything comes together the prospective buyer is his brother. So that would be a nice little family project and we were here in March to initiate the review process at the Preliminary level, and we received our recommendation to the Zoning Board and we received our variance at the Zoning Board for relief from double the lot width requirement on a corridor road. So we’re zoning compliant now with our Area Variance and we’re here to ask for any questions or comments and hopefully get your Preliminary and Final approval for the project. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions or comments by the Planning Board? I know th we looked at this March 26, and we had a public hearing in March which remains open. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Have we received any written comments in the meantime? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SHAFER-Just one question, Mr. Chairman. I noticed on the plans the perc test showed one and a half or under two minutes per inch and you used eight minutes per inch in the design. Just being overly conservative? MR. DOBIE-Yes. We never use the fastest perc rate for the application rate, just to be conservative. We’re providing 200 feet of field which is pretty standard for a three bedroom house with a sand lot. So we’ll provide a little more while we’re at it. MR. SHAFER-Absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN- You said this was for your brother? I commend that, but you didn’t want to share a little bit more land with him. MR. ENTWISTLE-Well, he’d prefer that I pay most of the taxes. MR. MAGOWAN-I think that’s awesome. I was just at a family reunion down in Georgia and they have like 1800 acres and the houses are planted all around for the family and it was awesome. So I applaud that. MR. ENTWISTLE-Yes, we’re pretty excited. We both have young kids that will get to grow up together. So we’re keeping our fingers crossed. MR. TRAVER-We do have, under SEQR, we do have a SEQR resolution that we need to consider. After our review, does anyone have any environmental concerns that need to be discussed? Okay. Does anyone have any other questions before we consider a resolution? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB # 1-2019 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 54.8 acre parcel into a 3 acre parcel for a new single family home and a 51.8 acre parcel with an existing home to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2019 JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; 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. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we can consider the resolution regarding Preliminary Stage approval. Does anyone have any comment or discussion regarding Preliminary Stage? RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 1-2019 A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 54.8 acre parcel into a 3 acre parcel for a new single family home and a 51.8 acre parcel with an existing home to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 03/26/2019 and 7/16/2019; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2019 JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And last but not least Subdivision Final Stage resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 5-2019 ENTWISTLE & LEONARD A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 54.8 acre parcel into a 3 acre parcel for a new single family home and a 51.8 acre parcel with an existing home to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 07/16/2019; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 5-2019 JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. No waivers were requested. 3. 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 4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) 5. 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 or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final 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; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16th day July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So that concludes the subdivision. We move next to New Business, and the item is associated with the same application, Jeremy Entwistle and Cassie Leonard, Site Plan 45-2019. ASSOCIATED NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 45-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: BAY ROAD ADJACENT TO 1434 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,830 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH 380 SQ. FT. PORCHES (FOOTPRINT). PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE OF 28,000 SQ. FT. AND DRIVEWAY TO BE MORE THAN 10%. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 147 & 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MAJOR STORMWATER IN THE LAKE GEORGE DRAINAGE BASIN AND DRIVEWAYS OF OVER 10% SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AN APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: RC-169-2015 SF HOME; BOTH-359-2015 GARAGE; SUB (P) 1-2019, SUB (F) 5-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-73.1. SECTION: CHAPTER 147, 179-3-040. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEREMY ENTWISTLE, PRESENT 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-Maria? MRS. MOORE-Laura. So the applicant proposes construction of a 2,830 square foot home. MR. TRAVER-Sorry, Laura. MRS. MOORE-The house will also have 380 square foot of porches and that’s the footprint. The project includes disturbance of 28,000 square feet and driveway to be more than 10%. Both those items trigger Site Plan Review for this project. The applicant has requested waivers in reference to the items that are associated with commercial projects and it’s subject to Major stormwater project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening again, Board. Thank you. Again for the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering with Jeremy Entwistle one of the applicant/owners. Again, a fairly modest proposal in our opinion. It’s a three bedroom ranch with a walk out basement with the garage which would be projected out of the front plane of the house. That’s pretty much the most efficient way to get three bedrooms on one floor with a great room and there’d be about a 150 feet of driveway. We are asking to go to 12% for a short length of driveway just over 50 feet to allow us a little bit of dive off of Bay Road to reduce the amount of filling and fill slopes on it. Normally we would do 10% but over a short length the additional two percent is not a concern to us and will allow us to do about three to four feet of sand fill for the driveway and our gravel surface. We’re comfortable with the stormwater management designed to the Major criteria for projects in the Lake George drainage basin with as simple a plan as we can of vegetative berm out in the woods and an infiltration trench with cobble conveyance for the driveway and then basically it will capture the whole yard areas, too. So if there’s any concern about runoff for fertilizers we’ll be capturing that with a stormwater device and septic is straightforward, a shallow system with ground water at three feet. So we’ll bring about one to two feet of fill to provide our separation to groundwater and again we’re here for just a Major stormwater in the Lake George basin and a 12% driveway for the 50 or 60 foot length. We’re here to ask for your approval so we can work it through the Town Engineer and the hopefully be able to provide our approval drawings and have a project ready for its building permit in the timeline. They’re hoping to get started with the site prep this fall and then hopefully ready to build the house in the spring. And again thank you for having us. We’d entertain any questions. MR. TRAVER-There’s one note about lighting. There is apparently going to be some building mounted lighting and if you could just make a point of ensuring that that’s downcast lighting to reduce the light