The URL can be used to link to this page

11-19-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 54-2018 French Mountain Inn 2. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 288.-1-56 Site Plan No. 53-2019 Apex Capital, LLC 4. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2, 315.5-1-2 Site Plan No. 57-2015 Queensbury Partners 5. SIX MONTH EXTENSION Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 Through -35 Site Plan No. 63-2019 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC 7. Special Use Permit 3-2019 Tax Map No. 239.20-1-4; 252.-1-67 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 73-2019 Tim & Kathy Bechard 16. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-1-53 Site Plan No. 75-2019 Landcrafter, LLC 19. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.6-1-58.1 Site Plan No. 76-2019 Landcrafter, LLC 22. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.6-1-57 Site Plan No. 71-2019 Aftab (Sam) Bhatti 24. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51 Site Plan No. 74-2019 South Queensbury Fire Company 39. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-6 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER 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 thrd meeting for Tuesday, November 19, 2019. This is our first meeting for November and our 23 meeting, believe it or not, for 2019. I’d call your attention to the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency please exit carefully but rapidly out those doors. If you have an electronic device or cell phone, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off and that would keep us from being interrupted during our meeting. Also you may find, from time to time during our various presentations tonight there are discussions that you maybe find yourselves wanting to talk among yourselves. If you would mind leaving the room to do that and do that in the anteroom so as not to disturb our meeting, we’d appreciate that, and with that, we have a few administrative items beginning with approval of minutes from the September meetings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 17, 2019 September 24, 2019 September 25, 2019 TH MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, THTH SEPTEMBER 24, AND SEPTEMBER 25, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We have also three additional Administrative Items. The first being Site Plan 54-2018, French Mountain Inn. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 54-2018 FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN REQUESTING ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO NOVEMBER 2020 MR. TRAVER-And they are requesting a one year extension, and, Laura, I happened to notice that this is another first for the Planning Board, I believe, in that this original application was unapproved development. MRS. MOORE-Correct. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-And I’m not sure that we’ve had, and we attempted to work out a resolution and we thought we had a solution and now we find ourselves asking for an extension to what we thought was a solution to unapproved development. So we have, I think, a first for that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I can tell you that I did meet with Mr. Bhatti in regards to his application and he was concerned that he wasn’t going to find a contractor in time to get the project completed in a timely fashion according to his deadline. So that’s why he’s asking for the extension. In the meantime he did end up finding a contractor. He and Bruce Frank, who’s the Code Compliance Officer, met on site. They went through the project requirements that need to take place with removing pavement and installing green lawn area as well as permeable pavers. MR. TRAVER-Yes, permeable pavers, yes. I remember vaguely the long discussion we had regarding that. MRS. MOORE-So the contractor and Bruce Frank are under the same understanding when this is to take place, and it’s going to take place in the spring. So he is on track to complete that project. He was just concerned that he was going to miss his deadline and not satisfy the requirement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we could do a six month extension instead of a year. MRS. MOORE-Yes, you could. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then six months? MR. DEEB-Is that going to be enough time if he starts in the spring? MR. TRAVER-If it isn’t. MR. DEEB-Then he can come in for another extension. MR. TRAVER-Right. That’s my feeling. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION SP # 54-2018 FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN The Planning Board approved Site Plan 54-2018 on November 27, 2018 for a revision to an existing 1,110 sq. ft. area as blacktop where a previous approval was for this area to remain as lawn. Revision is 882 sq. ft. of lawn and 228 sq. ft. of permeable pavers to be installed. Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2012 for addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, permeability relief shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant requests a one year extension. MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 54-2018 FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Project to be completed by the second meeting in June 2020. th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2019 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a motion made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion or the duration of the extension? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’m just going to put a time certain. So I would say by the second meeting in June that the project needs to be completed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do we need to add that? MRS. MOORE-You need to amend the motion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Because then it’s a date specific. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure if my calendar goes to June. MRS. MOORE-But I would just suggest making it to the second meeting in June. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-All right. Amended motion for six month extension for Site Plan 54-2018, project to be completed by the second meeting in June 2020. MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. You’re going from six months from January? Or six months from tonight? MR. TRAVER-Instead of saying six months, we’re saying it must be completed by the second meeting in the month of June. MR. DEEB-So I have to amend the motion. It’s not going to be a six month extension. MR. TRAVER-No. It’s going to be to the second meeting. MR. DEEB-Okay. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have another Administrative Item, Site Plan 53-2019, Apex Capital, LLC for further tabling. Laura, do you have some additional info. for us on that? SITE PLAN 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC – FURTHER TABLING MRS. MOORE-I just know that they’re in the process of reviewing their SWPPP that they previously prepared and updating that information to address Chazen’s comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and let’s see, they’re out of order from the. MRS. MOORE-I know, I see that. MR. TRAVER-I just want to make sure. Okay. th MRS. MOORE-So they’re asking to be tabled to December and a December meeting, so December 19 is fine. th MR. TRAVER-December 19. MR. DEEB-When do you want submissions? MRS. MOORE-They’re in the process of preparing that. I would say by the end of this week you can put th a deadline on that. That’s a Thursday meeting, but, yes, that’s because of Christmas. So December 19. MR. DEEB-With submission by. nd MRS. MOORE-November 22. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: (SEQR) Applicant proposes expansion of the West Mountain Ski Area parking lot, construction of a zip line attraction, approval of an existing mountain biking venue and other associated projects. Project also includes a Town Board referral for a Petition for Zone Change parcels 315.5-1-3.2 and 315.5-1-2 from Moderate Density to Recreation Commercial. The parcels are to be used for overflow parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-040 Town 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) Board may refer proposed amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation, and Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a recreation center shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board to review SEQR. Project was tabled on September 19, 2019. Applicant requests further tabling. