Loading...
10-22-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 66-2019 James Keller 2. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-39 Site Plan No. 70-2019 Michael Gleasman 5. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-7 Site Plan No. 69-2019 Chris & Mary Mattson 11. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-53 Site Plan No. 65-2019 1454 State Route 9, LLC 15. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 Site Plan No. 64-2019 Adirondack Factory Outlet 23. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22 Site Plan No. 67-2019 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 30. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 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. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board ndnd meeting for Tuesday, October 22. This is our second meeting for the month of October and our 22 meeting actually for 2019. Before we begin I wanted to point out the illuminated exit signs in the case that we have an emergency. I know we had a power outage earlier today because my house was blacked out. It was only for a few minutes, but if we do have an emergency of some kind please use the emergency exits. If you have an electronic device or a cellphone if you would turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that, so that it doesn’t interrupt our meeting, and I will make sure I do that as well because I guarantee if I forget mine will be the one that goes off. I want to extend my appreciation to Chris and the rest of the Board for kind of covering for me when I was returning from out of state last week. I apologize for not being here but it was a good meeting as I understand. I wanted to note, too, that Staff complied with our request that the agenda be changed to have a separate listing for Unapproved Development. After chatting with Laura, before the motion and with the Board and then after the motion we realized after speaking with her that it is not without complication for the Planning Staff to make this change. So the Board should be aware of that and Laura is accommodating us with this appropriate change even though it does involve some extra work on their part. So thank you very much, Laura. It’s much appreciated, and I think it’s important to outline that part of the agenda, and I wanted to also follow up on StoredTech. Laura, is there any information, we had a Technology Committee in February that requested a free application be added to our IPads and some other support and we haven’t seen. MRS. MOORE-I have not heard anything as of yet and obviously there’s been additional information shared with StoredTech that we can’t update the IPads right now. We can’t access the e-mails. So there’s a couple of things that are just falling off the table besides the items that we identified back in February. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean this is since February. I was wondering today. Do they get paid whether they help us or not? I mean do they get a stipend from the Town? Are they on a retainer from the Town? It’s something maybe we should think about looking at if we don’t. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know what their status is with the Town. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you, Laura. I know you’ve been trying to help with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Along those lines, you will notice that I did not bring my Tablet with me. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you very much. Maybe that will help with. MR. HUNSINGER-Well there was no reason to carry it. MR. TRAVER-Well I felt that way from the beginning. You’ve been more patient than I. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t work at all. MR. TRAVER-Chris has struggled with his more than I was willing to until we got the response to our support, but maybe that will be forthcoming. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no reason to carry it. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Anyway. Thank you. Sorry, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to go on with our regular agenda, the first section of that agenda being Unapproved Development. The first application is James Keller, Site Plan 66-2019. UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) SITE PLAN NO. 66-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JAMES KELLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 17 FERWOOD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AND COMPLETE A 540 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK WITH STAIRS TO SHORELINE. THE SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING 3,408 SQ. FT. HOME (FLOOR AREA) AND TWO SHEDS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-080 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 61-1992, AV 37-1999, AV 47-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT. LOT SIZE: .24 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-39. SECTION: 179-4-080, 179-6-050. CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES KELLER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the Zoning Board did grant their Area Variance for setback relief. Certain members of the Zoning Board were supportive of ensuring that there was a planting plan and shoreline protection. They identified the Planning Board. The applicant has provided updated information specific to the deck stairs and access to the shoreline area. The applicant has indicated the deck stairs to be aligned with the deck not the dock and the permeable pavers and landscape blocks will be pointed toward the shoreline area. Additional plantings have been included for the outside of the deck area, the retaining wall area and the lattice and the vine that we talked about last time, then planters at the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. DR. KELLER-Good evening. For the record, James Keller, owner of 17 Fernwood. I also h have Cullen Fuller from Rucinski Hall Architecture with me here this evening. Just to kind of go back to where we were about a week ago, when I started this project, again, I take full responsibility for not following the proper steps to follow through with the permit. I had removed an existing platform that was an unsafe platform and when we closed on the house it was a house that had been pretty rundown. It was vacant for two years and my main concern when I started this project was safety for my three children. So I started to build the deck and put up a rail and then kind of found out the hard way or the wrong way on my part that I needed to follow through with a permit. So that’s kind of where we’re at. We presented the project here last week. Some of the concerns were basically came from a, I don’t want to say permeability standpoint, but from maybe an erosion standpoint around the deck itself. Setbacks didn’t seem to end up being a major issue based on the pre-existing, the house itself being within 23 feet I believe of the, pre-existing, nonconforming. So we stepped over to the Zoning Board. Went to the Zoning Board. Fine. We updated some drawings as far as our steps, planting control. Kind of buffering that both walls, that there was some concern over, just from an appearance standpoint to make it more aesthetic looking as well. And here we are tonight to kind of follow through. MR. TRAVER-And just so you’re aware, although I was not able to be here for your initial presentation, I did thoroughly review the minutes. So I’m aware of the quite lengthy discussion you had with this Board last week and appreciate the revisions that you’ve made. DR. KELLER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I just want to say thank you. I mean this is, you know, it’s kind of simple. You’re limited in what you can do with the steep slopes, but it’s all for protection. DR. KELLER-And I understand the Board’s concern as well. So we were hoping that we found kind of equal ground on both ends. MR. TRAVER-There are some Staff comments I just wanted to draw your attention to in the Summery section that they’re interested in the profile view of the deck stairs and pavers, just so they have some detail and to make sure that appearance, the bank stability will be maintained. I would imagine that you would take care of that. MR. FULLER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-But they would like to have that detail. DR. KELLER-Okay. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-And also the plantings that you’re discussing, there is a list, and you can check with Staff to confirm, there is a list of species that are not to be included. They’re either invasive or they’re not on the recommended list. So if you could make an effort to comply with that. You can always check with Laura or her team to verify that. DR. KELLER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any in the audience. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If there is no other discussion from the Board, after the revisions the applicant made, we’ll entertain a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 66-2019 JAMES KELLER 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 to maintain and complete a 540 sq. ft. open deck with stairs to shoreline. The site contains an existing 3,408 sq. ft. home (floor area) and two sheds. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-080 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and tree removal shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-080 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline 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 10/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/22/2019, 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 10/22/2019; 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 66-2019 JAMES KELLER; 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, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I just want to confirm that you’ll add some silt fencing information on the plans, too for erosion control. MR. DEEB-Do I need to amend the motion? MRS. MOORE-No, I just wanted to confirm that. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Thank you. DR. KELLER-Thank you very much for your time. MR. TRAVER-Next also under Unapproved Development we have Michael Gleasman, Site Plan 70-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 70-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL GLEASMAN. AGENT(S): TODD SMITH, MANDY’S SPRING NURSERY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 52 ½ RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD. APLICANT PROPOES TO COMPLETE A RETAINING WALL THAT HAD FALLEN DOWN DUE TO WATER DAMAGE. WALL IS ABOUT 25 FT. IN LENGTH WITH STEPS AND 6 FT. IN HEIGHT. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PERMEABLE PAVER PATIO 450 SQ. FT. BETWEEN THE HOME AND RETAINING WALL. TO COMPLETE PROJECT ADD RAILING TO STAIRS AND LANDSCAPING TOWARD SHORE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 61-2003, AV 96-2004, AV 74-2005, AV 29-2012, SP 40-2003, SP 34-2012, MANY BLDG. PERMITS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2019. LOT SIZE: .14 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-7. SECTION: 179-6-050. MICHAEL GLEASMAN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to complete a retaining wall that had fallen down due to water damage. The wall is about 25 feet in length with steps and six feet in height. The project also includes permeable paver patio area between the home and retaining wall. This area also contains an infiltration pit that was designed by Mandy’s Landscaping. MR. GLEASMAN-Mandy’s, Todd Smith. MRS. MOORE-And so the applicant proposes to complete the retaining wall and steps, installing the railing and landscaping as well as the retaining wall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GLEASMAN-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MR. GLEASMAN-Sure. So the retaining wall in the front had, I think it was built. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Gleasman, you need to state your name. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. GLEASMAN-I apologize. Michael Gleasman. I live, I don’t live, but our place is at 51 and a half Russell Harris Road, Harris Bay. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. GLEASMAN-So the retaining wall you see in the front was built I believe back in the 40’s. It had basically about at least a third of the front of it had completely collapsed and fallen down. Much of the other areas, including the steps and the railing along the steps was basically falling apart. It was like stone with mortar and it was completely falling apart. So we needed to replace it or we could see basically the front of the property just becoming a landslide and eventually eroding and falling in. So we went and we contracted with Mandy’s to replace the wall where it is, in fact it was along the front but also along the side. It was basically just completely deteriorating, to the point where it’s actually pushing out onto our neighbor’s property from the lakeside looking left and it was coming forward just from the erosion. So once the project started, Mandy’s started looking into it further, there was basically the water, where the water pumps from the basement before we bought. We bought the house back about six years ago. The house was put in place I believe it was in 2005. The water that was pumping out of the basement was actually pumping behind the wall and that’s what caused this progressive erosion and that’s what caused it to wash away. So we needed to fix that as well. So in addition to replacing the existing wall and the steps, we wanted to also take care of that matter as well. So in the description of what Todd or Mandy Springs had done he wrote a pretty detailed letter and he did an illustration, but it’s set back quite a ways, I would say probably from where the wall is it’s probably set back about maybe 15 feet or so with gravel and a filtration pit. So that addressed the drainage. So it’s no longer coming through the wall and making its way down into the lake. So we were trying to think of everything we want to do to improve, make it better. So the wall itself is granite. We didn’t want anymore, we wanted to use natural materials, the same with the steps, and along, when we had to fix the drainage he was also given issue with all the stones. So this new platform where there was basically dirt and grass really would make it very difficult for grass to grow on there so I was asking Todd if we could do like a permeable surface and he suggested we put down the blue stone pavers with the permeable pea gravel. I forgot the thickness but it’s in the notes, to have proper drainage. There was a blacktop concrete path that lead from the steps all the way back to the far side of the back house. So we thought, you know, first of all it’s unsightly. It’s non- permeable. Let’s have that same material replace the non-permeable blacktop surface and take that back to replace that area and we put some lighting in. I saw a comment about not having up lights which none of the lights are up lighting. Everything is a low voltage LED light that everything is downward facing. Along the steps and along some spots on the walls including down by the wall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mandy’s, did they do all or most of the work for you? MR. GLEASMAN-Yes. All. MR. TRAVER-Did they ask you about permits or have you had this project reviewed or analyzed at all or did they just come in and start working? MR. GLEASMAN-It was, there wasn’t talk of permits. I figured we were just replacing exactly what was there with natural stonework and that would be, I guess it would be on me, but there wasn’t talk of permits because we weren’t creating anything new at the time, but then we realized as we peeled back, we realized there’s a reason why this fell down and needed to correct where the water was coming out. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, obviously it’s on you in that you’re the applicant, but, you know, it’s concerning, I guess, to us as a Board that Mandy’s Nursery, as professionals they should have asked you or known or advocated for you to contact the Town and make sure that you had the proper paperwork, and that’s a little concerning because they may, if they get involved in another project, you know, that part of it is not your responsibility. Obviously you’re the applicant so ultimately it is. MR. GLEASMAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the concern about the lighting is just light pollution, you know, dark sky. You live on the lake you know it’s nice to see the stars and planets at night. We try to avoid light going into the sky which it does add up. If you’ve been up on the lake in the narrows or whatever on a summer night you can see the loom of Glens Falls at night, and that’s light pollution. So it’s not any individual projects. It’s the cumulative effect. So we try to pay attention to that and encourage the down lighting. So thank you for that. Questions, comments from members of the Board? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. VALENTINE-I have one that doesn’t really go along with our review or approval tonight, but how the heck did you get down there? I mean you’ve got no room between the property lines and the buildings on either side of you MR. GLEASMAN-There’s probably, he had like one of those mini backhoes with like the rubber treads to get it back in there, but there’s probably say about eight feet between the properties that he can get that piece of equipment back there. We had to pull up a fence post or two just to get, you know, back there, but I was amazed myself. It was amazing how they got those large boulders in place, all dry laid and set in with the equipment he had. It’s a small unit but it did an amazing job. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean the stonework’s incredible. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like, I grew up near the canal. It looks like that. One of the concerns I have, though, is with your grass. You don’t use fertilizer, do you? MR. GLEASMAN-No, no. That, because the ground, the grass right there was tracked, that, we just laid brand new sod down. We never used fertilizers. We watered it, but, yes, that’s brand new sod, and we have, I put in here also a plan for the plantings. I followed, you know, I went and got the information from Town of Queensbury about the approved plantings, the number, the types, and I drew a plan in there for plantings as well which we’ll do that in the spring, as well as the railings. MR. MAGOWAN-So was the question on the lights there, the lights pointing up at the wall? Is that what we were talking about? MR. GLEASMAN-Yes, they’re down. MR. MAGOWAN-They’re down now? MR. GLEASMAN-Yes. The lights are down. They’re down lights, all of them are down lights. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that one looks like it’s pointing up. MR. GLEASMAN-I put them all down. They’re all down. That was probably one that got stamped initially, they stuck them in there and just left them, but I don’t shine them up. They’re angled and pointed down. MR. MAGOWAN-And the other question I have, on the permeable natural stone paving, that one there. MR. GLEASMAN-Yes, that’s Todd’s illustration. He drew that. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s fine, but you used 1A crushed stone. You’ve got 10 to 12 inches of 1A crushed stone, where really a two is the minimal you should, you know, at least a half inch, because that’s such a fine stone, and if they used any kind of compactor on it, you’ve lost your permeability. MR. GLEASMAN-I did, I was up there about a month ago during literally a torrential downpour to the point where I almost couldn’t even see past the dock, and I filmed it, the whole property, and nowhere is there an ounce of runoff, an ounce of puddling anywhere and I took a panoramic very slow camera movement to, the timing was perfect. It couldn’t have been coming down any harder. There was absolutely no puddling and absolutely no runoff anywhere. It was all. MR. MAGOWAN-Well if they didn’t compact it real hard, that’s great, but what happens is every season when we have the pollen and the dirt and everything it’s going to go in there and close up those pores. I mean that’s, you know, like I said that’s the first thing I caught. Why didn’t they use, you know, 1A crushed stone. Because, you know, I know how small that is. MR. GLEASMAN-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And, you know, eventually that will, I shouldn’t say, it will take the permeability away. MR. GLEASMAN-Over time. MR. MAGOWAN-Over time, because it will just clog right up. It’s like using a super duper heap filter on your furnace. You’ve got to replace it more often otherwise it clogs up real quickly. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. GLEASMAN-I could confirm that with Todd that that is in fact what they did use. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I’m just saying because then I look on the other side there and it looks like you have your 10 to 12 inches under here and then your Number Two crushed down here. MR. GLEASMAN-I see. Yes, right. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. And that’s great for down here for your water to flow, right, but up here like I said over time that will clog up. Chances are with the dirt and everything you’ll start getting moss in there. Just something I noticed. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. We do have one public comment if you’d give up the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-Hi. I’m Don Daniels. The only question I had, many years ago the farmers always put up these walls dry. Is this going to be put up dry or mortared in place? He mentioned about the compacting of the soil and it loses the permeability, but are they going to be put up dry so that water can seep through or mortared in place? MR. TRAVER-The intent is not for the water to seep through. That appears to be the original issue. The object of the exercise today with stormwater management around the lake particularly is to have the water go right into ground and not seep through and go into the lake, regardless of whether the wall is put up. MR. DANIELS-I know sometimes some of these drain tiles, four inch drain tiles that are full of holes that they use for, used to use for leaching beds, putting them in the middle and back of the wall there so that water would go into them and go down. MR. TRAVER-We can ask the applicant to clarify. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And if you could come back to the table. You heard the question I think. I attempted to explain the mechanics of the thing, but if you want to comment on actually how the wall was constructed. MR. GLEASMAN-I would have to defer to Todd. I mean he is really the engineer. I couldn’t be able to speak accurately. MR. TRAVER-Do they use like a concrete mortar? MR. GLEASMAN-No, there is no concrete. MR. MAGOWAN-Dry stack. MR. GLEASMAN-Yes, it’s dry stacked. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I think that answers the gentleman’s question. Any other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? This is a Type II SEQR. If there are no other questions, I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 70-2019 MICHAEL GLEASMAN 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) 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 to complete a retaining wall that had fallen down due to water damage. Wall is about 25 ft. in length with steps and 6 ft. in height. Project includes new permeable paver patio 450 sq. ft. between the home and retaining wall. To complete project add railing to stairs and landscaping toward shore. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline 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 10/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/22/2019, 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 10/22/2019; 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 70-2019 MICHAEL GLEASMAN; 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, 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) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Project to be completed by June 2020. nd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 22day of October, 2019 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Can I ask that you put a timeframe in? The applicant mentioned spring of 2020 that the project would be done. So if you do June of 2020, that way there’s a timeframe for its completion. MR. TRAVER-Project to be completed by June of 2020. MRS. MOORE-I think that would work. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So we’re going to amend the motion. H) Project to be completed by June of 2020. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. GLEASMAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first application is Chris and Mary Mattson, Site Plan 69-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 69-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CHRIS & MARY MATTSON. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 361 & 363 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH 465 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A 576 SQ. FT. GARAGE. THE GARAGE IS TO BE SINGLE STORY. PROJECT SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOME, 1023 SQ. FT., AND GUEST COTTAGE, 793 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 24-1999 BOATHOUSE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: .44 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226. 12-1-53. SECTION: 179-6-065. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to demolish a 465 square foot garage to construct a 576 square foot garage. The garage is to be single story. The project site has an existing home of 1,023 square feet and a guest cottage of 793 square feet footprint. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Chris and Mary Mattson on this Site Plan Review application for the replacement of an existing garage with a new garage as Laura described. The proposed work is obviously at the roadside portion of the property. The existing garage is old and deteriorated and the owners wanted to make it a little more user friendly. So we’ve added that. It’s slightly larger in size but with some of the other improvements of a permeable paver driveway we’ve been able to maintain the permeability standard that doesn’t exceed what currently exists. There is no other work further beyond the house location. So there’s no impact on the shoreline at all in this case. So it’s pretty simple, straightforward. As Laura again said it’s a single story two car garage, 24 by 24. MR. TRAVER-Is there any electricity or plumbing involved in the garage? MR. MAC ELROY-I’m sure it will be powered. There’ll be lights. No plans for a bathroom or anything like that within that. So I don’t think that there would be domestic water. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-There could be a hose bit perhaps, but at this point no plans beyond that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Dennis, you sure you want to retire? st MR. MAC ELROY-I actually did January 1. I keep showing up. MR. MAGOWAN-You do a nice job. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-The garage on the north side, the existing garage is two feet nine inches off the setback line, but the one that’s proposed, or where it’s proposed now, is sitting right on top of the setback line, and that was a comment I made with any surveyors doing anything is you keep it back somewhat so you set yourself up for a success rather than a failure for someone making a change in the field or a mistake in the field. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I mean this can be survey located so that we’d have that accuracy on construction. I think that it made sense in the slight expansion of this garage that it’s in the width dimension. MR. VALENTINE-Well there’s plenty of room within setbacks to move that. MR. MAC ELROY-To move it closer to that other existing cottage. Okay. MR. VALENTINE-I don’t know why but I just looked at it and I said, gee, I’m marking up two lines for setbacks. MR. MAC ELROY-We’re on the number. We’re right on the number. That’s what was. MR. VALENTINE-I mean that’s your call. I’m just cautioning you. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and the process requires that there be a sign off on that, that it meets setbacks upon completion. MR. VALENTINE-Now is that one, do you know if that’s on the eaves? MR. MAC ELROY-The Town of Queensbury’s policy on setbacks is unless, it goes to the building line, unless you had some exaggerated architectural eaves, but otherwise. MR. VALENTINE-The eaves don’t figure in to the setback. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Certainly a 24 by 24 garage is not excessive. I thought it was a nice plan. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. are there members of the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. Just this, in regards to the foundation location with the survey, the Board could require the foundation to be located, whatever the preference. The Zoning Board is typically the one that has said you need to do a foundation survey, but if it’s a concern of this Board then you might want to request it. If it’s not. MR. DEEB-Then you’ll just have to tear it down. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that’s the thing. MR. DEEB-That’s up to them. MR. TRAVER-I think perhaps we can leave that to the applicant. MR. DEEB-I mean it’s got to be compliant. MR. TRAVER-But it is a thought, Laura. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-She’s just trying to save you some effort. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, we just don’t want to see you on the ZBA agenda again. That’s what it is. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other discussion before we consider a motion? MR. SHAFER-Just a quick question. Dennis, I notice in the northeast corner it says extend gravel surface with second curb cut. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. SHAFER-Explain that a little bit. Is that just parking? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, the existing driveway more or less lines up along that northerly side of the property. This would provide a secondary curb cut or an extension of that curb cut to allow that to travel in there as opposed to traveling in on the permeable and then angle it over, because that does extend, that existing gravel surface extends up to what is shown as split rail fence further up and that’s all factored in to the permeability as well. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board? I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Did I not? I’m sorry. I will close the public hearing and then we’re ready for a motion. Thank you, Maria. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 69-2019 CHRIS & MARY MATTSON 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 to demolish 465 sq. ft. garage to construct a 576 sq. ft. garage. The garage is to be single story. Project site has an existing home, 1023 sq. ft., and guest cottage, 793 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, 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 10/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/22/2019, 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 10/22/2019; 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 69-2019 CHRIS & MARY MATTSON; 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, h. signage, 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. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. nd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Before we continue with our agenda, I know there’s some new people that entered the room. I’d just like to ask that if you have an electronic device or cellphone if you would turn it off or turn the ringer off. If you need to have a conversation if you could just take the conversation out into the other room so it doesn’t disrupt the meeting. Thank you very much, and we’ll move next to the other item under New Business which is 1454 State Route 9, LLC, Site Plan 65-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 65-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1454 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOES OF 3,250 SQ. FT. +/- OF TWO STORY BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A 5,015 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR TWO TENANTS WITH ONE DRIVE-THRU TO BE CONSTRUCTED. BUILDING TO BE SINGLE STORY AND CONSISTENT WITH ADJOINING OUTLET BUILDINGS. HOTEL WILL HAVE MINOR ALTERATIONS TO COMPLETE OUTSIDE WALLS AND INTERIOR WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL COSNTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 55-2007 HOTEL ADDITION; SP 7-1996 RESTAURANT ADDITION; SP 35-2018, PREVIOUS SITE PLANS, AREA VARIANCES, SIGN VARIANCES. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 3.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-21. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID KENNY, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes removal of a 3,250 square foot portion of a two story hotel to construct a 5,015 square foot building for two tenants with one drive-thru to be constructed. There’s a potential second drive-thru that can be constructed at a later date depending on the tenant that they obtain. In reference to this project, this project had expired, Site Plan 35-2018. The project changed obviously from a 10,000 square foot to 12,000. It was previously to remove 10,000 square feet of a restaurant. The project proposed originally was approximately 12,000 square feet of a building and they reduced that to 5,000 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, Laura, just to clarify, I noted under the letter from Chazen, Item Number One, they talked about the fact that there was no stormwater plan provided, which of course would be a SEQR concern and there’s also apparently some omitted engineering issues from May of 2018. Do you have any updated information on that? MRS. MOORE-I don’t, but I believe the engineer can address that. MR. HUTCHINS-I can address that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-State your names for the record, please. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, here with MR. KENNY-Dave Kenny and David Kenny. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And you will recall we were here last May with a proposal for, this is 1454 State Route 9. It’s the Clarion Hotel, Under Armour, or I’m sorry the Clarion Hotel building. There was a restaurant there, part of the last application. This was a former restaurant and storefront. That has been removed and we were here last year with a proposal to build a 12,000 square foot building in this footprint which was approved by the Board. Due to market issues and demand and other things that the Kenny’s will address it’s now proposed to build a different building in a different configuration. It’s much smaller. It’s 5,000 square feet. It’s a two tenant space with a drive around and as far as site work, it’s actually an improvement, an improvement to the site use. There’s more green space. There’s less floor area and it’s something that the owners have interest in being able to fill. As far as the stormwater issue, I did not remodel the site. The permeability is very similar. I rearranged the stormwater devices that I had in the past which didn’t move very much but I did rearrange them. The math all works. I didn’t submit the whole revised report. I can do that, but this is a very simple site stormwater wise. It’s all deep well drained sands and we rearranged the devices that we had on the last plan which worked very well. MR. TRAVER-Understood, and in your professional opinion that rearrangement, upon submitting of that updated plan to the engineer, you feel you’ll be able to get a signoff? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. And then can you just address the other concern that’s raised in the letter from the engineer regarding the 2018 issues? I think you already have to some degree, but they talk about, initially our office provided comments regarding previous site plan in a letter dated May 10 which to our knowledge the applicant has not yet addressed. Is that because of this revision? MR. HUTCHINS-Which is this one, yes, which are actually these comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So you’re kind of wrapping it all into one. MR. HUTCHINS-We’re wrapping it all into one. It’s very, very similar in terms of infrastructure, and I’m not concerned technically. Again, it’s a pretty straightforward site to handle stormwater. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure, and I do remember at the last presentation when the prior project was reviewed and approved there was a lot of discussion about stormwater because that has traditionally been an issue in that area. So thank you for that. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUTCHINS-Is there anything you wanted to add? MR. KENNY, SR.-Well, the first project, retail, we’re got tenants closing. The strip needs some, it’s going back to Square One, there’s no more outlets. We’ve got three closing in another month. MR. DEEB-Not just you. MR. KENNY, SR.-Not just me. They’ve got tenants closing across the street and you’ve got to modernize it but you’ve really got to go to mixed use. We decided in the front of this building that 10,000 was just too big. We had the tenants for it that chose another location, but tenants you’ve got to get it approved before you can do anything. This one here, my son’s working with them, the drive thru. MR. DEEB-It’s a restaurant isn’t it? MR. KENNY, SR.-Well, it’s a coffee shop. It’s coffee. MR. DEEB-National chain. MR. KENNY, SR.-National chain. I can say that. I can’t say too much else. MR. DEEB-I just saw the drive thru and I’m just curious. MR. KENNY, SR.-And it’s, we feel it would be a good fit for that strip, not just for the whole strip, and it’s not retail. We have to take care of the people that are driving by. Then I’m affected by the on-line business. Now everybody’s on-line. Now no one’s shopping stores, but they’re very excited. Actually the one thing with any tenant when they come in here, we’ve got to get this approved. We’ve got to give 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) you all the things we’ve got to give you. We’re this close to signing. We want to make sure there’s enough parking. The Town’s concerned that there’s too much parking, but they’re very, they demand the power they demand, and it’s only a 2,000 square foot store, but they draw so much traffic, but hopefully it moves forward. At least it gets something new up on that strip. MR. DEEB-Are you speculating the other half? MR. KENNY, SR.-Excuse me? MR. DEEB-Are you going to speculate the other half? MR. KENNY, SR.-Well, I have to get a site plan before you can talk to people. These people came to me and was looking at the strip, but I had to get them a site plan, but now when the site plan is approved, that the last puzzle. I send it to them and they have to approve the site plan. They’ve already looked at it and saw it, and actually they give you their specs. We designed this site plan to your specs, but they want to make sure, but hopefully. My son’s been dealing with them. A couple of parking issues, right? But that’s it, and I’m hoping they’ll accept this and not say let’s make a, and who we’d like to get up there, I’ll be honest with you, on the other side, is another tenant, possibly a bank. The strip has no bank at all and there’s no place for people to go. Small bank with an ATM, or we talked about, I would like to see a phone company, Verizon or AT&T. Because there’s none of them around. Lake George people, where do I get, they break their phone, this happens, that happens. They’ve got to drive, find a place in Queensbury. Those are two potential tenants. Or the third would be. MR. KENNY, JR.-A QSR, Quick Service Restaurant. MR. KENNY, SR.-A Quick Service Restaurant, a sandwich place or something, but we want to get this done, and as soon as we let anybody know of a tenant that’s coming, people want to be there, and that’s what we’re hoping. I think the best, I’d love to see a phone company there. Cellphones are a big business. People drop this, drop that, and it’s, again, a different tenant. That’s what we have to do there, bring other players. So that’s pretty much it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well there’s a lot to like with your plan. You’re improving traffic flow, improving permeability. I really like the landscaping and especially the trees inside the parking areas and I think the seating out front would be an asset, too. MR. TRAVER-The extra green space is quite notable. MR. DEEB-We always like extra green space. MR. VALENTINE-With the drive thru aspect, have you figured where the stop would be point would be to place the order? MR. KENNY, SR.-They’ll probably be halfway across the back. MR. VALENTINE-On the backside. MR. KENNY, SR.-I’m assuming, yes. MR. VALENTINE-Because on the right side t here’s obviously with that landscaping, whatever’s on the side there you can’t get next to the building. MR. KENNY, SR.-No, it would have to be in the back. MR. VALENTINE-And my thought I was just looking at that traffic coming in. There’s a lot of conflicts right at that first entrance where you’re going to pull off of, people pulling off of, if they were heading north you’d take a right into this site. Then you’ve also, on the right of that you’re going to have traffic movements from the site to the south and people turning there taking that right to go along that south side of the building. You might have conflicts there if that would be, you know, if that’s the point where you place your order. Now when you said on this other point, the other building you said that the possibility, if there was another drive thru there, I don’t know how you’d do. MR. KENNY, SR.-That wouldn’t be a drive thru where you order. It would be, that would be a bank. MR. VALENTINE-The car could go in to get the order. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. KENNY, SR.- That would be a bank ATM where you go in and cash. MR. VALENTINE-You said a quick service restaurant. MR. KENNY, SR.-A quick service restaurant would not have a drive thru. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. KENNY, SR.-That would disappear, but if it’s a bank where you just pull in, cash your check or whatever at an ATM, there would be no drive thru. MR. VALENTINE-Tom, did you ever give any thought about on the drive thru the exit traffic of having them taking a right turn out of the site and use that other Route 9 entrance, instead of having them cross back in front of the store again, the stores plural? I don’t think it’s a big burden to make that right out of there and come on to that wide entrance gain on 9 then the north side. It keeps that traffic from flowing back in front again. MR. KENNY, SR.-Well, we looked at 9 N. We talked with the engineers and they said today it would work but if that road ever gets developed and it becomes a busy road then you’re better off coming to that point there. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, they have concern about having full access off the one property, but Queensbury wants cross access. MR. KENNY, SR.-I think that’s part of the site plan. That’s part of the approval process. That cross traffic. MR. VALENTINE-Before there wasn’t the drive thru aspect. So I’m thinking about the cars if you have them leaving that drive thru. MR. HUTCHINS-Cars coming off the driveway would be directed to turn right and out the north entrance. MR. KENNY, SR.-The cars would go up that cross path there into that other south property. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we can pattern it that way. MR. VALENTINE-That was just a thought on mine. I don’t know about the rest of the Baard. MR. KENNY, SR.-You’re talking about just putting a directional out. MR. VALENTINE-Right. You’d have to have signage. MR. KENNY, SR.-Instead of having them come back this way. MR. VALENTINE-Which I know you said you don’t have signage yet. MR. KENNY, SR.-Well we don’t have directional signs. You folks say you want. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I think that’s a good idea. MR. KENNY, SR.-I could put a sign in that grass there that says traffic this way. Because one of the things, and I don’t know how familiar you are, maybe it’s not going to happen, but the State’s talking about widening the road. They’ve been talking about it for 10 years. MR. VALENTINE-Well that’s something that’s behind the whole thing is what happens with Route 9. MR. KENNY, SR.-And making a light and making everybody make right hand turns for the whole strip. It may happen. I may not be here. MR. SHAFER-Michael you want the cars that go through the drive thru to take a right and to go north? MR. VALENTINE-No, not go north, go right and go into the other access point on 9 then go left or right. What I was thinking was, I mean I wrote arrows on the plan as far as which way traffic’s flowing through the site and everything, and right just as you come off, coming in this site in here is what I was looking at, 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) coming in here and then you’ve got traffic coming in this way also. Now these guys could go here. They could go here. These people could go here. They could go here or they can go back out. So in here I’m just looking, this is a conflict area, but if people are coming in here and they’re going to turn right, then go right to go back here, but if they want to get into the, wherever this lane is to get them to the microphone if they’re making an order and stuff, that’s another thing. I was just looking at that as a conflict area. Knowing that’s here, what I was saying is these guys come out here and just go this way and then shoot out here. MR. KENNY, SR.-I agree. Going through the backside they’d be all right. MR. MAGOWAN-You’d just have to take a little of the wedge out. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well when you do your signage you can clarify that. Other comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-It’s a little murky at this point but the engineer has to sign off on that anyway. That’s not going to be a problem. I just wanted to make sure. MR. TRAVER-And it was approved previously. MR. HUTCHINS-It’ll be a series of drywells and catch basins, all infiltration. MR. DEEB-I don’t have a problem with it. MR. HUTCHINS-We intend to get it to them. MR, KENNY, SR.-Just to bring you up to date with where we are with the project. We got the asbestos inspection in Monday. They’re sending it out. We’ve got to get a variance for it actually and that’s going to take three weeks, three to four weeks we’ll hopefully demolish that building. MR. HUTCHINS-Not from the Town, from the State. MR. KENNY, SR.-Well I have to get a demolition permit, yes. I have to get the Town to sign off on it and then with the State. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from members of the Board? This is SEQR Unlisted so we do need to consider under SEQR. We talked about the stormwater which I think is the primary SEQR issue on the site and they had previously engineered stormwater for a larger project. The applicant’s engineer doesn’t feel that there will be an issue getting a signoff. Do Board members feel comfortable moving forward with SEQR? MR. DEEB-I do, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEG. SEQR DEC. SP # 65-2019 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC The applicant proposes removal of 3,250 sq. ft. +/- of two story hotel building to construct a 5,015 sq. ft. building for two tenants with one drive-thru to be constructed. Building to be single story and consistent with adjoining outlet buildings. Hotel will have minor alterations to complete outside walls and interior work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) 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 Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 65-2019 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC , Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move to the Site Plan resolution. I do want to make a note that the applicant is to clarify traffic patterns, signage, and I think that was the only thing, the only other issues we discussed. We should be ready for a resolution on that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 65-2019 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes removal of 3,250 sq. ft. +/- of two story hotel building to construct a 5,015 sq. ft. building for two tenants with one drive- thru to be constructed. Building to be single story and consistent with adjoining outlet buildings. Hotel will have minor alterations to complete outside walls and interior work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction 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 has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/22/2019, 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 10/22/2019; 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) 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 65-2019 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted h. signage; 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; 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 l) Applicant to place a right turn only sign at the exit of the driveway. nd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda, Adirondack Factory Outlet, Site Plan 64-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1444 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICEANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 13,675 SQ. FT. +/- BUILDING AT FRONT OF ADIRONDACK OUTLETS AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 12,706 SQ. FT. BUILDING ON SOUTHWEST CORNER. PROJECT WILL HAVE BOTH BUILDINGS 75 FT. FROM FRONT PROPERTY LINE. PRJECT WORK INCLUDES FAÇADE AREA FOR EXISTING BUILDING, SITEWORK, GRADING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER FOR NEW BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SP 3-2009, SP 37- 2015, SP 30-2018, MANY OTHERS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 6.93 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22. SECTION: 179-3- 040. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID KENNY, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board is to review removal of 13,675 square feet of building at the front of the Adirondack Outlets and to construct a new separate building on the southwest corner of 12,706 square feet. Both buildings will end up being 75 feet from the property line and again this project had expired. It was a Site Plan from last year of 2018. It’s expired and now it’s back before this Board. There’s no changes. The only thing at this point is the area has a gravel surface so a perspective tenant can see what that footprint is like. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KENNY, SR.-And actually most of that gravel, what we’re trying to do there, and I came in and spoke to Craig and he said no problem, go ahead and do it, and I started digging it up because that’s all grass. There’s green space all the way around the front. He said go ahead and do it and I started doing it and he called me the next day and he said, Dave, I made a mistake. You can’t do that. So I stopped, but if you approve this tonight then I want to put that green space, if you look on the plan, all along the front, so I can get that done. I wanted to have grass there. MR. TRAVER-So this is similar to the other project in that you’ve done a revision and see now that you want to make a change in the design. MR. HUTCHINS-No actually it’s the exact same application you saw last year. It’s the same one. It’s expired and he was getting started on some of the green space when he was told to stop. MR. DEEB-You probably should identify yourself. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineers, here with Dave Kenny and David S. Kenny, Jr. MR. TRAVER-I must have seen something in here that made me think, I thought I did. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s the same application. MR. KENNY, SR.-The only thing that changed is we upgraded the colors. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it’s already been reviewed. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s been a year. MR. TRAVER-So we just didn’t give you an extension in time. MR. KENNY, SR.-I didn’t apply for one because I didn’t know. MS. WHITE-They didn’t ask for an extension. MR. TRAVER-Right. I know. MR. HUTCHINS-We didn’t ask. MR. KENNY, SR.-I didn’t realize. I went and spoke to Craig first and he said it was okay. He didn’t realize it. MR. TRAVER-There are a lot of applications, I’m sure you can understand, and it’s difficult for the Planning Staff to keep track of all of them, and certainly once they’ve been approved they’re into the next project. Anyway. Sorry for that complication but here we are. So it is the same application with some slight modifications to the façade. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-We just got something from Warren County they said “Informal Staff Comments: Staff suggests to the Queensbury Planning Board, that accommodations made for pedestrians travelling from the sidewalk to the existing outlet center.” Comment? MR. KENNY, SR.-There is. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-There is to the new building, but not really to the existing. MR. HUTCHINS-Across here? MR. HUNSINGER-Or from Route 9 to the building. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s one here. MR. TRAVER-Travelling from the sidewalk to the existing outlet center is what they’re talking about. MR. HUTCHINS-The sidewalk to here. Okay. So in here. Yes, we don’t generally put a crosswalk on private, on a private, in fact the State generally frowns upon that. MR. TRAVER-Is there currently a lot of pedestrian traffic in that area? MR. KENNY, SR.-There’s not as much as there used to be. MR. TRAVER-Maybe I should re-phrase that. MR. KENNY, SR.-But at the same time that’s why I started putting the one. MR. HUTCHINS-You’ve got it here. MR. KENNY, SR.-We’ve got the State. MR. TRAVER-Well let me phrase it another way. Do you feel that there’s any issues for pedestrians travelling from the sidewalk to the existing outlet center? MR. KENNY, SR.-I don’t. There’s sidewalks all along there, but for that one spot. I’m going to tell you, they get out of their car and cross, just like at Aviation Mall, just like anywhere. They go like they’re on a straight line. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-They go wherever they want. MR. DEEB-It doesn’t matter what’s there. They’ll do what they want to do. MR. KENNY, SR.-They’ll do what they want to do. MR. DEEB-I don’t see it as a problem. I just thought I’d bring it up. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think if you’re aware of it, the County drew our attention to it. MR. KENNY, SR.-We’ve been through all kinds of things with the County and the State trying to take care of some issue with it. There’s one other thing I’d like to bring up. I don’t know if you would deal with this. I know we have a couple of tenants that we’re talking to. Right now we’re down, it’s public knowledge. Dress Barn is closing. Corning is closing. Kitchen Collection is closing. They’re all closing this month, this December, 20,000 square feet. They’re all closing, and there’s a couple of other people closing, too on the strip. MR. KENNY, JR.-They’re closing nationally. MR. KENNY, SR.-And Dress Barn is one of the top stores in the country. They’re closing 650 stores the end of December. Corning is closing every store as the lease comes up. Kitchen Collection, we just got a notice from them last week. They’re closing in January. All their stores because they’re lease with us is up in April I think. Their lease is up in two years. They’re just closing their stores nationally, and that’s what’s happening. So I would like permission, I don’t know if you folks are the ones that would do it or if it would be Craig’s decision, if I could get a good tenant, which we’re talking to a couple of them. If I can entice them to come here, can I put them in if they want that new store I’m going to build without taking the other building down? Because I can’t take that building down until Under Armour decides and Under Armour CEO, we don’t know what’s happening there. So to get them to move that store so I can take that building down they’ve got another year left on this lease and they do have an option of five more years, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) but I would have that much space empty so parking wouldn’t be an issue. The whole question is you’ve got to take down one to gain parking for the other one. Now with 30,000 square feet empty. Would that be a Craig Brown decision then? MR. TRAVER-Well what I would suggest is that you bring that to Laura’s attention as you become aware of, because it’s a fluid situation that you’re describing and there are a lot of factors that involve what is required for the Town to be aware of what’s going on and make a determination of what we need to do to support whatever it is that you’re trying to do. So the most important thing, if I could emphasize, is strong communications with Laura and her team. Because she will, if you can keep her up to speed with exactly what’s going on, what your timeframe is, you know, if you’re talking about changing a tenant or maybe modifying a building or something along those lines, you can let her know ahead of time, as soon as you’re aware this may be happening, in April, whatever. That’s the best advice. MR. KENNY, SR.-Some of the tenants would like to be closer to the road, but in the meantime I’ve got all these spaces empty so I don’t need the parking I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Our approval says you have to start the project within a year. It won’t specify that you have to do this before you do that. MR. KENNY, SR.-No. If I have a tenant tomorrow that wants to take a front store, do I give it to him, because I can’t take that other building down because Under Armour controls that. I can’t just take that building down while Under Armour is still there. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand. MR. KENNY, SR.-Under Armour has a year, and they have a five year option. So it could take, as long as I’m supplying the parking, it’s coming down, the building, but Under Armour has to move out. Under Armour is the one wanted to move, wanted to get a bigger store and all this. MR. TRAVER-Well we have to also be careful that your project doesn’t become our project. MR. KENNY, SR.-Right. MR. TRAVER-So we have to direct your plans and your concerns and your questions to the Planning Department which is, they’re the professionals. They’re very good at what they do. As long as you communicate with them they will be there to help you in any way, and then we will respond as best we can to the information that we’re provided, but we can’t anticipate. We can’t project. We can’t hypothesis. We just can’t. MR. KENNY, SR.-I understand. I thought it would be Craig Brown. MR. DEEB-Let me ask. So you’re saying the building might not come down for five years, if they option. MR. TRAVER-It’s not like he knows. MR. KENNY, SR.-I don’t know. MR. DEEB-If they option. MR. KENNY, SR.-I can’t throw them out of their lease. MR. DEEB-So it could be there for a while. MR. KENNY, SR.-But I’ll always have eight to ten thousand square feet empty. So I’ll have the square footage on the site with the parking. We’re going to send Under Armour, I can’t do it today or this week only because. MR. TRAVER-Well, those are all discussions that you should really share with the Planning Department staff. They’re the ones that are in a position to help you with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, when the approval comes out it’ll say you have to start the project. Which is why you’re here now because you want to start the project within a year. MR. KENNY, SR.-Technically I can’t start that project until that building is down. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MRS. MOORE-So just to follow through, I agree with you. If he’s proposing to keep both buildings up, that might be a site plan modification. Because right now the project before you is to remove that building and put up a new building. If you’re proposing a site plan modification to keep both buildings up, that’s a new, that’s a site plan modification. MR. TRAVER-And as you know, we can’t speculate. We have to deal with what we have before us. You can certainly change that. Laura and her team will help you do that and we’ll take a look at whatever you feel is in your best interest. We have to deal with what we have before us. MR. KENNY, SR.-And I’ll give you a parking number. The green space will be in that building. MR. HUTCHINS-At this point we want to extend the application. MR. KENNY, SR.-I want to finish the green space, get that all cleaned up. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on Adirondack Factory Outlet. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And this is also under SEQR. So this is a previously approved application. So I guess we do a reaffirmation? MR. DEEB-No, I have a resolution. MRS. MOORE-You should do it again. MR. TRAVER-All right. Do Board members feel comfortable doing SEQR again on this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. I thought so but I thought I would ask. We can go ahead and do that. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEG. SEQR DEC. SP # 64-2019 ADK. FACTORY OUTLET The applicant proposes removal of 13,675 sq. ft. +/- building at front of Adirondack Outlets and to construct new 12,706 sq. ft. building on southwest corner. Project will have both buildings 75 ft. from front property line. Project work includes new façade area for existing building, site work grading, landscaping and stormwater for new building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction 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 Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) 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 64-2019 ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. And I think we have a draft resolution that we need not modify. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 64-2019 ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET The applicant proposes removal of 13,675 sq. ft. +/- building at front of Adirondack Outlets and to construct new 12,706 sq. ft. building on southwest corner. Project will have both buildings 75 ft. from front property line. Project work includes new façade area for existing building, site work grading, landscaping and stormwater for new building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction 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 has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/22/2019, 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 10/22/2019; 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 64-2019 ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: k. topography, 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. 