pollution. MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I just, coming off of Bay, how long is that area? You’ve got like a two foot from Bay down to the first marking which goes from 493.8 down to 492. How long is that? I mean I’m just, you’re going to get a little whip out. I just want to make sure you can stop before getting to Bay, because, you know, I hear cars can travel a little quick on the road there. I just want to make sure. I know you’re trying to save with fill and that, but just to make sure that he’s got enough to stop and to take off without too much of an incline. MR. DOBIE-Sure, and your point’s very well taken, Mr. Magowan. We’ll call it the landing area, if you will, from 493.8 is our road grade and we’re showing just over a 50 foot length to that 492 contour. So just under five percent for fifty feet. We’re comfortable with 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) that before we take our 12%. His driveway is constructed similarly where it comes off of Bay at five, six percent and then dives down a little more. MR. SHAFER-The sight distance in both locations is okay? MR. DOBIE-Yes. It’s excellent. A nice straight shot through there. MR. HUNSINGER-So the question I had is if you’d comment on why you placed the house where you did, and it sounds like that’s because this is the best location for the driveway? MR. DOBIE-With respect to the north/south direction? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DOBIE-I set it, we’re hugging the northerly line a little bit more possibly. That’s because the road does come up to the south. We’re trying to get our road grade down to take off at a little lower spot and we’re about 15 feet north of the utility pole there. NiMo does want, or National Grid wants some separation from the pole to vehicular access and then I believe we sited it where it’s reasonably lighter wooded area to the house. That’s our logic in siting it there. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-Has a curb cut permit been issued or applied for? MR. DOBIE-It has not but we will pursue that with the County. MR. HUNSINGER-It sure is a nice house. MR. DOBIE-Nice efficient design. The walkout basement adds a lot to it, also. MR. VALENTINE-The elevations are significantly different, the March and the June ones. MR. DOBIE-Correct. The March submission was Jeremy’s house, just to get something in the hopper, if you will. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-There is also a public hearing on this separate but associated application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this project? I don’t see anyone. Laura, was there any public comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There was no public comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any further questions, comments from members of the Board? I guess we’re ready to entertain, this is a Type II. So no SEQR action is required. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 45-2019 JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board. Applicant proposes construction of a 2, 830 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home with 380 sq. ft. porches (footprint). Project includes disturbance of 28,000 sq. ft. and driveway to be more than 10%. Pursuant to Chapter 147 & 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance major stormwater in the Lake George drainage basin and driveways of over 10% shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/16/2019 and continued the public hearing to 07/16/2019, 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 07/16/2019; 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 45-2019 JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal 2.) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) 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 th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. ENTWISTLE-Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-The next part of our agenda is Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the first applicant is Mike Shearer, application type Site Plan 42-2019. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MIKE SHEARER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 52 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING 528 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO ADD A SECOND STORY 528 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR STORAGE/WORKSHOP AND THE GARAGE IS ALSO TO HAVE EXTERIOR STAIRS ADDED TO ACCESS THE SECOND FLOOR. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOME OF 864 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A 264 SQ. FT. PORCH. THE GARAGE ADDITION INCREASES THE FLOOR AREA FROM 1,642 SQ. FT. TO 2,042 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR HEIGHT AND SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 33-2011, SP 36-2011 BOATHOUSE; AV 30-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .27 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-6. SECTION: 179-13-010. GABBY & MIKE SHEARER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to remove the roof of an existing 528 square foot garage to add a second story of approximately 528 square feet for a storage and workshop above the main garage. The exterior stairs are added to access the second floor on the outside. There is an existing home on the site. There’s no changes to the existing home, and the applicant has indicated in the Area Variance that there had been a planting 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) plan and I had mentioned in the Site Plan application that that wasn’t included yet. So that‘s something that the applicant will need to include as part of the Site Plan process. So that would be next week, but I understand that they have had a planting plan in place. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. SHEARER-Good evening. Gabby Shearer. MR. SHEARER-I’m Mike. MRS. SHEARER-I actually did do some pictures with the plantings we already had. I didn’t realize we had to, I just misunderstood that we had to stick that in there, but I did do some. I have a copy. MR. TRAVER-Sure, you can pass that around. MRS. SHEARER-If it helps any. I’m not sure the pictures are that great. MR. TRAVER-So a couple of questions. The second floor of the garage, is it intended to be a workshop? MR. SHEARER-Mainly storage. MRS. SHEARER-Storage and workshop. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are you going to have plumbing and electrical and so on up there? MR. SHEARER-There’d be electrical but no plumbing. MR. TRAVER-No plumbing. Okay. The reason I ask is it is a little, it makes me a little nervous when I see a separate entrance because I’m concerned that maybe it’s going to be an apartment or something at some point. MR. SHEARER-I put the entrance on the outside because it gives me more room on the bottom floor if I don’t have the staircase from the first floor. MR. TRAVER-Right. No I understand. MR. SHEARER-That’s why I put the stairs on the outside. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for the pictures. And you’re going to be submitting, as I understand it, a planting plan, Laura, to you? MRS. MOORE-Well this planting plan is for Site Plan. If there was no buffer there, then the applicant would start with some of the information that I shared in the Staff Notes. If this planting plan which was approved previously by a Board, if this is sufficient, because it comes under discussion. If the Board feels that that’s sufficient, then the applicant wouldn’t need to do anything else. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. SHEARER-We had to put in a buffer when we did the deck. MR. TRAVER-I see, and how long ago was that? MRS. SHEARER-Seven years ago. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. SHEARER-2012, 2013, sometime around there. We created a buffer zone. MR. TRAVER-And approximately how wide would you say that buffer zone is? MRS. SHEARER-It was planted in pieces. I mean from the water to almost the deck that’s on the back of the house, from the deck maybe 45 feet, 40 feet from the water. So there’s a couple of, the whole front of the, the whole shoreline has plantings except for, it’s just about eight, nine feet to walk onto the dock, and then there’s probably like three sets of plantings. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I have a couple. It’s a very nice looking addition. It’s a nice big workshop/storage. A couple of concerns. I mean you talk storage and you’ve got quite a bit of windows up there, and the dormers. You’ve got a nice eight foot height ceiling with the exterior. I kind of tend to steer with Steve’s comments there. It’s just a little concerning, especially in that particular area, where everything is so compacted and tight, house along house, but then also looking at your garage, do you know what kind of foundation that garage sits on? Because that’s an old style garage. MR. SHEARER-Yes. I dug up one corner of the foundation and took measurements and I’ve been working with Bob Holmes from Jarrett Engineering and asked him whether the foundation would be sufficient and he said yes. If the foundation would not support a second deck I would not have gone with this. MR. MAGOWAN-So how deep are your footings? MR. SHEARER-Two and a half, three feet, twenty-eight inches maybe. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re not even at the four foot mark where it should be. MR. SHEARER-No, not at the four foot, and that was one of my questions. MR. MAGOWAN-And then how big’s the footprint of the footing itself? Because I mean that’s quite an extensive, because see you’re going from really hardly any, you’re going from very little exterior weight on the foundation and all your stuff in the middle on the concrete and I just want to make sure that. MR. SHEARER-That’s why I have existing. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but now are you sure you have rebar in that? MR. SHEARER-I assume I have rebar. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you see the age of that siding? I’m not questioning you. I just have been in the building trade a long time, but I’m really concerned because see once you go to that second story, now you’re putting more weight on those exterior walls, all right, and then you’re going to be loading it up, if you’re going to have a workshop, if it’s anything like my tools, all right, they’re not light. MR. SHEARER-I have a circular saw and a table saw. MR. MAGOWAN-I was looking at the picture. You do have a chop box that you left out there. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MRS. SHEARER-I was going to say, he does have a few other things. MR. SHEARER-But, no, I talked that over with Bob Holmes and he called the Town and talked to them and they said if they approved it that the Town would go with it. MRS. SHEARER-And ultimately he’s going to do the architectural drawings and stuff. Basically we said this is about what we wanted. So eventually he’ll do the drawings, architectural drawings, that meet those requirements. MR. MAGOWAN-Now just, and I’m sorry I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I’m sure he will. Because like I said, I really, that’s an old style ship lap siding/sheathing. So structurally you don’t have a plywood where you have nails. You’re basically relying on the sheathing nails, you know. MR. SHEARER-The whole thing that started the project was the garage needed to have a new roof and the siding needs to be replaced. So what better time to put a second deck on it than when I have to do all this work. So all that old ship lap and the metal roof will be replaced. MR. MAGOWAN-Either that or just plywood over the ship lap and just make sure you get into the studs. MR. SHEARER-Or I could do that. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean why take it down, you’re going to lose. You’ve got a little bit more integrity there. MR. SHEARER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Now my next question is just a question. Because like I said that’s a beautiful storage, and a lot of money for a storage area, is the septic. What are you running for a septic? When’s the last time that’s been? In case this happens to turn into a little extra room. MR. SHEARER-We replaced the septic two years ago. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re up to Code on that, and that’s rated for how many? MR. SHEARER-Four bedrooms. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. SHEARER-Because the cottage is three bedrooms, and the system we put in, you could do two bedrooms or four bedrooms. We did, two tanks, it’s like one and a third bedrooms per tank. I don’t know why they designed them like that. We have three tanks, so we have four bedrooms. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, but really the tanks are one thing, but what’s your leach? The leaches is really what counts. MRS. SHEARER-It’s a Pur-A-Flow system. MR. SHEARER-Above ground. It’s a 20 by 20. MR. MAGOWAN-So you pump it out? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MRS. SHEARER-No. It’s a Pur-A-Flow so it goes to the holding tanks, there’s like two holding tanks, and then up to the Pur-A-Flow system. MR. SHEARER-Coming out of the house I have a holding tank that catches the solids and then the liquid goes into another tank and then that tank pumps every so often a certain amount to this mound, and then the mound has the peat moss whatever that’s in it. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. As long as you’re happy. Like I said, I’m not trying to bust chops here but I mean that’s a lot of windows for storage, and I don’t see a lot of wood chips hanging off you that you’ve been in there sanding and grinding and on the lathe. So I just saw a workshop there, and I was kind of excited there for a moment. MS. WHITE-It could be for her workshop. She might have wonderful crafty things. MR. MAGOWAN-Well it could be the she shed. MR. SHEARER-I want the man cave upstairs. MR. SHAFER-I have a question. Do you know the studs on the first floor are they two by fours? MR. SHEARER-They’re two by four on sixteen inch center. MR. SHAFER-So will Jarrett look at the weight upstairs and whether or not addition support has to be provided on the first floor? MR. SHEARER-Yes, he will. I’ve seen Bob all the drawings that I have on it and I have the foundation and all the walls and that drawn up, all drawn up, and I sent it to Bob and I said is a second deck feasible on this. MR. SHAFER-You would not want a second floor on a two by four stud wall. MR. SHEARER-Well he said the two by fours are adequate. The two by six they want for Code for insulation for energy efficiency, but I have no plans on insulating the garage. So I was told the two by four structure is satisfactory. They’d want a two by six sill on the very top for the engineered trusses across that would allow me to span 22 feet, but I can always just put two by sixes up along it if I need to. MR. TRAVER-This is a Type II SEQR. So we don’t need to worry about a review under SEQR. There is no public hearing for a recommendation. Are there any other comments before we consider a referral? How do people feel about the referral? Is there anything specific that we want to note, or do we feel that the plan addresses any concerns? MR. SHAFER-I’m not comfortable with a two by four wall. However we would point that out to the ZBA? MR. TRAVER-Well that would be under Site Plan. The applicant has already indicated that it’s going to be engineered by a professional engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s Building and Codes. MRS. MOORE-And it’s Building and Codes. MR. VALENTINE-I think it’s kind of funny you said you weren’t going to insulate that area, but you’ve got a workshop. Are you going to be up there November, December, January, February? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MRS. SHEARER-We usually are only up here in the summer. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Good answer. MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we’re ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 30-2019 MIKE SHEARER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove the roof of an existing 528 sq. ft. garage to add a second story 528 sq. ft. addition for storage/workshop and the garage is also to have exterior stairs added to access the second floor. The site has an existing home of 864 sq. ft. (footprint) with a 264 sq. ft. porch. The garage addition increases the floor area from 1,642 sq. ft. to 2,042 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for height and setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2019 MIKE SHEARER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved 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. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. Good luck. MR. SHEARER-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next we have a dual category, New Business and also unapproved development. This is for Pizza Hut, Site Plan 39-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 39-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PIZZA HUT. OWNER(S): PIZZA HUT OF SOUTHEAST KANSAS, INC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 863 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT HAS REPLACED A SPLIT RAIL FENCE WITH A 40 X 30 FIVE FOOT STOCKADE FENCE TO ENCLOSE AN OUTDOOR PATIO FOR 20-30 SEATS. PROJECT INCLUDES DECORATIVE LIGHTING IN PATIO AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5- 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) 070 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FENCE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-1999, SP 21925, AV 21-1999, AV 16-1996 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-34. SECTION: 179-5-070 RANDY ZIDICH. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has replaced a split rail fence with an approximately 40 by 30, five foot stockade fence to enclose an outdoor patio for seating of 20 or 30. The project also includes the lighting of the patio area. The applicant will explain this, but the applicant did contact our office and attempted to discuss replacement of the fence. Someone in our office said yes, but may not have said, given a little more direction if it was in kind split rail to split rail probably no review by this Board, but it was a split rail to a stockade fence. So that probably explains why it was after the fact because it went from a split rail to a stockade versus split rail to split rail. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that explanation. Good evening. MR. I guess I’m at the mercy of you guys. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. You replaced the fence. MR. DEEB-Could you introduce yourself. MR. ZIDICH-My name’s Randy Zidich. I’m the district manager for Pizza Hut. I took over this district right around December. I’m usually from the Johnstown, Amsterdam, Gloversville area. I retired so I inherited this. So the first thing I did is I toured the stores and I thought that that split rail fence needed to be replaced for the patio in the summertime. We chose to go with a stockade for more of a sound barrier for customers when they sit on the patio. MR. TRAVER-Well that was going to be my question was the reason behind. MR. ZIDICH-And then we have some kid stuff that they can place corn hole, just so they could have some entertainment back there, too. February I called. They told me I didn’t need to go through the permit process, but I think they were under the impression I was just going to replace the split rail fence in kind. So it was kind of a miscommunication on my part. We built it and then a week later the Town came and said take that down. So I’m at the mercy of you guys. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the new fence taller than the old fence? MR. ZIDICH-Yes, it’s approximately two feet higher. MS. WHITE-It’s aesthetically unappealing. It’s not tasteful. MR. ZIDICH-Really we’ve had some pretty good comments on it as far as the customers. MR. VALENTINE-Geez, I’m looking at the picture and the first thing I’m thinking is this is the front of the store. MS. WHITE-Yes. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. VALENTINE-It didn’t impress me. I looked at it and the first thing I’m reading in the comments, Laura, you had said it had 51 parking spaces out there and it only required 36. So I’m saying, geez, you’ve got 15 spaces right in your blacktop area you could use to build that same thing and come right off the store, and this is just me looking at it. I have no idea how the business operates or whatever, but my first thing is what Jamie said. That is unappealing right there in front of the restaurant, to make that change. MR. ZIDICH-We’re up for remodel. Corporate requires us to remodel within the next three years so it would probably go away, and we have to remodel both Queensbury units, but we’re at the mercy of the owner when they’re going to start the remodels. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I’m going to give you an A for effort, but I’m going to give you an F for I don’t like it. I see what you’re doing, but the big difference between a stockade, because I saw that there, I like the corral, it might be a little bit more appealing if it wasn’t six feet high. MR. ZIDICH-It’s not six, it’s five. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Yes, but a foot’s a foot. Normally in our Codes, you know, nothing over four feet in the front yard. MR. ZIDICH-And I wasn’t aware of any of that stuff. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m not trying to bust on your or anything, but that is a corridor and we’re trying to keep some sort of appeal, and to me it just blocks out the front of the building, and I understand that people like to eat outside, but I really, I don’t, it just doesn’t set in correctly, and unfortunately if you do it and other people see it the next thing you know everybody else is going to be like let’s do this for the noise and stuff like that. So I’m not trying to bust chops here tonight and I’m really in a great mood, but that one is pushing me a little the wrong way. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this Pizza Hut application? Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I couldn’t remember what was there before until Mike just told me. I was thinking it was another vertical fence, but it was a split rail. MR. ZIDICH-It was three feet high. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it was three feet high and a split rail. MR. TRAVER-That’s probably why I didn’t notice it before. Now it’s very noticeable. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. DEEB-Right. It sticks out. The thing, too, is, and I’m not in business so I don’t know, but if you had people sitting out there, you’d want people going by to see people sitting out there. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. DEEB-And say, wow, that’s a pretty good restaurant. Maybe we should stop, but you seem to counteract that with kind of a fence. They have so many different beautiful looking fences out there that you could use. MR. ZIDICH-I agree. MR. DEEB-And I just have to agree with the Board. I’d much rather see a more aesthetically appealing fence out there. MR. TRAVER-Was a design selected before you came on Board? MR. ZIDICH-No. Well kind of. It was already talked about when we toured from my boss, which he put out there and I took his recommendations. MR. HUNSINGER-What if we have him reduce the height? MR. DEEB-It’s still a stockade fence. MR. TRAVER-Well I’m hearing too within the next few years they’re going to be doing a re- model. MR. ZIDICH-In the next probably three years it will be remodeled. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t have a problem cutting it down to three feet, you know, and knocking down your posts and then maybe, you know, get some different downcast light to illuminate, but to me it doesn’t, I’m sorry, I’m not trying to repeat myself. MR. ZIDICH-I’m just trying to save so I don’t have to tear the whole thing apart because we probably would just tear it down and not put it back up. MR. VALENTINE-That’s an alternative solution, though. MS. WHITE-Yes, but even the lighting is just, it’s like there’s cows in there. MR. ZIDICH-There was no lighting out there to begin with. MR. VALENTINE-I just don’t think you want to have a Route 9 commercial corridor within the Town to say take our store fronts, whether it’s retail sales or restaurant or anything, and close off the view of your storefronts. MS. WHITE-I don’t think anybody’s saying no outdoor seating. If I’m sitting out there, as a part of the restaurant, I want to see what’s going on, and then if you’re driving by you want to see. MR. DEEB-All the outdoor seating in Downtown Glens Falls, everybody’s exposed. They see people. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, you go to Raul’s you think you’re going to get picked off on the circle. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. DEEB-You’re right. Some of those big trucks going around the corner with the diesel gas. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the Jake brakes. MR. DEEB-Anyway, do you see where we’re coming from? MR. ZIDICH-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-How about if we delete the vertical slats. MR. VALENTINE-A corral look. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be a corral, yes. MS. WHITE-I don’t know, I’m leaning towards going back to the split rail fence. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be kind of like split rail if you could see through. MR. TRAVER-Maybe how about removing every other one? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. MAGOWAN-No, it’s too high. I mean I’m sorry for one Code isn’t it anything over three feet? MRS. MOORE-No, that’s for residential. In commercial zones all fences are required to have site plan review. For commercial zones, the fence itself, whether it’s three feet, five feet, see through, stockade, requires review, versus in a residential zone, there’s height requirements. MR. TRAVER-How would people feel if they were able to retain the fence but remove say every other vertical board so that there was, it didn’t look quite as much like a wall, but more like a fence? MR. MAGOWAN-No, that doesn’t do it for me. MR. DEEB-Not on a stockade fence. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. So what are you suggesting, then? MR. VALENTINE-Cut the height right down to that second horizontal rail, and then if you take out some of the slats yourself. MR. DEEB-That might work. MR. MAGOWAN-I think it should be cut down to the height of the window so you could see right across to the windows. MS. WHITE-Unfortunately until we see what it looks like it’s hard to make a decision. MR. DEEB-It’s tough to judge. We can make conditions but if we can’t really see the final product. It’s a tough situation. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-If you cut off some of the bottom of the railing you can hug the ground and cut it to the ground height, but you’re going to have to drop that down and you cut off the top, you could drop that right down to the bottom height of the windows, you can have your corral and inside space and you’ll be able to see. I don’t have a problem with that. This just cuts off the whole front of the building. MS. WHITE-As soon as we call it a corral, I have a problem. MR. TRAVER-All right. So if he were to lower the height of the fence to the height of the bottom of the building windows, is that what you’re? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. That way you can still use the posts and everything else. You’ll just have to, you’ll just be cutting off the top and bottom. You might have to do a little routering on the top of, just to smooth it over so people don’t get splintered, but you’ll still be able to use it and I don’t really have a problem with the illumination light that way because now you’ve got a big difference in height and you can, you know, light it around the illumination. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, is it our role here to design this fence for the applicant? MR. TRAVER-It is not. MR. MAGOWAN-We’re just giving him a recommendation, or it’s tear it down. MR. SHAFER-We’ve given him nine recommendations so far. MR. MAGOWAN-Well we’re going with mine. MR. TRAVER-Brad, question. If we make that suggestion as an alternative, my thought is, and I’m putting myself in his place. If he gets into doing that, he might find that it’s easier just to take it down and put the split rail fence up. Would that be okay as well? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So you would have two alternatives. Modify the existing fence as described, or remove it and restore it to the split rail fence. How do Board members feel? MR. MAGOWAN-I’m happy with that. MS. WHITE-Can we have him design something, bring it back with a computer generated picture of what they would like to do? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say we could table it and have him come back. MR. DEEB-We have to look at the final product. It’s not fair to him. It’s not fair to us. MS. WHITE-And I’m not so sure he does exactly what Mr. Magowan suggested, brings it back and it’s really awful. I’m sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m more than happy to stop over tomorrow. MR. TRAVER-And he may think about it and say, you know what, fine, I’ll just go back to the split rail fence. MR. ZIDICH-I would just tear it down and leave it. I’d just leave it open. MR. DEEB-That’s your prerogative obviously. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. ZIDICH-That split rail fence that was there was really rotted. It was probably there since 1991. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s been there a long time. MR. ZIDICH-I’m going to lose money then. That’s all. MR. TRAVER-So are you proposing that this evening? Because clearly it sounds like there’s not Board support for what is there now. MR. ZIDICH-Yes. I’ll probably just tear it down. MRS. MOORE-So can I offer? You do have a second meeting next week. If that applicant wishes to discuss that and bring something back next week or discuss it with Staff that I’m going to end up tearing it down, but this way it gives the opportunity for the applicant to work with his employer also to say this is what this Board is looking at. MR. TRAVER-So table it to next week pending a discussion with you and then we’ll see. MR. ZIDICH-Next week I’m on vacation. MR. DEEB-Can we go to next month? Can we table it until next month? MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have room on the August agenda? MRS. MOORE-I do have room on the August agenda. MR. DEEB-And that would give you more time. MR. HUNSINGER-So if he wanted to, he heard, there were a bunch of comments here and suggestions, could he modify the fence so that we could see what that might look like? MR. ZIDICH-I’d like to have him come take a look at it. MR. MAGOWAN-Are you going to be around tomorrow? MR. TRAVER-All right. So then it sounds like what we’re looking at is a tabling motion to th the first meeting in August, which would be August 20, and in the meantime the applicant can speak with his team and Laura and her team and we’ll see where we stand next month. MR. ZIDICH-Sounds good. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We need to make that motion. MRS. MOORE-And you also need to re-open the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, all right. So we’ll re-open the public hearing even though there’s no one here this evening. Maybe when we have a new design there will be. So we’ll re-open the public hearing and leave it open. Thank you, Laura. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MRS. MOORE-And then noting that when you table it that information should be submitted. We’re already into August agenda. So we need to pick, if it’s something, you’re on vacation next week. So the first week in August to have something available. MS. WHITE-For the deadline. MRS. MOORE-Yes. nd MR. TRAVER-So the deadline would be August 2. That’s the first Friday. Okay. So with a deadline of August 2 to have any desired plans. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 39-2019 PIZZA HUT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant has replaced a split rail fence with a 40x30 five foot stockade fence to enclose an outdoor patio for 20-30 seats. Project includes decorative lighting in patio area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-070 of the Zoning Ordinance, fence in a commercial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2019 PIZZA HUT, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Tabled to the August 20, 2019 Queensbury Planning Board meeting, with new information to nd be submitted by August 2, 2019. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-See you in August. Have a nice vacation. MR. MAGOWAN-Here. This is unorthodox but I’d be more than happy because I’m up and down the road all the time to give you some suggestions, and we’ll talk some planning, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Brad, you can’t do that. You shouldn’t do that. MR. MAGOWAN-Don’t call me. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’re not yet a commercial enterprise. Next under New Business we have Target Corporation/Kimley-Horn, Site Plan 40-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TARGET CORPORATION/KIMLEY- HORN. AGENT(S): KIMLEY-HORN OF NEW YORK, PC. ZONING: ESC. LOCATION: 578 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES UPDATING THE TARGET FAÇADE WITH A NEW COLOR SCHEME AND NEW SIGNAGE. THE EXTERIOR OF THE TARGET STORE WILL BE NEUTRAL COLORS. THE EXISTING RED BULLSEYE SIGNAGE LOGO TO BE REPLACED WITH A WHITE BULLSEYE SYMBOL OF 201 SQ. FT. AND REMOVAL OF THE RED TARGET LETTERING. ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, “PICKUP”, TO BE ADDED TO THE INTERIOR ENTRANCE DOOR. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-9-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FAÇADE AND AMENDMENTS TO SIGNAGE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 12- 2002, SP 44-2002, SV 87-2004, SV 21-2005. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL: JULY 2019. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) LOT SIZE: 8.13 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.12. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9- 010 – AMENDMENTS. KEVIN VAN HISE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So Target is updating the façade and this includes a new color scheme as well as a new logo. The logo turns from red to white. They’re removing some of the lettering near the logo which was a Target lettering. They’re removing that, and then inside the interior doors they’re placing the word pickup. Most of it is more of a color scheme and a change of red to white. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. VAN HISE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Kevin Van Hise. I’m with Kimley-Horn for the applicant Target Corporation, and as part of Target’s ongoing modernization program that they’re undertaking across the country we are asking for permission to update the signage at the Queensbury location, and so that is as is in our package, I believe, and it’s been described. Changing the red bullseye to a white bullseye, removing the word “Target”. Target feels the brand is now strong enough that the word “Target” is not necessary so they’re using just the symbol, and we are also asking for a pickup sign at the entrance, and that’s to serve the on-line ordering program that Target employs. So it serves more as a directional sign so the folks know where to go. MR. DEEB-So it would go inside. MR. VAN HISE-Inside. MR. DEEB-Just the sign is there. They’re not going to bring their cars and park. MR. VAN HISE-No. MR. TRAVER-Just directing them what counter to go to. MR. VAN HISE-That’s right. That’s just inside that door, and that’s a white vinyl that’s applied to the glass. We’re also proposing to paint the building which is the muted tan colors that you see in the renderings, and we are also proposing to paint the existing monument sign to match the white. MR. TRAVER-Makes sense. One question I had was that there weren’t any proposed changes to the lighting, but if you’re changing the sign don’t you have to change the lighting for the sign? MR. VAN HISE-They’re internally lit. These signs will be internally lit. MR. TRAVER-That’s going to be the same fixtures, the same brightness? MR. VAN HISE-Right. It’s an LED fixture. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MS. WHITE-I just have one question, and I know it’s just me. Where is this red? MR. VAN HISE-So that’s inside. That’s the Mall entrance. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MS. WHITE-Okay. All right. I apologize. So inside the Mall will be that. Okay. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned the idea of getting away from the name Target being associated. I can tell you that in my office people don’t call it Target. They call it Tarje. MR. DEEB-I’m sure you haven’t heard that before. MR. VAN HISE-This is my second hearing today. So I had this very discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-How was it resolved? MR. VAN HISE-Well everybody wants to know when they’re going to re-name it to Tarje. MR. TRAVER-They don’t recognize that the spelling doesn’t need to be changed, that it doesn’t need to be re-named to be Target. MR. DEEB-I like the subdued white. It’s interesting that you did. MR. TRAVER-Very stylish. MR. DEEB-I like the colors. I like the muted colors. MR. MAGOWAN-Now will you be doing the rest of the Mall at the same time? MR. DEEB-Would you take care of all of it for us? MR. TRAVER-Pyramid Company would love that. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s amazing how strong that emblem where you don’t need a name anymore, how it attaches. It’s kind of interesting. It makes a statement. I think it will look great. MR. VALENTINE-Is this going to happen at other stores in the area, too? MR. VAN HISE-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-So that big one at Exit 15, where you’re coming up the road and you see the big Target there. MR. VAN HISE-Yes, they’re all scheduled. We just did the Colonie stores last year. Those will probably be, one of those is complete. The other one will be complete shortly. It’s occurring throughout the country. Every year there’s a certain number of stores that are modified, and by the time we finish they’ll have the next plan and we’ll start. MR. DEEB-It’s a tough retail climate out there. MR. VAN HISE-It is. It is. So that’s why Target makes an effort to make sure they’re staying current, the stores look nice. MS. WHITE-It’s appreciated. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this design change for Target? Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any additional questions, comments from members of the Board before we entertain a motion? I guess this is a SEQR Type II so there’s no action under SEQR required. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 40-2019 TARGET CORPORATION/KIMLEY-HORN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes updating the Target façade with a new color scheme and new signage. The exterior of the Target store will be neutral colors. The existing red bullseye signage logo to be replaced with a white bullseye symbol of 201 sq. ft. and removal of the red target lettering. Additional signage, “pickup”, to be added to the interior entrance door. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new façade and amendments to signage shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/16/2019 and continued the public hearing to 07/16/2019, 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 07/16/2019; 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 40-2019 TARGET CORPORATION/KIMLEY HORN, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. VAN HISE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next we have Clear Brook, LLC-Hudson River Landing, Subdivision Final Stage 4-2019. SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 4-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CLEAR BROOK, LLC – HUDSON RIVER LANDING. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 13 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. 12 OF THE LOTS ARE TO CONTAIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND THE REMAINING LOT IS TO BE VACANT. PRELIMINARY STAGE PLANS SHOWED THE LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED, CLEARING AREAS, WETLANDS AND SEPTIC LOCATIONS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB SKETCH PLAN 4-2018; AV 54-2018, SUB (P) 13-2018, FWW 6-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: I-87 OVERLAY ZONE, WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 145.3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-6. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. TOM HUTCHINS & DAVE LIPINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So we’ve seen this before at Preliminary Stage and Final Stage, and Final Stage remains the same. There’s been no changes. It’s a 13 lot residential subdivision with 12 of the lots containing single family homes and the remaining lot is to be vacant and the applicant has shown on the Preliminary Stage how the lots are to be developed, the clearing areas, the wetlands, the septic locations. There’s still information that’s being shared between the applicant and our Town Engineer to be resolved yet. I’m sure the applicant will talk about that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins with Dave Lipinski principal of Clear Brook and also with us are George Story and Dennis Phillips of McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum. We’re here for Final Stage subdivision. This has been before you for well over a year. MR. TRAVER-We’ve been there. MR. HUTCHINS-You’ve been to the site, and we’ve come a long way, and fundamentally things haven’t changed since Preliminary. I’ve been working with your engineer and we’ve actually met. He was down to five little items that he had and he said instead of writing a letter, why don’t I just come over and look, we can get together and go through them. So we did that a couple of weeks ago and I subsequently addressed his five little items. One of them was a fair amount of work because we re-worked a stormwater model a little bit, but it’s back in his hands and I’m fairly confident that we’re there. I don’t have that in front of us but I’m fairly confident we’re there in that respect. You’ll recall we’ve had the Corps of Engineers wetlands folks, we’ve had DEC on the site. We’ve had a Phase I and Phase II Archeological Resource Survey and we have an area that we’re avoiding for archeological reasons. We’ve have the wetlands that we’re avoiding. We have a non-jurisdictional from the Corps of Engineers based on our plan. So with that, we’re ready to move forward, and, Dave, anything you want to add on that, or we’ll take questions. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. LIPINSKI-No. He said it well. We’ve come a long way and we look forward to finalizing the subdivision approval, I pray. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Yes, it’s been quite a project and a long one, a long effort. We appreciate the work and recognize the work that you’ve put into it in terms of dealing with the various concerns and the Water Department in changing the layout and so on. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I’d like to thank you for your patience in really going through all this. I mean it was a really delicate piece of land and there was a lot involved in doing this and making the changes that you’ve made and, you know, with the water running through there and the archeological and the highway and I think it’s turned into a very nice project. You’ve got a nice, lot of land, skinny and long, but that’s all right. I think people will like that. I mean it’s all about the land and like I said everybody’s going to share it. So you’re keeping it as close to natural as possible so I thank you for that. MR. LIPINSKI-Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-You originally started out with a 15 lot subdivision and then there was a th 14. We’re now down to 12 building lots and a vacant lot. How do we know that that 13 lot, we’re calling it vacant? Why isn’t it on the books as a building lot? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant has indicated that it’s vacant, and this Board conditioned the Preliminary Stage that if it were ever to be developed, it needed to come back for Site Plan Review. MR. VALENTINE-So I was wondering, because SEQR never referenced a vacant lot. When we were going through we didn’t talk about, and I’ve just shown you, this will show up with its own SBL? MRS. MOORE-Yes, correct. MR. VALENTINE-Would that qualify as having a reference as a map note somewhere to that effect? MRS. MOORE-They can put that map note on there. MR. VALENTINE-I’ll go to sleep better tonight know that that’s. It’s the last plan of the night. MR. LIPINSKI-All right. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Tom, I have a question on Lot Three. I noticed the leach field is kind of a distance from the house. Is that gravity or pumped? MR. HUTCHINS-No, that’s pumped. MR. SHAFER-That’s pumped. Okay. MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, regarding SEQR, we completed SEQR already, did we not? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you did. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So everything is clean and we’re really just looking at Final Stage approval. There is no public hearing, no additional public hearing for Final Stage. Are there any other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board before we consider a resolution? I guess we are ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB. # 4-2019 CLEAR BROOK, LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 13 lot residential subdivision. 12 of the lots are to contain single family residential homes and the remaining lot is to be vacant. Preliminary stage plans showed the lots to be developed, clearing areas, wetlands and septic locations. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 08/28/2018, 10/16/2018, 01/15/2019, 2/19/2019, 3/26/2019, 4/16/2019 & 4/30/2019; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 4-2019 CLEAR BROOK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. No waivers were requested. 3. 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 4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 5. 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 or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final 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; and 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Before we adjourn I have one quick update for the members of the Board, particularly with regard to the Technology Committee. Some months ago and we talked about, you know that we’re having a pilot program with the IPads and we’ve had some difficulties with not having the Apple pencils and the Town reviewed our request for those and granted that. So we have that, and then we found with that new capability we needed some new software and some access to some initial websites and it’s been an issue. Laura has volunteered to liaison with Stored Technologies who manages that system for us and it’s been a bit of a struggle and they’ve been playing phone tag and so on, but she has had some communications with them now. So hopefully we will have, can you give us an updated maybe next week, Laura, where we stand with that? MRS. MOORE-I’ll give you a side note is that right now Tim Cruz who is our contact for that, he is working on the Town’s WISP program, which is. MR. TRAVER-That’s the regulations regarding access to the networks and so on. MRS. MOORE-There’s been, so that document and its intensity is very large. So he is dealing with some of the review process from the members of the Town having some questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but all we’re asking for is just a software application, right? MRS. MOORE-Right, but he’s juggling a lot of information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So just to let you know that we’re in there. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-Yes, but it’s been months, and it’s pretty basically unusable. I don’t know if he’s aware of that, but if you could ask him and maybe he could share some information. Perhaps some kind of forecast as to when we might get some access to. MRS. MOORE-That’s a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Because it’s, as we talked about when they were almost a year old when we got them it was, you know, there was some concern about the age of them and so on. The clock is kind of ticking. We know it’s a pilot program. We’d like to accumulate some data and be able to report back to the Town. MRS. MOORE-So you’re not using it at all at this point? MR. TRAVER-No, it’s pretty useless really. I mean it’s easier to deal with the paper. I mean, the end goal is to make it easier to deal with the tablet than it is the paper, and at least in my experience, and I don’t want to speak for Chris necessarily, but I know that what I’m hearing is that it’s really quite a struggle, and I can certainly appreciate. MRS. MOORE-Cumbersome. MR. HUNSINGER-Cumbersome would be a good word, yes. MR. TRAVER-Cumbersome, yes, and it’s going to be very simple to alleviate that cumbersome nature if we have the permission that the Committee requested. MRS. MOORE-Right. So, and I’ll just speak to that piece we’re downloading. So Craig and I discussed it and we’re trying to either determine if we can just give you access, download it for you. Have it already, here’s the applications electronically instead of you having to download them. We would just push them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So we are looking at that, because I did not realize downloading them was one of the processes that would be occurring. So we’re looking at that. I think that would be one of the answers if we can do that. That way you’re not, at like ten o’clock at night plugging it in and you’re trying to download information. Instead if you’re plugging it in, we’re pushing the information to you. So when you wake up the next morning it’s there and I can say please click update or something to that effect and then in such and such file is your Staff Notes or your applications for the month. MR. TRAVER-But I think as we discussed, I think fundamentally a lot of it relates to the fact that as they were rolled out apparently they weren’t intended to come with the Apple pencil. So we got the pencil. MRS. MOORE-But I don’t know if the Apple pencil is the total answer either. I know it’s helpful as a tool, but at the moment I can do the same things that you can with a stylist. So there’s other discussions going on. MR. TRAVER-We had recommended some applications for the pencil to make it interact with once we downloaded the material. MRS. MOORE-But I still don’t know the answer whether the Apple pencil has software or an app that goes with it. So I don’t know that answer. MR. SHAFER-Steve, would we, for example, be asked to review something like this last application with all the sheets of the drawings? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MRS. MOORE-On the tablet like this, yes. You, as a Board, most of you could look at it this way, but those that said, hey, I’d like to take a look at the hard copy, there’s always going to be a hard copy on file at the office and you would have that time to come in and take a look at it. MR. SHAFER-I can’t imagine reviewing this last subdivision on a screen. MRS. MOORE-But you’re doing this. MR. TRAVER-Well there may be applications where we would say we need the paper copy. I mean what I envision, if we can get to the point where it’s even feasible with the tablet to consider that as an alternative. Right now we’re not even there yet. If we get to that point then I would think that for some period of time for me at least I would probably want to use them in parallel. I’d still have the hard copies, and then I would make an effort to use the tablet as much as I could and when I needed to I would pull, and when I got so I had a few meetings where I never had to refer to the hard copy I’d say, all right, now I’m getting comfortable, but there are some tools, there were some issues that were brought up at the Committee level where the pencil doesn’t interact with the tablet because we don’t have the software that normally would be installed along with that, like there’s a, what was it called, there was an application that we had, Pen Ultimate I think is what it was that gives all this capability to the pencil, allows you to highlight and draw and do all this stuff. We don’t have that. So that’s just a simple download. There were questions about, I think Harrison had talked about being able to access some additional websites like DEC. MRS. MOORE-DEC website and that made absolute sense. MR. TRAVER-I mean those two things are like five minutes, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-The real cumbersome part right now is, for some meetings I literally take an hour to just download the files before you even start to review them. So you have to have a lot of patience to sit there, because they’re literally one by one. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well that’s something that they could do, I would think, in a zip file, like Laura’s talking about. MRS. MOORE-Push it through so that you’re not obligated to sit there. MS. WHITE-It’s not just a click and then you go away for an hour. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s click, click, click, save, go back to the, you know, then go back to the website, click, click, click, go back to the website. MS. WHITE-Gotcha. MR. TRAVER-But then the problem that we’re most aggressively trying to deal with is even after you finally get it on the laptop, you can’t interact with it like you can with the paper because we have the pencil and I assumed that once we had the pencil that all that would come with it, and the capability is there but because it wasn’t rolled out with the pencil, they didn’t install the software because they figured well what’s the point of installing that when they don’t have the pencil. MR. SHAFER-What’s the pencil allow you to do? MR. TRAVER-It works like a stylist. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-You can mark up all the drawings. MR. TRAVER-You can use it like a pen on paper. So once you download the files you can highlight. You can write. And there’s just one, there are many I guess, but one of the applications apparently, at least my IT staff have the same tablet and the same Apple pencil, and they use an application called Pen Ultimate and she showed it to me. It’s unbelievable. You can set up applications in separate folders or meetings in separate folders. It’s incredible what you can do with it. She uses it exclusively now instead of paper, which is what perhaps we may be able to do at some point, but we’ve got to kind of work through these initial, because we’re not even at the pilot phase because it’s not usable. Anyway, I didn’t mean to go on so long, but thank you for the update, Laura, and hopefully we’ll hear more next week. If there’s nothing else before the Board this evening, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. MAGOWAN-So moved. th MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 16, 2019, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Thanks, everybody, we’ll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 33