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, thnd Tabled to the December 19, 2019 Planning Board meeting with submissions by November 22, 2019. th Seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-And lastly under Administrative Items we have Site Plan 57-2019 Queensbury Partners request for six month extension to May 2020. SITE PLAN 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS REQUEST FOR SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO MAY 2020 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Mr. O’Connor is in the audience if you have additional questions of him. They’re moving this project forward and they’re hoping to have additional information to this Board in the coming months, but just to stay the approvals that are currently in place, they’re asking for May. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they have an additional party. They’ve had some discussions with the Town. Okay. MR. DEEB-What day in May? MR. TRAVER-Well, why don’t we make it? MR. DEEB-The second meeting? th MR. TRAVER-Well, the second meeting would be the 26. If I have my calendar right. MRS. MOORE-But I think that’s Grievance Day. So if you say the second meeting. MR. DEEB-We’ll just say to the second meeting. MR. TRAVER-Which is on a Thursday that week, which is interesting because I think I’ll be out on the lake th that day. All right. So it would be the 28, right? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have next year’s calendar in front of me. th MR. MAGOWAN-I do. We have the 19, in May, right? th MR. TRAVER-The 19, and then what about the following week? th MR. MAGOWAN-On the 27 which is a Wednesday. MR. TRAVER-Wednesday. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-The ZBA goes to Thursday. th MR. TRAVER-I’ve got you. So the 28, Laura. th MRS. MOORE-The 27 is the Planning Board meeting he said. So that would be the second meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Even though it’s a Wednesday. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MRS. MOORE-Even though it’s a Wednesday. RESOLUTION APPROVING SIX MONTH EXTENSION SP PUD # 57-2019 The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town Zoning Ordinance for: a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of office, business retail and multi-family uses. The proposed mixed use density is for 142 residential units and 56,180 sq. ft. of commercial space. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of a parking areas, parking garage, sidewalks and drive areas along with associated infrastructure and utilities for the project. Pursuant to Chapter 179.12 PUD of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Developments are subject to Planning Board review and approval. Request is made by the applicant for an additional 6 month extension to May 2020. MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO MAY 27, 2020 FOR SITE PLAN PUD NO. 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2019 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion? MRS. MOORE-I just want to confirm it’s a Site Planned Unit Development. It’s a PUD. So right now you’re listing it as SP. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. WHITE-But I will raise that we have had discussions on how many extensions we will provide, and I just want to bring that up again that, you know, at some point will we limit the number of these? I mean this is now, how many years down the road? MR. TRAVER-Well the only observation that I would have for the Board to consider is in this case it is not an extension of a final approved plan. It’s an ongoing modification of an original Site Plan. So, yes, we need to limit the number of extensions, but I do think it mitigates it a bit when they’re in the process of making changes to their original plan, but to your point there does need to be a limit. MR. SHAFER-How many times has the Board seen Site Plans in the past, though? MR. TRAVER-For this particular project? I would hesitate to say. It’s quite a number. That project has been in development for years actually. MR. MAGOWAN-And it’s also a PUD. So it’s not like we have total control of it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s two different Boards. MR. TRAVER-There are a lot of elements. It’s been a major project in the Town. It’s been ongoing for years and years and we have been a player, but just a player, and, you know, this is I’m sure perceived by the applicant to be an improvement to the design and we will see it and be able to review it and comment. So I do think it’s progress. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda being Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item under that section of the agenda is 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC, Site Plan 63-2019 and Special Use Permit 3-2019. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) SITE PLAN NO. 63-2019 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC. AGENT(S): MATTHEW FULLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE AN EXISTING MARINA. WORK IS PROPOSED TO THE MAIN BUILDING TO INCLUDE WORK ON FIRST FLOOR WITH RECONFIGURATION OF ENTRY AND SOME INTERIOR CHANGES. SECOND FLOOR INCLUDES RAISING THE ROOF AREA TO CREATE A LOUNGE AREA AND IMPROVEMENTS TO SHOWROOM. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR PARKING, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND STORMWATER. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE INCLUDE THE BOAT STORAGE BUILDING AT 6,913 SQ. FT. AND THE MARINA BUILDING AT 2,747 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 14,631 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 14,441 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA AND CHAPTER 179-10 SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CLASS A MARINA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, PARKING AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: BOTH 163-2015 DOCK, 2014-303 DOCKS, 96082- 4747 ROOF OVER DOCK, SP 28-90-19945, SP DISC. 19946. WARREN CO REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LPC. LOT SIZE: 13.96 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-4, 252.-1-67. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065, 179-8-010. MATT FULLER & MATT O’HARE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to update the existing marina. Work is proposed on the main building to include work on the first floor for reconfiguration of entry and some interior changes. Second floor includes converting a portion of the building to an open deck lounge area, updating office area and improvements to the showroom. The project includes site work for parking, pedestrian access and stormwater. The variance being sought is from setback, height and parking and permeability. I’ll just highlight floor area and permeability. They’ve improved those two items. So they’re not necessarily relief requested, but they are not in compliance. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell for the applicant. I do have one of the owners, Matt O’Hare I here with us. Mike Phinney from Phinney Design, Jason Williams from Phinney Design, and Owen Speulstra from EDP. We’ll walk through the variances. As it was said, we’re here on a recommendation to the ZBA. You have, is it the PowerPoint that they sent in? It’s just a little easier to follow. While she’s pulling it up I’ll hit a couple of quick comments. In Staff comments and also initial comments with the Park Commission, one is it intended to be a public establishment. The answer to that question is no. If you guys maybe have read in the paper, things like that in the press, the Freedom Boat Club is a private model. You buy the membership and you have access to the boat. The proposal that we’ll walk through here with the facility is for the dock renters and the club model. So it would not be, unfortunately it would not be, in that neighborhood, you or I could pull up with our boat on the dock, you know, and walk up to use the club facility. That’s not what it is going to be used for. So that was the, kind of major lingering questions here. MRS. MOORE-So the PowerPoint’s not going to come up. MR. FULLER-It’s not going to come up? Do you have a flash drive? MR. O’HARE-Yes. MR. FULLER-We have a Plan B just in case. MR. DIXON-So guests will no longer be available? MR. FULLER-Guests will, but it will be more of the use of the structures that we’re dealing with here, the upland facilities, the main marina buildings. MR. TRAVER-So fueling will be available to the public? MR. FULLER-As it is now. MR. TRAVER-But it is not the use of the club facility. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Just out of curiosity, maybe selfishly, is there any consideration for different levels of membership? So someone might maybe have their own boat but want to use the facilities and become an associate member or something like that? I was wondering if your business models consider that? MR. FULLER-We can, in terms of like if you or I owned a private boat and we wanted to have a membership to the club? MR. TRAVER-Yes, to stop and just, you know, have lunch? MR. FULLER-It wouldn’t be. If you were a, and I can bring up Matt to clarify, but if you were a member of the Freedom Boat Club, which is really the use of the boats, so this use is secondary, part and parcel with the use of the boats, not independent from. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. I just thought I’d ask. MR. FULLER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So I don’t have that, I have re-starting the laptop but do you want me to? MR. FULLER-Okay. Well, I can get started on that. Do you have S-100 which is the map? Yes. It’s a little blurry. You guys all have copies there, of S-100? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FULLER-Okay. We’ll start there and as Laura pointed out, and we’ll get into photos, they’re really maybe not necessarily variance related but more the structure related what we’re doing, but the variances, she talked about the permeability. Seventy-five percent is required. Obviously you all know it’s a tight spot, it has been there for years. Twenty-three point seven is what we have. Twenty-three point nine is what we’re proposing. So it’s a small increase to make hat a little better. Floor area ratio, 22% is required, 72% exists. For the math it’s going down to 71. MR. TRAVER-Yes, a lot of the elements as you pointed out are pre-existing because it’s been there forever. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I mean I can remember as a kid one exciting event one year was there was a sailboat ward off that facility. It got struck by lightning and kind of melted and was leaning over a little bit. It was amazing. I’d never seen anything like it. Yes, that’s an old, old facility. So the numbers do look like an improvement. MR. FULLER-Exactly. The other variance we do need with it is parking, not a surprise there either, and looking along the old, you know, Route 9 that kind of ducks down into the property there, it would be towards the southwest. You all know where it is. It just jumps down off of Route 9. There are a few parking spaces along that road, and also, so the big box square there, I call it to the northern side of the property, is used for boat storage, service, but also during the weekends and things if it gets busy, they actually do park cars in there. MR. TRAVER-Inside? MR. FULLER-Yes. So from a patrons’ standpoint, things like that, that warehouse. MR. TRAVER-Is the Fire Marshal okay with that? MR. FULLER-There’s 15 spaces in there, yes, to park in there. So that is part of our parking if you will. Knock on wood parking hasn’t been an issue, but again we also use the overflow public parking along the road as do the other marina uses right at the beach and things like that. So again it’s just the existing conditions that we’re dealing with, and getting really more towards the Area Variances if you will, so right along the front, and we’ll walk through some of the plans here in the slide, but the existing entrance area, the goal here is to make it ADA compliant, right? That’s really what we’re going for. So internally, again,. we’ll get to those as we walk through here. There is a plan for an elevator. If you look through the plans you’ll see, and the entrance walkway will be ramped and have stairs going into it. So right now, obviously you know, 30 feet’s required, 2.9 feet exists right now, and actually a part of the building right there 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) encroaches over the property line. It’s been there God knows how long. There’s no change to that, but 3.6 feet is proposed. So we’re gaining less than a foot but it’s pulling it back a little bit further. That obviously also requires a variance, because we didn’t get to 100% compliance there, but the broader thing that we’ve gone through, so existing plan right now, this is the first floor. The existing main level is about 2700 square feet. There’s some service area, kind of a walk in check in bathrooms that are there now. Can we scroll to the second one? Okay. So this is a, you’ll see the sheet on your materials with 101, a level one program space. Again, the mechanicals, things that are there now, office, check in showroom. The mechanicals all stay right in this area. You’ll see a box just shows up right there in the middle is where the elevator will be, and so this kind of an “L” shape that goes out is where the variance kicks up. Again, we’re improving that by pulling it back a bit compared to what’s’ there now. MR. TRAVER-That’s ADA. MR. FULLER-Yes. That’s the entry staircase. Kick to the next one, Laura, 102. Yes, so this is the existing second floor. Above it not really much to mention there, but down below. So as it stands right now, when we get to some of the pictures, the roof area extends out over the docks, over the lake. We’ve got some pretty good, really good drawings I think that show the area setback and height on that side, but the proposal is that all really club related improvements if you will will be upland. Obviously it’s right vertical just about the property line, because we were kind of joking earlier the mean high water mark and mean low water mark are on the same horizontal axis because of the vertical wall. We had that discussion with the Park Commission. We tried to show both in that space. So this is, we call it the bar service area would be right in this area. There will still be a showroom area if you probably all recognize that there’s a garage door on the upper level that does allow forklift access to get boats and things up there so there will still be showroom access there. A little prep food service area. Again it’s not really intended to be a full blown restaurant, but food that would be associated with a liquor license, things like that. Some offices up top right in here, and restrooms, and so the idea that you’ll see with the pictures that you’ve seen in the materials is to open the deck portion that is currently there but is enclosed, well, it’s largely enclosed, some internal stormwater management, but the idea you’ll see is to open that. We obviously do have to work through that with the Park Commission, and if you’ve dealt with the Park Commission, they want to know from the zoning standpoint we’re good here before they’ll really even hear from us. So this is our first step in that kind of process. If you can kick to the next one, Laura, which is 200, roof plan. So this really gives you a good idea, if you’re looking for comparison, of the property line. Obviously the property line being the lakefront, right, the bulkhead along the lake. So it really runs right along the structure and kind of juts out a bit under the deck area, and then heads towards the larger butler building. MR. TRAVER-And if I remember, I have not been there in quite a few years, but if I remember right those docks are the good old fashioned rock filled cribs. MR. FULLER-I think it’s a combo. MR. O’HARE-There’s a couple of floating docks and then there’s a