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; 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. nd Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we have Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, Site Plan 67-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED – REVIEW OF PAST SEQR. GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. AGENT(S): CT MALE ASSOCIATES, FRANK PALUMBO. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC. LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW RIDE “ADIRONDACK OUTLAW” LOCATED NEAR “DESPERADO PLUNGE” – REMOVING AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE NEW RIDE. THE NEW RIDE IS TO BE 165 FT. IN LENGTH/HEIGHT. PROJECT INCLUDES RIDE CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ENCLOSED ENTRY AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 6-2014 SUPER NOVA RIDE, SP PZ 23-2015 GREEZED LIGHTNIN RIDE, SP 5-2017 BONZAI PIPELINE RIDE; SP 15-2018 PANDEMONIUM RIDE; SEVERAL MORE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 237 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040. CHARLES DUMAS & FRANK PALUMBO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant proposes a new ride called the Adirondack Outlaw which is located near the Desperado Plunge in the Ghost Town area. Removing an existing building for the new ride. The new ride is approximately 155 feet in length. The project includes construction of an enclosed entry area and includes landscaping and stormwater management. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. DUMAS-Good evening. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-I understand, and I wanted to comment for the audience as well. My understanding is that there have been some minor changes to your application and so we will be hearing your description of the plan you have intended, but we will be tabling this until next month I believe, second meeting in November. So just so that members of the public are aware for public hearing. The project will be changing from what you have before you tonight. We will open a public hearing tonight and we will leave it open and the applicant will be presenting and talking about their project, and then they will be returning, we anticipate, next month. So with that I’ll open it up to you. MR. DUMAS-If you deem that necessary, because the changes that we’ll talk about are relatively minor in nature, but with the discretion of the Board, you may want to table it or you may want to take action on it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We will need some time to review those changes. I understand that you’re suggesting they’re minor, but we will decide if they’re minor. MR. DUMAS-For the record I’m Charles Dumas. I’m an attorney. I work for the law firm of Lemery Greisler. I represent the applicant. I have with me Danielle Smith who is the Manager of Project Coordination and Frank Palumbo who is with C.T. Male. The application is for a new ride. The ride itself is called the Adirondack Outlaw. It’s to be located just south of the western themed area in the portion of the Park presently occupied by Dan McGrew. The ride itself it’s interesting. It involves an 85 foot tower. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. How tall? MR. DUMAS-Eighty-five foot. MR. TRAVER-Eighty-five. Okay. MR. DUMAS-And an arm that revolves circularly around the tower as a focal point. There are two gondola cars at each end that would hold approximately eight people and the duration of the ride is roughly 90 seconds. It takes about four minutes to load. So it would operate pretty much like straight up and down, with a gondola car at the bottom. It would load with eight people and rotate to the top. The other gondola car would be available at the ground to load another eight people. Then there would be a ride of 90 seconds in duration, and then unloading would take approximately four minutes. MR. TRAVER-So, and this is an oversimplification, but what I’m picturing in my mind is, I guess, sort of like a Ferris wheel but instead of being a wheel it’s just an arm with just two instead of buckets all around. MR. DUMAS-Exactly, and Frank Palumbo has some depictions of that in order to help the Board visualize it. At rest the arm would remain at 85 feet. It would not be extended upward when not in u se. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s good to know. Okay, and when would it be at rest? MR. DUMAS-It would be at rest when the Park is closed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So when the Park is in operation it would be normally fully extended. MR. DUMAS-Well, only when the ride is working. MR. TRAVER-Also when loading and unloading. MR. DUMAS-Correct. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So would the ride be operated normally during the full hours of operation of the Park? MR. DUMAS-Most likely, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I would think so. MR. DUMAS-There may be times when the Park is open when the ride is not operating, but I would say by enlarge that would be the case. MR. TRAVER-Under normal circumstances. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. DUMAS-Under normal circumstances from roughly Memorial Day to Labor Day. MR. TRAVER-What about off season like during the winter for storage? Would it be also horizontal? MR. DUMAS-That’s correct. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-So with that I’d like to turn it over to Frank to talk a little bit about the Site Plan and the minor modifications that have been made in the submission. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-And, Mr. Chairman, so we have two, up front there and here, whatever you think is best for people to be able to see. MR. TRAVER-Probably the projector would be easiest. And you can take the microphone with you. MR. PALUMBO-I know the projector doesn’t have this latest information that we just handed out. MR. TRAVER-And that’s fine. We haven’t studied that and your presentation tonight is going to be helpful but it’s not the same as our studying it. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I would add, too, that we’re also looking for lighting information which currently is not included and that in the past has been a bit of an issue with some of the previous rides like the Sasquatch ride where the lighting came after the fact and it was, yes. So we’re going to want updated and very specific information on that when you come back. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. We’ll talk about that a little bit tonight. MR. TRAVER-Very good. MR. PALUMBO-So to point out why we had some changes and why we think they’re minor. You’ll see this area here where we had a pergola, just to give the overall context. The ride that Charles was just describing, center point is right there. That right there is the mast that will be up at that 85 foot height. The spindle here and the gondolas at each end are on that slightly angled direction. The area is from down here where Dan McGrew’s is and up in this area where there are some bathrooms in the building, just before the Desperado Plunge, which is up behind that. So what we had planned is a portal entry, corrals to get in to the ride and then the exit here, all back out to the midway where this is all western themed area. So what we discovered, and we’re, unfortunately from the standpoint of that, the discovery came a little too late to get you more information ahead of time. Where this pergola was here, we discovered that the original architectural drawing we were working with, we had a line basically going through here, and what we found was that in this area, which is right along there, is a section of a building that that block wall for that building was 14 feet over. That part of the building houses sprinkler system operations for Dan McGrew and the bathrooms and also Dan McGrew’s has a stage in it and it was the backdrop area for that. So the mistake was, and then what we also found out was that we actually had more space over here where we could take out the building. So it’s really a shift of the space. We had already decided that we were going to go away from the pergola. It didn’t really make as much sense there, and the building wouldn’t have allowed it. So what we changed, in terms of just sort of talking about the magnitude of the changes, we have decreased the amount of corral space, did more analysis on exactly what was necessary for the ride. One thing I can say about the ride is that it’s one of those, you know, rides that not all of us can do or want to do, but there’s also a lot of people that like to see it in operation. So the corral space we found out was really not as much. We didn’t need all four of those. So that decreased some of the building area. That building is really more of a, almost a pergola in and of itself. It’s a shade structure for the area where people will be lining up. They go in in here, go on the ride and come out here. What we’ve done now is added back here permeable pavers and so someone who maybe has family members on the ride. They can now go back here, watch the ride, overlook, you know, the front area of the Park, and have a place where they can view the ride. On the previous plan there was nothing ever special there in terms of, so we actually gave more access there for people to enjoy the area. So the other thing that we had to add, that we hadn’t had on the first plan, was a mechanical building, a mechanical/electrical building for the ride, and that is what is situated here. The ride itself is 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) generally on that same angle. Bathrooms are still accessed with a building that those bathrooms are now interior to will be removed to a point where this will just have a, now an overhang similar to the overhang that’s on one of the buildings that’s over here. So people will be able to access the bathrooms more openly, more freely, but there’d still be a covered area there. All of that being said, what I would like to call your attention to, this is from the application packet. So what we did is we showed the differential in red from what had been on the original numbers. The bottom line coming out is that the existing condition with all the buildings and all the pavement had 90% impermeable space. Previous submission we were at 56%. With this submission we’ve actually dropped that down to 48%. So we will have 52% of the area permeable. MR. TRAVER-And that information is in the handout that you just gave us this evening? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. That was in everybody’s packet. MR. TRAVER-Very good. MR. PALUMBO-As was the site plan that I was just referring to up there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-So we do feel as though they were minor changes, but we recognize the fact that we made changes. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. PALUMBO-One of the things that you were mentioning about lighting. What we are planning are low level lighting along the walkways. There would be some lighting under the shade structure for the corral, just for, as it does approach a darker time period. Although most of the season the ride isn’t operational when it’s dark. There are time periods where special events, during the Fright Fest, you know, times where we lose the seasonal daylight that we have, but there’ll be some small low level lighting underneath the corral just from a safety standpoint, people, you know, in there, but there’ll also be bollard lighting along some of the walkways and some building mounted lighting to make sure that there is lighting effectively for the operation of the ride, safely getting to and off, onto and off of the ride. So we will have, and can provide more information that the detail that sometimes we have allowed Staff to review that with the more detailed site plans, building set plans, but what we are envisioning is really a low level of lighting comparative to what is out there now. There is some lighting along the backsides of the buildings here. So actually from the outside looking in we think we’re actually going to have less of a lighting effect because we’re not really lighting up anything. We’re really providing lighting for the safe maneuvering into and out of the ride. MR. TRAVER-And how soon can you provide the cut sheets and the other data to Staff for that lighting? MR. PALUMBO-We can probably have that within a few days. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Okay. MR. PALUMBO-It just takes us selecting something, making sure that it reaches, you know, that corporate has a design team with them and they review it and then once we do that it’s submittal. MR. TRAVER-Very good. What about lighting on the ride itself, on the gondolas? MR. PALUMBO-I think that we did provide some information to Laura. I’m not sure. Did we get that over to you? MRS. MOORE-I didn’t get it. MR. PALUMBO-All right. I’m sorry. I know that you had asked some questions about the color of it and so the lighting on the ride can be programmed to be at whatever extent is deemed necessary. So it’s not a set item there. Danielle, do you want to talk a little bit about that, just to describe it? DANIELLE SMITH MS. SMITH-Thank you. So on the arm itself there are three strips as you would say on both sides of this, and they’re just kind of like bars of light. So you can program every other one to be a different color or 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) they can all be one color, things like that, but it’s not the entire arm that’s lit. It’s just the three strips. So then from this view right now, if you were looking at Route 9, you’d only see two strips because you’re only looking at the side of the arm. It’s the front and the back that have the three strips on it, and then I did provide you the video which did show. MR. TRAVER-And these are LED type lights? MS. SMITH-Yes. MR. DEEB-Do they flash? MS. SMITH-They don’t have to. It’s all in the programming. So you could program them to just go one by one by one by one if you wanted or they could, you know, do one side, the other side. It’s all what we want, but in the video you can see that it’s just the one solid color. MR. TRAVER-I think for, and I’ll ask the Board as well, but I think for our review, the primary concern probably would be the intensity of the lighting. So if you could give us the range of lumens or whatever the cut sheets on the fixtures and the range of adjustment that it could have, that would be very helpful. So we can review that before you come back. MS. SMITH-Okay. Now, what about at the extreme height of the ride? So that would be at the gondolas or the structures surrounding the gondolas? That is not illuminated? MS. SMITH-It does have the small LED’s just surrounding it and then under it so then as you are getting off the gondola you have light because you have to get off at the steps. So there’s lighting on the. MR. TRAVER-That’s on the ground though, right? MS. SMITH-That’s on the ground, but it’s also, it’s on the bottom of the seat. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to play that video? MS. SMITH-You can play the video, sure. MR. TRAVER-Laura, maybe you can send us a link to that. So there’s some centrifugal force involved with the ride as well I guess. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, there is. MR. HUNSINGER-So are you upside down when you’re loading the other car? MS. SMITH-The car itself spins itself. MR. HUNSINGER-But you’re not upside down. MS. SMITH-No, you wouldn’t be upside down. MR. TRAVER-At the top you might be upside down. MR. PALUMBO-When it gets to the top if it’s loading, it rights itself. MR. DEEB-Sixty miles an hour? MS. SMITH-Yes, between 60 and 75 miles an hour. MR. TRAVER-4 G’s. That’s more than the space shuttle at lift off. MS. SMITH-So you can see the lighting on the side of it is just the two stripes. So that’s the view you get from Route 9 really, that one, and then the front and back of it have the three stripes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MS. SMITH-And then in this video you can see those two towers that are next to it. That’s not any part of this ride. That’s just a different ride that’s very close to that one in the video. MR. VALENTINE-Those sides are not solid? There’s not wind created by this at all? MS. SMITH-I haven’t gotten any of that from the ride manufacturing company. So I would assume no. MR. VALENTINE-It looks like a blade out in the, you know, on a dairy farm. It does. MR. TRAVER-It’s interesting. So again on the lighting, that is a concern. So anything that you can provide us on any new lighting that’s going to be involved, whether it’s on the ride, the ground, the gondolas, please provide that detail information. If it’s computerized control, just the range which it can operate, any details. Something that would be helpful as well is like the hours, you know, of operation. Just whatever information you can provide would be. MS. SMITH-During the season, up into Memorial Day’s is generally, maybe a few weeks before, it’s a weekend operation, and then throughout the month of May it’s usually just maybe Thursday and Friday to accommodate school groups that are coming, and then until you really reach June, that last week of June that school’s fully out, that’s when we come in full operation, and it’s Monday through Thursday, 10:30 to 7:00. Friday, 10:30 to 8:00 p.m., Saturday 10:30 to 9 p.m. and then Sunday 10:30 to 7:00 p.m. So Really during the summer months you don’t see the sun setting until late, 8:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m., and we’re not in operation at that point. So it’s really Fright Fest which is happening now is until 9 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. So this is when you’d see the bulk of it. MR. TRAVER-So when the, before the sun sets then you will not have the lights turned on. MS. SMITH-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s good to know. Thank you. MR. PALUMBO-Any other questions on the Site Plan right now? MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from the Board before we go to public hearing? MR. PALUMBO-And I do have one more thing to talk about, but I just wondered if there was anything before I moved on to talk about the visual. MR. TRAVER-I’m asking now. Let’s see what the response is. Do you have any other questions? Okay. Go ahead. MR. PALUMBO-So what you have in front of you are these same images. What we were able to do was we flew a drone the other day and we did two things. We went up to the 85 foot height, which are these two images here, and then up to the 165 foot height here. The last picture in your set there is just where we set up some cones. We did some initial reconnaissance out at Ash Drive along the bike path. Found a spot where the tree clearing was the most. We had gone there a couple of times to see what we could see in that direction, and I can tell you in September before we started losing leaves, the Nightmare Canyon ride could, I could just make out a faint strip of the white band at the top of that green building. Right now if you went out there you’d see a very good portion of that building. So it gives, we did this drone test just yesterday. So it was done at that time period where, you know, we have lost some leaves and more of it has become open. Are there still leaves on the trees, yes, there are, but this was the closest we could do this. So what we did was we set those cones and the sign up to try to see if we could see it, doing that reverse principle. So the drone was able to position right above where the ride is. We went up to the 85 foot height. The middle of the photograph is essentially your, it’s looking straight out. The drone is programmed to be at that elevation and to shoot in that direction. So what we were able to discover, which is what we had sort of had a hypothesis about, was that there are a group of trees. So you have that wetland area that gets very sparse, but there is an incline in between there that blocks a good portion of the view, most of the view towards any portion of the bike path there, and so the arrow that we’re showing on there is not saying the bike path is right in those trees. It’s behind those trees. Okay. So we could not identify the bike path and Ash Drive from that height. MR. TRAVER-And that’s the height of the pylon that supports the axis’s. MR. PALUMBO-Right, the mast and where there’ll be, you know, the static state will be and off season position of the ride. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. PALUMBO-And the ride is also on the angle, really sort of pointing towards that direction. So it doesn’t go across that we might see stuff because we’ve gone over that way. It’s all in that same plane. So that was trying to observe that. We’ve pointed out where, approximately, Glen Lake was because it could not be seen in this image. Now, the, to turn, just to give you, because I think it’s easier to have the context of the height, in this you can see where the Condor is and where Sasquatch is, and so the Condor is essentially at the same height as the mast, all right. So, yes, we will be going up higher than that with the arc, but in a steady state you can pretty much, if you picture the Condor, at the top of the hill and there it is. This will be about the same elevation. Sasquatch is higher than that 85 foot elevation. So then what we did was we went higher. We went to that 165 foot level where people will be sitting up in there. MR. TRAVER-So that would be on the ride at the height of the arc? MR. PALUMBO-At the height of the arc. MR. TRAVER-Where presumably people are going to be upside down. MR. PALUMBO-No, they’ll be sitting straight up. So gravity wise, the seat will right itself as you get up there while it’s just in no motion. As it moves, you will be moved in your chair. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. MR. PALUMBO-So they will be statically sitting up there while at the bottom is filled. That process takes four minutes to fill. So that’s the only time at which that is stationary in that position at the 165 foot height. Then you saw how it moves. So it will be constantly moving through the view shed. What we did see, and which we wanted to identify, is that the small portion of the back or the northernmost side of Glen Lake can be seen from that view. You cannot make out any detail. You can’t see houses or any other structures. It’s basically, you can just make out the water that’s there. So I cannot say, you know, that somebody sitting there could not see this, but what we can say is that the view is very much diminished by the distance of, you know, and what you can make out and the size of the structure at that distance. It’s about approximately a mile away from that point there to the ride position, and the gondola is approximately eight feet wide. All right. So distance and size of what it will be like. We think really it’s a small view of it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, at that distance probably the lighting is what’s going to be, you wouldn’t necessarily identify what it is. You would just see the light. MR. PALUMBO-Right. But in daylight hours you’re not going to really see that. So the amount of time that that duration of lighting would ever be in play we think is also very, very small in duration, and again, then we turn that back around just to see that, you know, obviously from that height you’d be looking down on the Condor and it’s really very, very close to the same elevation as the top of the Condor. The difference with the top of the Condor, or, sorry, the Sasquatch, if that was in this position and was up that high and was stationary, you would see it all the time. It would be at that. This is as high as the Sasquatch but has all the trees behind it and it’s fleeting movement through that ride cycle. So that’s how we wanted to present the differentiation of how this ride fits in to the character of the front side, but is not having a significant impact on the backside. Mostly because of all the existing trees that fall in here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you. MR. DUMAS-I just wanted to take a second to talk a little bit about the thresholds of the GEIS that we had to take a look at. We have submitted with the application this year’s traffic monitor and noise monitor, and I think those demonstrate that those impacts are within the thresholds established by the GEIS. It’s also important to note that this ride is not expected to trigger any material noise of any kind. It has an electric motor and part of the ride is fueled by the centrifugal force that you noted. There will be some music associated with the ride, but it’s not anticipated to be directed in any fashion other than for the immediate enjoyment of the people who would be riding the attraction. MR. TRAVER-Could you give us some information on the db’s, the decibels or whatever you would expect that music to be? You probably would have that information. That would be helpful to have as well. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. DUMAS-I’d also like to talk a little bit about the visual threshold because that is potentially a concern of the Board. When the GEIS, Draft GEIS was done in. MR. TRAVER-2003? MR. DUMAS-No, it was ’99. MR. TRAVER-’99. MR. DUMAS-Yes. It was initially proposed that there be a height threshold for the entire Park. After public comment the consultants came back and divided the Park up into zones based upon the topography. The Park is not flat. It’s not the same elevation throughout. So the northern end of the Park is probably the highest elevation, and therefore the threshold for that area was developed to be 115 to 135 in that range. At the more center part of the Park, just south of that, the range was developed to be 175 to 185, and then further towards the road, towards Route 9, that was deemed to be appropriate for 200 foot rides. It is interesting that in the development of those lines that were drawn for the particular zones, the consultants were working off of elevation data that had 20 foot intervals. It’s interesting because this lies just on the cusp of the 115-135 zone where it kisses up against the 175-185 zone, and the elevation’s exactly the same between where this is going to be located, in the 115 to 135 zone and 20 feet away the 175 to 185 zone. The elevation is the same at 410. MR. TRAVER-So just to clarify, not for elevation purposes but for zone purposes. Which zone is this physically proposed to be located in? MR. DUMAS-Twenty feet inside the 115-135 zone. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-And, you know, I think the GEIS provides instruction and guidance to the Board in terms of how we evaluate this, and this is part of your packet, but I would direct your specific attention to Page Two of Section 4.3 of the FGEIS and just for the record I’d like to read two sentences of it. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DUMAS-At times it may be necessary to locate a tall structure that is possibly in excess of the study height of a particular zone. In those circumstances further visual analysis and parenthetically it indicates duration of view, visibility, mass of the structure, may have to be completed to determine if the amount of the structure above the tree line will be substantial. At times it may be feasible to reduce the visibility of a structure by using a compatible color to blend the structure into the background. Andi I think what we tried to demonstrate in these visuals is that there would not be a material impact in terms of the height of the structure, particularly in view of the duration, the short duration that it would be extended to 165, the fact that nine months of the year it would be at horizontal, at 85 feet and below the threshold in the particular zone, and the color palette is earth tone, you know, of the arm and the gondolas itself. I think they sensitively blend with the environmental. So I wanted to make that point because it’s this Board’s obligation to take a hard look at that. I think we’ve provided good information to help you make your decision. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The lighting information will be helpful, and some of the comments made this evening indicate that the ride will not be operated after dark, and I guess I’d kind of for the heck of it throw out there certainly the lighting in the area of the loading and unloading area and the visitors viewing the ride as it operates type of thing, you have downcast lighting, but if you’re not operating it after dark, do you need to have the lighting that’s actually on the ride itself? MS. SMITH-Well Six Flags is just known for trying to make thrills. So Six Flags buys the light package with the ride. It’s most of the time included with the ride. So I mean it also makes it a bit aesthetic when you’re looking at a ride if it has lights on it. I mean for many of you who have been to the Park you’ve seen rides that have lights on it and rides that don’t, and if you see something that’s nice and tall and has lights on it you might be more inclined to ride it than if it was dark and gloomy and you’re just like I don’t want to ride that today, but if it was nice and had lights and you could see all the way to the top you’d say, heck, yes, I can do that, or, no thank you. So I think it’s just in Six Flag’s best interest to have theming element part of the ride to have lights on it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-So the question I would ask. You talked a little bit about why you decided to locate this where you did. Can you elaborate further? You talked about the difference in the zones between heights and such but could you elaborate on the actual selection within the Park and why this specific location versus another one? MS. SMITH-Sure. So we haven’t had a new attraction in our Ghost Town area since the Canyon Blaster was put in and that was around 2006. So the area isn’t very populated or it it’s not attracting a lot of people up there anymore. People aren’t going up there. There’s not really anything that’s new and shiny up there. So really the plan was to do more theming in the area because it is called Ghost Town. So we’re trying to put some more western concepts in here and drag some more people up into that zone and have more people spread out throughout the Park. MR. DUMAS-I do believe there also is another dynamic and this is closer to the road than say maybe going east with it. So therefore it’s attractive, right? The idea is passersby, the public will see this as an attraction and I think that’s an important factor in its location as well. Also, practically speaking, if it were to be located in other zones in the Park it would probably have to be closer to Glen Lake. It would probably have to go east and I think that’s probably a less attractive location. MR. PALUMBO-And one other physical attribute that it has is that the ride area where it’s loaded and unloaded is really relatively small, but the spindle does require air space and the fact that we were able to position this where it can go out safely into the air space like where the Screamin’ Demon is, we don’t need to have as much physical ground space for the ride. MR. SHAFER-Did I hear you say the line between the different height zones was done on a 20 foot contour map? MR. PALUMBO-That’s correct. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Twenty foot contour intervals, yes. MR. DUMAS-Yes. That was the data available at the time, and with the data available now those lines probably would be drawn differently. MR. SHAFER-Absolutely. Sure. MR. TRAVER-And it may not have anticipated that a ride exceeding a particular zone would be drawn that close to the line. I mean, there’s a zillion things you think about after you develop these zones. MR. DUMAS-Right, and the point I think is that there is no specific zoning for height of a ride in an amusement area. MR. TRAVER-Except this one. MR. DUMAS-Well, these are guidelines and they’re not deemed to be scripture and it’s certainly within this Board’s jurisdiction to take a hard look at the information supplied and particularly in light of the duration, the height at rest, the color. I think these are all mitigating factors, and importantly the point that Frank made about the plane that this is on. It’s not a plane where it’s exposing itself unnaturally to surrounding areas, but it’s on a plane that minimizes the potential visual impact. MR. TRAVER-The updated information that you distributed to the Board this evening and the information that we requested prior to your appearance presumably next month, Laura, that will be available on the Town website for the public to view as well? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. MR. TRAVER-Sure. My silent cohort down here brought up a good point. Thanks, Mike. What happens if a ride gets stuck up? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MS. SMITH-So there is a backup generator that we have for the ride but then also as a triple backup there is a manual release where you can go there with a crank and crank it right down. MR. MAGOWAN-So we don’t need a 250 foot ladder truck, fire truck? MS. SMITH-No. The fire department won’t have to be called unless there is an extreme emergency, but there’s generator backup and if that ever fails there is a manual crank where you can climb up the center mast and literally crank them. MR. TRAVER-If they did need to do a rescue at that height they would do it with a helicopter anyway. Are there other questions from the Board before we open it up to public comment? Okay. Well we do have a public hearing on this application. As you’ve heard, the Board received updated information tonight that we’ll be reviewing, and we also have information on lighting and sound and so on that we’ll be receiving for review as well, but we do have public comment open tonight. So are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application as it exists this evening? Yes, sir. We do have one individual that wanted to speak to us. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL MC PHILLIPS MR. MC PHILLIPS-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. MC PHILLIPS-My name’s Paul McPhillips and I’m the President of the Glen Lake Protective Association and the reason we’re here tonight is, Number One, we’re afraid that the tower proposed by The Great Escape will negatively impact Glen Lake residents. It will harm our daytime sight lines we think. Being able to see the tower from our lake and from our homes. It will also substantially harm our nighttime ambient lighting we believe. We talked about ambient lighting earlier. Number Two, most importantly, the tower will significantly violate the standards set in the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement. The Environmental Impact Statement’s purpose was to determine the best way for The Great Escape to successfully operate without imposing a negative impact on its neighbors, including lake residents. We assume the study was professionally done, thorough and probably quite expensive . The Environmental Impact Statement says that in order to not negatively impact its neighbors and the immediate environment, it imposed a height limit of 135 feet on structures in this area of the Park. It should be a grave concern of all neighbors and residents of the lake and to the Town of Queensbury that The Great Escape is proposing a tower that will be 165 feet high in an area designated for 135 feet by the Environmental Impact Statement. This was a 30 foot or 22% higher than the height determined to not have a negative impact by the Environmental Impact Statement. This is a material and substantial deviation from the standard previously agreed upon by a professional study. The Environmental Impact Statement then by its purpose and nature determines that definitively and objectively that this tower at this height and in this area of the Park proposed will have a detrimental and negative impact on the environment, its neighbors and Glen Lake residents and therefore the Town of Queensbury. We hope the Planning Board will recognize the obvious in this situation. So if there’s a spot where a 165 foot tower is allowed, which there is according to the Environmental Impact Statement, then place it there where it belongs. All we ask is that The Great Escape comply with the Environmental Impact Statement. I’m certain that The Great Escape will ensure us that we won’t see or be impacted by a 165 foot tower in an area designated for 135 foot limit, and will have no effect on its neighbors and Glen Lake, but that leads to two questions. A, why did the Environmental Impact Statement limit this area of the Park to a 135 feet, and, B, what is our recourse if the tower is allowed and we can see it and it has a negative impact on us as the Environmental Impact Statement indicates it most certainly will. If The Great Escape says we don’t have any room in the 165 foot spot or it doesn’t fit there, we say well why should Glen Lake residents suffer or be harmed because of bad planning? You had the guidelines and you should have planned better. We are not trying to give The Great Escape a hard time. We’re not trying to give The Great Escape a hard time. We’re not trying to hamstring their ability to do business and we appreciate their contributions to our economy, but this is not cutting around the edges. This is a busting wide through the Environmental Impact Statement. Guidelines were professionally set for a reason. All we are asking is let’s comply with them. Put the tower in the area designated in the plan and we beseech the Planning Board, we have a plan. Let’s at least stick closely to the plan. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Sir, excuse me, a question. Have you submitted these comments in writing to the Staff? MR. MC PHILLIPS-No, I just wrote them up tonight. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. You might want to do that, just so they’re included in the record in addition to the minutes. Thank you very much. MR. MC PHILLIPS-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Paul Derby, resident, Glen Lake. I won’t repeat what Paul McPhillips just said. I just agree that there are two other zones in that Park where you could put this ride that according to the GEIS, and I was there for all the public hearings and all the meetings when this huge stack was created, was created in order to protect the surrounding communities. This was an agreement between The Great Escape, the neighboring communities and the Town of Queensbury through your Findings Statement to protect the environment and protect the neighborhood relationship. So they should put it in a different spot. I do, however, have two points I want to make quickly, and that relates to the Environmental Impact Statement. So I have a handout for you. Just a couple of pages. So this is from the EIS, the Field Verification Studies, and according to that a 165 foot structure will be visible, not partially or substantially invisible, but actually visible from nearly all of Glen Lake. The handout I just gave you has a chart, and on the chart on Number Two and Number Three which I’ve highlighted for you there, those are balloon tests at 165 and 200 feet from the area of the Park that they propose to put this ride in. In fact one is right next to it. And according to that, quoting the narrative after that, it says “The field work indicates that a 165 to 200 foot tall ride would be visible from Glen Lake if it were constructed in Balloon Locations 2 or 3.” And it is going to be located there. So the EIS clearly states that. And then the next part, if you turn to the pictures, A, B, C, and D, those are pictures from Glen Lake looking at the balloon studies of 165 feet. Picture A is from the farthest point on Glen Lake. That’s over two miles from where this ride would be and the balloons are visible from that point. Picture B is from what we call Osprey Point. That’s two- thirds of the way down the lake, and those balloons are visible from there. Picture C on the next page is from the middle of Glen Lake and the balloons are visible from there. And Picture D is from the inlet area near Ash Drive and the balloons are clearly visible from there. So their own study indicates that we’re going to see this ride, not just from this limited area but probably on the whole lake unless they can show otherwise. Maybe they need to do another Environmental Impact Statement, but what they have they need to adhere to it, and then finally I just want to make a point of this Board’s own Findings Statement, which appears to preclude the Board’s ability to give a variance for visual and lighting. On Page 14.4, Visual and Lighting, it reads, quote, the Planning Board finds that it shall reserve to itself the right to review during the Site Plan Review stage the color and lighting plan of all ride that falls within 20 feet of the height limit in any of the three height zones according to the FGEIS. This structure would be 30 feet above the height limit and it therefore is outside the parameter of your own Findings Statement to approve. So to conclude, you should deny this application and the applicant should put it in an area of the Park that’s appropriate, that’s zoned for that height of a ride, and that their plans will show that it would be visible from Glen Lake. My last comment is that if you do approve it, and I know we’re a month off on that, I would ask that the applicant or this Board stipulate that if in fact the ride or any light associated with this structure is visible from anywhere on Glen Lake or visible from the homes that border Glen Lake, then the applicant be made to remove the structure. If they are so confident that it’s not going to be seen, then why not stipulate to that. MR. TRAVER-Well actually they’ve already, in their presentation have already stated it’s visible from Glen Lake. MR. DERBY-Correct. So they can’t meet that stipulation. And according to the EIS, they can put it in a spot that’s not visible. They can move it to a different zone. So their reason for putting it there is not hardship reasons. They just said it’s an attraction. We want it on the road. We want it here. That’s it. That’s not good enough in my opinion. And I can submit these also. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Other folks that want to make public comment to the Planning Board this evening? LINDA CLARK MS. CLARK-Hello. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MS. CLARK-My name is Linda Clark. I live at the end of Ash Drive. My address is Ben Most Bur Lane. I’ve lived on Glen Lake for 54 years. I know I look really young but it’s been that long. I was around in 2001. I’ve been around long enough to listen to the arguments, and it’s very, very frustrating to work with the Board and The Great Escape and all the people, come up with a conclusion and an agreeable situation as we did with the Environmental Impact Statement and then 10 years down the line, 20 years down the line or whatever, we decide that we want to change what we all agreed to, and that’s very, very frustrating, especially with the magnitude of work and money spent to try and get a reasonable conclusion to how we would resolve the problems. The problem’s been resolved. They have areas in the Park that they can put this ride and not be out of the stipulation of what the height requirement is. Now I’m concerned about the lighting. I’m concerned about the sound, and I can tell you right now I hear Fright Fest every night that Fright Fest operates, and if I can hear Fright Fest I can hear the screams and the music from the ride. I guarantee it. I’m not opposed to The Great Escape. I just want to say that. It’s great to have them there, but I really think they need to work within the parameters that have been established and worked on by all parties involved. And that’s all I have to say. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board this evening? Yes, ma’am. LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-Lorraine Stein, 31 Canterbury Drive. I just want to say that I am opposed to anything that’s going to be visible from Glen Lake. I want to be able to ride on my boat, kayak, whatever else I might want to do and not have to see something flying around, you know, every four minutes or every two minutes or every one minute or every 30 seconds, and when they say they’re not opened past eight or seven or whatever they said, there’s many nights when they have special functions where they’re open late, and I do believe they’re open a little bit longer than what they say. Definitely there are many nights when they’re open later due to special functions, and so what are they going to do on those nights. Are they going to shut the ride down? I don’t want to have to see it if I’m riding in my boat at night. I don’t want to have to look at this at night. These are things that, the reason why that Environmental Impact Statement that was done is so that they would not, these kinds of things would not impact our lake and that will deteriorate our property values because this is just going to be a slippery slope if you approve this ride because what are they going to do next week or next year and ask you to do and then you would, you know, then what position are we going to be in again? We’re going to be here again. Again, it should be something that the Town agreed to, all the neighborhoods came together. It was a difficult process, a long process and that’s what came out of it, and it was a reasonable conclusion for everyone, and I think the Town should stick to that and deny their application and, again, they can put the ride somewhere else in the Park where it’s appropriate. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes, sir. DAVID DOSTER MR. DOSTER-Good evening. David Doster, 94 Ash Drive, formerly known as The Casino. I think we all remember that place. So from what I’ve seen from the pictures, this ride will be in direct view of our line of sight to where we have a pretty picturesque view of the West Mountain area. Again, not opposed to, this isn’t an anti- 6 Flags Great Escape. I think they’ve been great neighbors for the most part. We love it when they do the fireworks, Fourth of July, but as Ms. Stein just said, those nights, those weekends they’re open late, and so you’re going to see that flashing through and other weekends they’re open late, and again being able to sit out on my deck and having to look in that direction towards the sunset and see this whirly go through the tree line, probably not the best visual in the world and what we anticipated when we acquired the property and spent all the money we had to update it. So, again, I think they’re outside of their purview of the regulations and I think what’s next? The next one’s going to be, the next one’s only 10 feet higher. The next one’s only, the next thing you know we’ve got all kinds of things going on here. So I do think it’s a slippery slope and I do think the Board should think about it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Planning Board this evening on this application? Are there written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we’ll close the public hearing for tonight, but the public hearing in general will remain open as we’re tabling this application and, Laura, I think we talked about the second meeting in November? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) th MRS. MOORE-Yes. So that would be November 26. th MR. TRAVER-And the applicant can return to the table. November 26. Okay. Yes. So the public comment kind of speaks for itself. A lot of concern about the GEIS, that this, as you stated before, it is, however in retrospect the measurements or the contra intervals that were used at the time were selected. That is what was used. This is in the zone. It appears to be in the zone that has the limit of 135 feet. You heard the public comment. I don’t know if you want to respond this evening or I know you’re coming back next month. MR. DUMAS-Yes. We can submit additional information that would be necessary, but I think it’s important to point out that, you know, the passage of time does impact some of those thresholds. MR. TRAVER-In what way? MR. DUMAS-I have to believe that the trees in between have grown a little bit in 20 years, and the whole point of the drone and the whole point of the visuals that we provided was to demonstrate the fact that any impact of the ride at 165 feet would be minimal, not material and substantial, and would be of a short duration and can be otherwise mitigated by the colors of the ride and the use of lighting. MR. TRAVER-And one of the things I’m sure we’ll all be doing is going back and looking at that GEIS from 2001, but is there, when that was agreed to, was there language in that document that indicates that there would be mitigation for the passage of time or for the coloration that would allow exceeding the limits that were agreed to? MR. DUMAS-But what I just read before, you know, I think that it was Page Two I think of 4.3, Section 4.3 that’s really instructive. It gives the Board, on a case by case basis, the opportunity to look at deviations from those thresholds as appropriate and to the extent they can be mitigated and we believe that the view provided, the current view provided through better technology than existed 20 years ago demonstrates that the impact of this at full extension would be, would not be substantial, would not be material. So that’s the Park’s position, and I think that there’s enough flexibility in the GEIS for the Board to review and to act favorably on the application. Those thresholds were not designed to be static. It’s not a Zoning Ordinance. MR. TRAVER-Well, on the other hand, the counter to that could be, when you speak about the passage of time and technology, you have drone technology from very recently showing, and if you think about the visibility issue which was, as I understand it, and again, this will be reviewed prior to our next discussion, but the primary reason for that was visibility, and if you think of, something’s either visible or it isn’t, your own study shows that it is visible. So there really isn’t. MR. DUMAS-But what this shows is that Glen Lake is visible at 165 feet from the location. It doesn’t show looking back the other way at what could possibly. I think you understand my point. This is showing that a small portion of Glen Lake a mile away is visible by a drone from 165 feet. It doesn’t show that say from the middle of Glen Lake the ride would be visible at full extension, and I believe that the language that I read to you tonight provides the kinds of flexibility that this Board has in terms of evaluating that impact. It’s not designed to be static. It’s designed to be a guideline. MR. TRAVER-And you did talk about mitigation, and I guess again in the interval between now and next month if you would consider mitigation. What changes might you be able to make to shorten it, to lessen the impact. That would be helpful to have so that it’s coming from your side as well. MR. DUMAS-Well, I don’t think that the ride comes in different dimensions. MR. TRAVER-Maybe not, but this isn’t our project. MR. DUMAS-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we’re swinging after the bell I think. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, is it possible to send up a balloon the size of the swing arm at 165 feet and also one at 85 feet, you know, tie them up together, and put them up there so we, you know, and keep them up for a couple of days so we all can see? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MR. PALUMBO-We’ll do a couple of things. We’ll first review everything that was done before, so we have full comprehension of how that study was done, the methodologies that were used. We’ll do that. I think one of the things I mentioned while I was talking, so to answer your question, one of the things is, yes, everything can be done in a manner. We’ll try to find the best manner so that we can present it well. A balloon of the size of the ride itself, very large balloon. What I’d like to see when I review the report in even more detail is get the specifics of the size of the balloon they used, how they conducted their methodology, which will tell us a little bit more in terms of how they made an assessment of the particular points, when you say at Glen Lake, you know, what can be seen, and I think what I alluded to in my discussion was that there is a difference that you can see a balloon. A red balloon against that sky you’d see it. What’s the magnitude of that. So the difference in what we’ve already talked about, if we put the Sasquatch there and it was standing there all the time at that height, that would be a different magnitude of impact. So from red balloon to something that would be there permanently all the time to something that is moving through and the static position is not seen from that location. There is a spectrum there, and I think the onus is on us to provide the information that assesses that spectrum of things, but I think just saying that the balloon can be seen so therefore there is an impact is maybe too quick to judgment and we will review everything and provide more information on it. MR. DEEB-What zone is the Sasquatch in? MS. SMITH-200 foot zone. MR. PALUMBO-The 200 foot zone. MR. TRAVER-So when you talk about assessing the impact, would you agree that if it is visible there is an impact? MR. PALUMBO-No, I’m saying that you have to, I think as Charles was alluding to, you know, there is language that talks of that, and the second step is to say try your best and come up with a quantifiable impact. What is the quantifiable impact? The fact that you can it for portions of time? And I respect everything that people were saying, but we have to look at it from also the standpoint of operationally how this works, where it works, why we’re doing it, where we’re doing it, and we’re putting all that together to make our best case on it, but do I say automatically that there’s an impact? I guess I’d ask you as you do all your SEQR forms. What do you do? You say is it a potential impact, and then you measure its severity. Is it a large to medium impact or is it a small impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to suggest SEQR provides a way to measure visual impacts on Part III. MR. PALUMBO-So we will do our best to provide information that helps the Board see that, you know, whether there’s too big a gap or whether that gap is attainable. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MS. SMITH-Laura, can you scroll down from that picture really fast? So I just want to give a little bit of a visual, how close the zones are. So this is actually right now in that 135 zone and this right here is in the 175. So it’s literally the other side of the building we would be able to put that ride without having that. So it’s very, very close as if we were, to put it in the 175 zone it’s 20 feet. MR. TRAVER-So, are you just pointing out a possible solution? MS. SMITH-No, I’m just pointing out the fact that it’s very close to the line. It’s not as if there was a lot of public comment saying put it into the portion of the zone where it belongs. MR. TRAVER-Well you’re pointing out all you have to do is move it to the other side of the building. MS. SMITH-There’s already a ride there. So I’m just saying how close it is actually on that cusp. It’s not super far into that zone that everyone agreed on. Of course going back to Charles’ comment, the zones were just made on 20 foot intervals. So I just wanted to point out that visual, how close it actually is to the cusp. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. PALUMBO-And one of the other reasons is, like the gentleman said, that the balloon was very close to this area. That’s why I want to look at that specifically, because just like that is very close to that edge, up here where the Nightmare is, you’re not very far away. So exactly where that red balloon was flown 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) makes a big difference, both on the angles that we’re talking about. As I already noted, that promontory point right there out into that wetland area is what provides a lot of that screening. You move over here a little bit or even just where there is a dip in some of the tree line, that difference of movement can mean a lot. So where those balloons were seen from and how they were seen, we want to see how that is evaluated against our exact location because we have an exact location, and if the information tells us something that we don’t want to hear, we’re still going to have to tell you that. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. MR. DUMAS-The further point is that the elevation in Point A and Point B is exactly the same. MR. PALUMBO-On your plan that I handed out tonight and the one that we were showing, the line that goes right through Dan McGrew’s building, the floor elevation of that building is exactly the same. So on one side of the line where the elevation, if the base elevation is 400 I think we said 410, that on the other side of the line is 410. That’s why we need to do a little more homework, we’ll be bringing that homework back with us to express that, but that’s how close to that line that we are. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other comment or questions this evening from other members of the Board? All right. Did you have anything else that you wanted to say? MR. DUMAS-Not I. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well then we’ve all got a lot of homework to do. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just make a suggestion? If you’re going to do a balloon test again, could you let Staff know? I mean I know in the past there’s been opportunity for Board members to go out, while the test is being done and to see it in person. MR. PALUMBO-We can do our best. Some of that may involve specific weather conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MR. PALUMBO-Yesterday when we did the drone, coming up the Northway, it was foggy down, up until about Exit 17 and we got the luck of the clear skies. If it’s rainy or windy we may have to postpone a day, but we’ll do our best. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and again the updated information is going to be on the Town site at some point fairly soon. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant described some information that I foresee us asking for as part of the tabling motion or in general. So in reference to the changes in the plan, the mechanical buildings and elevation information. Then you also mentioned that there may be changes to that building that houses the bathroom. So we would need some information on elevations and what’s happening on that building. Then in reference to lighting, definitely every lighting fixture, either on the ground and the canopy as well as the lights that are on the ride itself. MR. TRAVER-And sound related to the music. MRS. MOORE-And sound related to the music, decibels of the music, and then I have color of the ride, the color of the site elements. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So for the tabling motion then we want building details related to the updated plans, all lighting fixtures, their operating capabilities and illumination levels, any proposed or possible music volume and so on. I think we talked about hours of operation. MS. SMITH-I can submit what our hours of operation are. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be helpful. I guess that’s it. MRS. MOORE-In addition, there’s a timetable here. So I don’t know what, some of these changes are easy to receive that information, but there’s a timetable that you’re going to do some visual assessment. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) So do you think that’s a two week process, so that I know that there’s a time about when I can get that information. We can discuss that further. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, I’d like to discuss that further. We’ve committed, the plan which you see most of it is already done, we committed to have that to you by the end of the week. I think some of the findings the comments will take a little more time but we’ll get them, if we can work together to see what’s a reasonable timeframe to have you review that and get it to the Board, if you can give us that grace of looking into it a little bit further. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And again communication with Laura’s office is going to be critical on this because she’s going to keep us up to speed as to where we are in this process as well as the public. All that’s critical to this progress. So, all right. Anything else from the Board on this application this evening? Okay. I guess we’re ready for that motion, then. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 67-2019 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a new ride “Adirondack Outlaw” located near “Desperado Plunge” – removing an existing building for the new ride. The new ride is to be 165 ft. in length/height. Project includes ride construction and construction of enclosed entry area. Project includes landscaping and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2019 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the November 26, 2019 Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting, for the following: 1. Conduct additional visual analysis 2. Additional lighting information 3. Volume levels. 4. Clarification of ride colors 5. Clarification of building change details 6. Hours of operation. nd Seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2019, by the following vote: MR. DEEB-I’m going to put in there conduct additional balloon tests which you said you’d do. MR. PALUMBO-Can we say additional visual analysis just in case we find a better way to do it? MR. DEEB-Additional visual analysis. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-See you next month. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you. MR. DUMAS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? MRS. MOORE-I have one item, and it’s minor, and it’s that I do have an updated calendar for 2020 and we’re going to send that via e-mail. So please take a look at that so that we’ll make a vote in November. MR. TRAVER-Aren’t we proactive. We’re usually doing that in February. Thank you, Laura. We will definitely take a look at that. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2019) MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-Second. MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. nd MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2019, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 41