bunch of crib docks., There’s a lot of docks. There’s five that have aluminum sections built on over the crib. Matt O’Hare, owner of the Freedom Boat Club. So, yes, a good portion of the docks are just fixed wood docks over cribs. There’s about five docks that have aluminum sections that are bolted down to the cribs. We are looking to replace those in the somewhat near future. Not the sturdiest docks when you have the northwest wind coming in there. There’s two floating docks on the end. MR. FULLER-Thanks, Matt. If we can kick to 300 in the computer generated models here. It’ll give you a good idea, actually we’re going to go right to 321 if we can. The next one. So we’ve kind of scrolled through of bunch of these. This is, Phinney Design was kind enough to put together a PowerPoint for us from the plans here. So this is, in your materials, 321 is the document number there. So this gives you a good idea of the property line if you will. There’s a red dashed line. It also gives you a good idea of the vertical variance that we’re dealing with. So the roof line is staying the same. I don’t know if the actual, first iteration of the plans I don’t think made it out. Right, Laura, to the Board? MRS. MOORE-Right. Well, no, I’m sorry, they do have packets from the original. MR. FULLER-From the original. Okay. So with the original submission you probably saw the idea we had of trying to do a green roof and things like that. That would have been an increase over the 16 foot height limit at the Lake George Park Commission, which you have been to them you would know that they have not really ever granted one of those variances. So we weren’t necessarily going to be the first ones over that wall. So we went back, and the railing here, you’ll see the projection of the old roof line. The railing at the outer edge of the deck is the same height as the midpoint of that roof right there. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. DIXON-Can I just pause for just a second? MR. FULLER-Sure thing. MR. DIXON-So you’re referencing a plan 321. MR. FULLER-3-2-1, yes. MR. DIXON-The only one that I have, I’ve got 301 dated 10/14. Yours looks like it has a different date on that. MR. FULLER-My apology. Hold on for just a second. Let me go back to my material. MR. TRAVER-301 is apparently the slide that you have. MR. FULLER-It just has a different number on it. MR. MAGOWAN-We go up to 310. MR. FULLER-We’ll use that one, 301 then, as the same. MR. DIXON-Laura’s got us taken care of. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have it now. We just got 321. MRS. MOORE-Because these plans were handed in after. MR. FULLER-Sorry about that. Very similar to 301. MR. TRAVER-We’re not interested in that anyway because tonight we’re really just looking at the variances. MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-We’ve got time to look at the Site Plan. MR. FULLER-Yes. So what I’m jumping to right now is the variance is height is staying the same. It’s 37 feet 2 inches. Obviously we’ve got some architectural changes that’ll be in Site Plan and so the heart of the variances here are from obviously the setback from the lake. Just given where the building is we can’t meet that. MR. TRAVER-And it’s largely, in a way, a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. MR. FULLER-Absolutely, and it’s truest sense. The proposed deck area here. I know we don’t really necessarily deal with the parts that extend out over the water, but that also doesn’t increase nonconformity. In fact it removes what is currently a nonconforming height over the lake. So at the end of the day we will be back. It’s still 17 feet 9 inches, which is the highest height of the roof as it exists over the lake and we will deal with that with the Park Commission, and other than that I think we’ve hit on all the variances. They were just photos that we would just give you for renderings, hit height, setbacks., Yes, 50 feet’s required. Obviously we’ve got zero because we’re over the property line into the lake, over the lake anyway, and height, 28 feet’s required and 37, 2 is what we have and 37, 2 is what we’ll have to remain. MR. TRAVER-So because this is a recommendation we do not take public comment tonight. We will at Site Plan, but I’ll open it up for members of the Board, questions for the applicant. It’s fairly straightforward. I think it’s an improvement really on what’s there now. That’s just my own opinion. MR. DEEB-How many boats do you own? MR. FULLER-Matt, do you want to come on up and answer some boat questions? MR. O’HARE-In the Boat Club we had 12 boats this year, and we’re currently applying to the Park Commission to increase that. So to be determined but upwards of 12. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. DEEB-Do you limit your membership? MR. O’HARE-We do, yes. We limit our membership based on number of boats each year. MR. TRAVER-And you’re moving from, if I remember right, you’re moving from the west shore to here, if all goes well. Right? MR. O’HARE-We were here this year. So we were over at Beckley’s our first three summers, and 2019 was in this location. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FULLER-How many boats are we all told on the docks? MR. O’HARE-We had 31 there this year. MR. SHAFER-So if you’re a member of the Club you have access to a boat when you want it? Is that the plan? MR. O’HARE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It’s almost like a time share, as I understand it, or an airplane club. MR. O’HARE-Yes, exactly. MR. DEEB-So you make your reservation. MR. O’HARE-You make a reservation. We take care of the boat. It’s ready for you. MR. MAGOWAN-And you have an option of different sized boats. MR. O’HARE-We do, yes. With the 12 boats we had this year, we had half pontoon, half fiberglass and ranging from 21 to 23 feet. Different brands. MR. MAGOWAN-What a phenomenal idea. I mean, I really like it, and I have to say the improvements, the building is nonconforming and really what you’re doing to it to me is it’s really going to dress that up because I, you know, so many years of driving around that corner. MR. SHAFER-Question. Who owns Dunham’s Bay Road down along the building? MR. FULLER-Good question. It’s probably a longer term project than here that we will undertake, but initially I’ve gone to, obviously the Town doesn’t own it. Gone to the County, talked to Kevin Hajos a while ago. They don’t own it. It’s the State. So in terms of getting the State to abandon, and the legal term would be discontinue that, is a little bit of a process. It is one that we are certainly interested in undertaking. We just can’t represent that we’re actually going to pull it off. MR. SHAFER-It’s something they do all the time. They do hundreds of parcels a year that way, the State, with excess property. MR. FULLER-Yes. We actually talked about this earlier, this actually gets us back to the Site Plan, that one of our, the stormwater basin that we’re showing that was in Chazen’s comments is actually off the site. It’s right on the State portion right next to us. MR. TRAVER-As a right of way? MR. FULLER-Yes. So we don’t need it for our stormwater. It’s something we aspire to. So if we can get a permit out of them to actually put that there we’re going to do it. That’s my goal. I think the goal eventually would be is if we can get the State to discontinue that then obviously from a parking standpoint, the site standpoint. MR. SHAFER-Just for information, the way the State does this is they appraise your property with and without that. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. FULLER-That’s right. You pay for the benefit. I’ve actually done a couple of them. I’ve done a lot of them. You’re 100% right. That’s exactly what they do, versus appraising the vacant land on its own. You pay for the benefit. That’s a different appraisal for sure, that you pay for. MR. TRAVER-A couple of items to note for when you come back for Site Plan. There’s some information that Staff needs regarding wall signs. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-There are two signs proposed but the dimensions have not been provided. MR. FULLER-That we actually. MR. TRAVER-Just give that detail. Make sure Laura has that, and then the lighting. There’s cut sheets and so on. There’s discussion about pole lights and building lights and so on. So she’s going to want to, her and her staff are going to want to make sure they can review the specs on all of those. So if you can get that information. MR. FULLER-You need photometric plans? MRS. MOORE-There’s some lights that are not in the sheets that were provided. There are some wall lights. MR. TRAVER-So just those details. MR. SHAFER-Since parking is one of the variances, could you walk us through where the, I think it’s 34 spaces will be provided? MR. TRAVER-Yes, somewhere across the road. MR. FULLER-Actually so we had, that’s a good point. MR. SHAFER-Just to break down what’s inside, what’s outside, where are they outside, that sort of thing. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. O’HARE-As Matt said before there’s 15 that can be brought into the storage building at given times with staff assistance. There’s six along the road here, four along this access drive and then there’s three right in here and then two that are angled in, and that’s the new handicap parking within the loading area. So it gets you 15 outside and 15 inside. That would be the maximum. That’s 30. MR. SHAFER-Does the same owner own the property across the road? MR. FULLER-The 10 acre spot? Yes. MR. SHAFER-Is that an option for valet parking? MR. FULLER-So we will, I didn’t include it in there, but I think it might have been in the back. If not I can get you a copy of that survey. It is accessed by right of way that we have. That’s staff parking that’s generally up there. So the numbers that we’re looking at on the lower site are if we absolutely needed it could be patron only. Right now it doesn’t go up the hill if it doesn’t have to, but that is something we looked at, and within the Park Commission that we have right now that’s actually a no condition. So the public parking was not up on the hill as a long time, long ago concession because of the right of way. It cuts next to the campus right there, but we had talked about it and it’s something that can be visited, but as it exists we don’t have that in our Park Commission permits. So we were not going to represent these as something we couldn’t give them. MR. SHAFER-I assume they were concerned about pedestrians crossing that part of 9L. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s right on that curve. MR. SHAFER-Any issues, safety issues at either of the two driveways? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. FULLER-Not that we’ve experienced. Like I said, going up a hill, the site actually isn’t bad. Generally you’re not getting a lot of turn in there. The lower end of the site is pretty good. I know we all think of it as a bend, but it is a pretty big bend and the change of that was from the old road to the new one. So to answer you, no, we have not seen any line of sight issues. MR. DEEB-The parking, that’s going to be assisted by employees? MR. FULLER-Sure. MR. DEEB-Are you going to allow the patrons to drive in or ore the employees going to drive in? MR. FULLER-Matt, what do we do right now? MR. O’HARE-Yes, the plan right now would be for employees. What we tell our members is that if the street is full or the lot is full , just pull right up to where the front is, whoever’s greeting you, helping you carry your stuff from the car to the boat, take your keys and take care of your car for you. MR. TRAVER-Good. Any concerns from members regarding the variances? Setbacks, floor area, height, parking, permeability, that we need to pass along to the ZBA? Any other questions for the applicant at this stage? MR. SHAFER-If you were to own the Dunham’s Bay Road, I would assume that would provide additional parking. MR. FULLER-It could provide a couple of different things, yes, stormwater, parking for sure. I did not note that, either. Something that we did not have to come in because we got it pre Site Plan, but we did put in a new septic system. There was a 6,000 gallon holding tank that went in last year. That was a pretty big improvement. If you’ve been by there you saw it on the upper part of the road, and also that septic was failing. When we took over the property it was failing, and also the field, the gasoline for the boats is brand new, brand new tank, brand new system that was put in last year, too, but that is just, as you drive in down the hill just below the septic system. So they worked out site wise perfectly, and those were some substantial financial investments in the past year. MS. WHITE-That helps with the existing nonconforming if there’s some other improvements. MR. TRAVER-Yes, absolutely. MR. FULLER-That was a huge project and it needed to be done. MR. DIXON-It is a unique lot so I know when you come back to present the Site Plans we’ll be asking quite a bit on stormwater and we can talk a little bit more on the septic, sizing that with the restrooms and everything, but, yes, when you come back I’d be curious as far as the stormwater runoff. MR. FULLER-Yes, we had a really great idea with that rain garden on the roof but the Park Commission put the kibosh to that in about a five minute reading. We’re trying the best on site, and I think, again, to the highway discussion, if we can get a hold of that, that would be a bit of a game changer. MR. DIXON-I think the upper portion of that road is washing out to some degree. So that’s probably the State’s responsibility. MR. FULLER-It was, yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from Board members regarding the variances? Are we ready for a motion then? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 39-2019 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to update an existing marina. Work is proposed to the main building to include work on first floor with reconfiguration of entry and some interior changes. Second floor includes converting a portion of the building to an open deck lounge area, updating office area and improvements to the showroom. Project includes site work for parking, pedestrian access and stormwater. The existing buildings on the site include the boat storage building at 6,913 sq. ft. and the marina building at 2,747 sq. ft. footprint. The existing floor area is 14,631 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) sq. ft. and proposed is 12,858 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA and Chapter 179-10 Special Use Permit for Class A Marina shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area, height, parking and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2019 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 19day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. FULLER-Thank you. We’ll see you again. MR. TRAVER-Next also under Planning Board Recommendations we have Tim & Kathy Bechard, Site Plan 73-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 73-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TIM & KATHY BECHARD. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 NORTH LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,359 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 2,731 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT SITE IS ON A CORNER LOT AND SITEWORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FAR. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 51-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19- 1-53. SECTION: 179-6-065. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to demolish their existing home which is a 13,059 square foot floor area home to construct a new home that’s 2,731 sq. ft. floor area. This new home includes an attached garage. They’re requesting variances from setbacks and floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Kathy and Tim Bechard, the owners of the property at 3 North Lane. This is a property that Tim and Kathy purchased a couple of years ago and their intent is to tear down the quaint old A-Frame that exists and build a more suitable winterized home to be able to spend more time. We did get a wastewater system variance. That was the first action that they wanted to undertake was to get that in line with the modern standards. The house does involve area variances which are front yard setbacks and the floor area ratio. This is a small 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) Shore Colony lot. You’ve seen them before. This is another one. Plus it’s a corner lot, about 9600 square feet. The placement of the house, proposed house is pretty much on the footprint of the existing house. It does expand somewhat because there’s a desire to have a first floor master bedroom. So because it’s a corner lot it involves the front yard, two front yards. Both the North Lane frontage and the Honeysuckle Lane frontage are both considered fronts. So that puts you into a 30 foot setback as opposed to a 20 foot side yard setback on one of the sides. So you’ve got that situation. So there’s technically four different variances related to the front yard setback being 20 feet minimum as opposed to the 30 foot requirement. The other issue is floor area ratio. Now this being a small lot, just the mathematics says 22% of a smaller lot gives you less area to do what is typical of any house in the footprint. In this case they added a garage to the structure which doesn’t exist now. So that is what has put us up over that 22%. So those are the issues at hand. It’s a little bit simpler than the previous application. It’s still in the Waterfront Residential zone. Although if you’ve been to the property, you’ve seen the property it’s an interior lot. It’s not frontage really. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board regarding the variances, setbacks and FAR? MR. SHAFER-Dennis, you’ve got the house at a very, at the same angle as the existing house. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Did you think about putting it square on the lot? What would be the purpose of putting it at an angle? Because I think if you put it square there would be less setback issues. Would there not? MR. TRAVER-There would be less at least on one side. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Was it just the view? MR. MAC ELROY-I think it’s maybe that orientation of what’s there and what the desire was from the, you know, the architects’ and the owners’ standpoint. MR. MAGOWAN-I think also trying to keep it on the same footprint, too. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-To make the improvement a little bit easier. MR. TRAVER-I mean it wouldn’t relieve them from needing a variance, though. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, concerns regarding the variances for our referral? MR. MAGOWAN-Dennis, the square footage of the house that’s there now? I know you said it. MS. WHITE-1,359. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they’re asking 2,731. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, yes, 2,731. MRS. MOORE-Existing is 1,359. MR. MAGOWAN-And it’s 1,359. MRS. MOORE-And total allowable is 2,163. MR. MAGOWAN-With the porch, correct? MRS. MOORE-Porch and garage. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. MAC ELROY-Right, all the things that add together for that floor area ratio. It’s not just the house itself, but a covered porch, garage. MR. TRAVER-It’s 27.8% as opposed to 22. MR. MAGOWAN-As our lots have stayed the same size for so many years and people just trying to maximize out every lot with a house and especially close to the lake, I just, you know we keep allowing it, and it really concerns me. MR. MAC ELROY-I think in this case, every situation is different. I won’t disagree that new owners may want to maximize what they can get out of a lot. We’re dealing with a small lot which just by the numbers, by the math of it, 22% of a small lot, puts you at a small number, smaller number. The difference here putting us over that 22% is less than the area of the garage. So they desired to have a garage on the house. Some would say the other living area is not much different than what it could be. MR. TRAVER-And some of the increase I’m assuming is related to, I mean the change in use. I mean it was a camp before and now you’re going to more. Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-A potential year round occupation. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-To have a garage where they can park inside, that makes a difference. MR. DEEB-So if you took the garage off you’d fall within the parameters? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. The design of the house does not lend itself. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, let’s see if we can get a resolution. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 51-2019 BECHARD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,359 sq. ft. (floor area) home to construct a 2,731 sq. ft. (floor area) home with an attached garage. The project site is on a corner lot and sitework includes a new septic system, permeable driveway and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area ratio (FAR) in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and FAR. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2019 TIM & KATHY BECHARD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Steven Jackoski. Duly adopted this 19day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-So where are we at? MRS. MOORE-It moves forward. MR. MAGOWAN-It moves forward by one. MR. TRAVER-All right. So you’re off to the ZBA. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-You’ll be back for Site Plan assuming you get through the ZBA. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda also under ZBA Recommendations is Landcrafter, LLC. The first of two, actually, Site Plan 75-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 75-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LANDCRAFTER, LLC. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 704 GLEN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO ADD 1,523 SQ. FT. OF NEW PAVEMENT FOR INTERCONNECT WITH 708 GLEN STREET. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 11,975 SQ. FT. FOR BUY LOW AND OTHER COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. PROJECT INCLUDES A STORMWATER BASIN AND MANAGEMENT AREA. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE OR BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AMENDMENTS TO A COMMERCIAL SITE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-2013, SP 20-2002, SP 79-2010, SB 4-2002, SB 7-2002, AV 53-2019, SP 76-2019 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE: 1.07 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.6- 1-58.1. SECTION: 179-9-120. JOHN CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’m going to start with 704 Glen Street, which was the corner lot, and this project their Site Plan Modification is to add 1,523 square feet of new pavement which will interconnect with 708 Glen Street. On the site there’s an existing business. It’s 11,975 square feet and it contains multiple commercial uses. The applicant’s relief that is sought is for permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. RIVERS-It’s been a while since I’ve been here. So we’ve owned the corner of Lafayette and Glen Street for eight years probably. MR. MAGOWAN-Could you introduce yourself, sir. MR. RIVERS-My name’s John Carr. I’m a member of Landcrafter. LLC. that owns 704 Glen Street which is where the BuyLow mattress store is. We’ve been working on that project for seven or eight years now and cleaning that corner up. We were fortunate enough to be able to acquire the parcel next to it which is 708 Glen Street and that is also known as like the Mega Mattress store because the sign’s still out there, kind of a blue front. It’s a parcel that’s been there for a pretty long time with minimal changes or any re- development. So what we’re looking at doing is improving the, you know, no major changes to the square footage of the building or anything like that currently. It was retail for years with Green’s Appliances and a mattress store. The mattress store was there for about 15 years. What we’re looking at doing overall is kind of bringing the property up to speed I guess. The Codes have changed over the years. There currently is no stormwater on the site. There’s, the front of the parcel itself is, there’s a lot of pavement, kind of a 1970’s development, which is pavement all the way on Route 9. We’re hoping to remove a bunch of that, improve the façade of the building so it’s not just a big square box sitting there. MRS. MOORE-Can I just interrupt for a second? So the Board is supposed to be focusing on the lot that increases the pavement, and I don’t mind, if the Board doesn’t mind you talking about both 704 and 708. I just want to make sure that it’s clear that that’s what it sounds like you’re doing. MR. CARR-Okay. Sorry. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MS. WHITE-There’s two different projects. MRS. MOORE-There’s two different projects. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So I can recall years ago I guess when you acquired 704 it was all paved, and then you came in and you put some green space in front, some trees as I recall. MR. CARR-Yes. Yes, there were some overgrown trees. MR. TRAVER-It was quite an improvement. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That you made when you acquired that. MR. CARR-Thank you, and we’re kind of hoping to take that, I think a lot of that was façade work and landscaping, you know, nice green space and kind of bringing it up to speed and making it a pretty nice corner, and it’s worked well. I’d kind of take that philosophy to the next lot which is that 708. MR. TRAVER-And just, you have a connection. MR. CARR-Yes, what we want to do, part of the problem with 708 is that it’s so close to the corner and I’m sure everyone on this Board’s driven through that intersection and it’s a scary intersection on a good day, but if you’re trying to pull out of 708 and go south, you have to cross like three lanes which include that suicide lane, which is an odd lane in that you can’t really see the light if you get too far forward, and it’s an offset intersection to boot. So it makes it even more confusing when you pull out there. Going to the north isn’t nearly as bad, but going to the south is a little sketchy. So what we’re trying to do is create, to kind of connect these two lots so that you can exit out through there which is something in the Codes in Queensbury you want interconnecting and you want to keep people from going back out on the street just to go around the corner. It’s worked very well at the pharmacy which I believe is Walgreens now, Walgreens right up the street. It actually works pretty well. They have a longer driveway than we, but they’re able to exit out the back onto Lafayette and then come back onto Glen at a light which is a much safer situation. So the problem then becomes the 704 lot, which is what they’d be going on to, would need to get a variance for more impervious space to do that. MR. TRAVER-Because you’re adding that connector. MR. CARR-Yes because we’re adding a connector. There’s not a lot of extra, if I take away parking, they’re both big buildings for the lots that they were on, you know, not something self-created but something that existed there. I think the benefit to the community is really, it’s a safety factor is a pretty major step forward in getting people to go out the rear of it. One of the other issues that happens with the 708 property is tractor trailers that pull in there have to back out onto Glen Street. If there’s any cars on that lot they can’t get out without back onto Glen and it’s a pretty precarious thing to do. The mattress store that was there didn’t get a lot of deliveries, but when they did, you know, it was always kind of a finagling of how to get back out of there. So, Laura, correct me if I’m wrong, am I moving in the right sequence here? MRS. MOORE-Right. So we want to focus on 704, and I apologize. It’s two separate applications. MR. TRAVER-It’s just a process issue. So we take them both in context but we need to do them one at a time. So the extra pavement on 704, regarding the variance for permeability, do Board members have questions, comments for the applicant regarding the increase in permeability at 704? Which is actually way below what is was originally. MS. WHITE-And it’s in a Commercial Intensive. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. It has been. MR. CARR-Not to mix applications, but 708 right now has zero stormwater on it. There is no catch basin, there’s one catch basin in the front that’s been full for years and that’s it. So just to know that we’re adding a little impervious over here and we’re really solving a problem on 708 kind of simultaneously as we do this. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let’s do 704. Do members have concerns that they want to pass along to the ZBA on the 704 where they’re adding the paved connector? Okay. Then why don’t we do that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 53-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a site plan modification to add 1,523 sq. ft. of new pavement for interconnect with 708 Glen Street. The existing building is 11,975 sq. ft. for Buy Low and other commercial businesses. Project includes a stormwater basin and management area. There are no other changes to the site or building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to a commercial site shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So you can remain at the table because of the connected nature of these applications. So we move on, next, also under Recommendations to the ZBA, to Landcrafter, LLC, Site Plan 76-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 76-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LANDCRAFTER, LLC. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 708 GLEN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 7,145 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR COMMERCIAL USE – I.E. RETAIL, BANK, FAST FOOD, OFFICE, FOOD SERVICE, ETC. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW ENTRYWAY FEATURE, DRIVE-THRU AND NEW INTERCONNECT TO ADJOINING PROPERTY AT 704 GLEN STREET. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REUSE OF EXISTING SITE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITH NO SITE PLAN IN LAST SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 113-1989, SP 69-1989, AV 54-2019, SP 75-2019 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE: .47 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-57 SECTION: 179-3-040 JOHN CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-This is the neighboring property that as the applicant has already started to discuss with us, he’s acquired and seeks to make improvements including stormwater and so on. However he does need relief for setback and parking, and just to note for when you come back for Site Plan, the signage needs to be defined. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Forty-five square feet freestanding with a fifteen foot setback from the property lines. MR. CARR-Yes. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-The wall sign to be 30 square feet maximum. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So provide that information to Laura’s team. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And as I understand from your previous explanation you are not planning on changes, major changes to the building itself, but you want to make some improvements to the property. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And connect it to 704 and make general improvements. So for this you need variances for setback, and could you explain the parking variance? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to go through that? MR. TRAVER-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-So right now the site has 20 spaces on it and he has an existing building so he’s allowed the retail component with those existing parking spaces. If he proposes new uses in that building such as a restaurant he would need parking relief because he doesn’t currently have that parking relief. So the worst case scenario at the moment would be the convenience store and I think grocery store exceeds it, but in reference to the Zoning Board of Appeals they’re applying for all those uses.. MR. TRAVER-Okay, because you don’t have a tenant yet. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. MOORE-Correct, and that same situation occurred with the BuyLow property is that we looked at the most intensive use that he could possibly do on that and then backtracked from there and said here’s the uses that potentially could be tenants in this building and here’s the parking requirements and he would need to receive relief for those as well in a similar situation. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thanks. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I just have a quick one regarding the parking, then. So knowing that there’s limited parking at the 708 and if both properties are under the same ownership, would you have any overflow parking at the BuyLow area if you needed it? MR. CARR-Yes, not knowing, right now, you know, we have one remaining space in the BuyLow building available for rent. Currently parking is not a problem on that site. Not knowing what type of tenant would move into that new space, it’s hard to say exactly. I don’t anticipate the use of that remaining space being something like a restaurant that’s high intensity and it would take up a lot of the space, which would give us enough space to share back and forth. So that should work pretty well. As far as parking, I don’t envision a Friday’s or something going in that’s going to need 60 spaces, something way over the top. It’s probably more likely to be a retail use or some of the uses we identified on that table. Working with Laura that seemed to be a reasonable probability of those types of uses going in. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? Do members feel comfortable going forward with this as well? All right. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 54-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 7,145 sq. ft. building for commercial use – i.e. retail, bank, fast food, office, food service, etc. Project includes new entryway feature, drive-thru and new interconnect to adjoining property at 704 Glen Street. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, reuse of existing site for commercial purposes with no site plan in last seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback and parking requirements. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19day of November, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. CARR-Tomorrow night. Thanks, guys. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next section of our agenda is Unapproved Development, and before us we have Sam Bhatti. UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN NO. 71-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A DOUBLE SIDED, 115 FT. LONG BY 6 FT. HIGH PRIVACY FENCE. PROJECT SITE CONTAINS TWO EXISTING LODGING FACILITIES – NORTHWAY INN 8,620 SQ. FT. AND QUALITY INN 8,651 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINTS) AND NO CHANGES TO BUILDING OR SITE IS PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FENCES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-2003, AV 85-2002 HOTEL, SP 1-2011, AV 3-2011 CANOPY; MANY OTHERS WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ON WEST PROPERTY LINE. LOT SIZE: 2.19 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-2-51. SECTION: 179- 5-020. SAM BHATT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has installed a double-sided 115 long by 6 feet wide privacy fence and the applicant has indicated that it will assist in protecting the outside utility units and buildability issues inside some of the units. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BHATTI-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-I think the last time you were here it was to talk about some unapproved pavement that was put in. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-That was a different site. This is a different hotel. MR. TRAVER-A different site. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes, so there’s two different hotels. MR. MAGOWAN-There’s three brothers. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And just for Mr. Bhatti’s benefit, the Board previously, at the beginning of the meeting, they approved the extension request for. th MR. BHATTI-Six months, June 15 I believe. MRS. MOORE-Yes. Okay. You did hear it. I apologize. I wasn’t certain you were in the audience. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So tell us about your unapproved privacy fence. MR. BHATTI-If you look at the pictures, all the windows are back there, and where the fence ends there’s a lot of trees in the back on the south side, and all those windows are really looking in on the bathrooms on the rooms and I also have utility, electrical, and a gas line there, and where the fence is, that’s where all the cars were coming in pretty much there. So I had a few complaints about people peeking in to the windows. So I decided to put the fence. MR. TRAVER-And did you have a conversation with anybody at the Town to inquire as to whether you needed a permit or permission? MR. BHATTI-No. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Quick question. The satellite photo shows a line of trees down where the fence now exists? MR. BHATTI-Where the fence ends, that’s where the trees start. MR. SHAFER-So there were no trees removed for the fence? MR. BHATTI-No. MR. DEEB-I’d like to just reiterate that the unapproved development that we’ve been getting as a Board makes it really difficult for us to come up with decisions and sooner or later things are going to have to change. MR. BHATTI-One thing I did talk before with The Silo and I showed them the property line and everything else, and I didn’t know because I was not developing anything, I didn’t know I needed a fence, needed a permit for the fence, and I did talk to The Silo. They came up here, I marked them and I told them everything else, this is what I’m doing, and that’s what I did. I talked to the owners, with the neighbors, because I’m not really developing anything. I’m just putting up a fence. MR. TRAVER-Well you have a lot of neighbors in this room and that’s why we have the Code. MR. BHATTI-I didn’t realize I needed a permit for the fence. I thought if you did something. MR. DEEB-That’s why we’re here. Normally people don’t realize it. Just to check, it wouldn’t have hurt to call the Town and find out, just before you started it. What I’d like to see done is I’d like to see the fence be the same color as the building, to neaten it up a little bit, because I see from the pictures the back side looks like it needs some neatening up. So I mean I would like to see that match the building to make it look as part of the site and clean it up a little bit. MRS. MOORE-So the side that’s facing the motel? MR. DEEB-Both sides. MRS. MOORE-Both sides? MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. BHATTI-You mean the fence has to be painted the same color as the? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. DEEB-It doesn’t have to be, but I think it would look nice. I think you want your place to look nice. MR. TRAVER-It probably would last longer, too. MR. DEEB-Actually if you were going to do it, I would love to see you put a nice white vinyl fence up. It would look really attractive. MR. TRAVER-The other thing, looking long term because you do have some enterprises in the Town, can you give us some assurance that before you even think about making any changes you will pick up the phone and call the Town or stop by and check and see, so we will not have to go through this again? MR. BHATTI-Okay. I will do that. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. JACKOSKI-How far is that first post off of Aviation Road? MR. TRAVER-The first part of the fence? MRS. MOORE-We looked this up. He started at his property line. So there’s obviously a right of way, and I don’t know if the photo shows it, but there’s, The Silo has a split rail fence section there. So the split rail fence is obviously before that six foot section would be my guess. MR. JACKOSKI-And we allow six foot high sections of fence within so many feet of the road? MRS. MOORE-So this is what the difference is. So residential doesn’t require Board review but it potentially requires variances when it’s a height issue in a front yard. Fences in a commercial district they only require Site Plan Review. It’s not an issue about its height unless the Board identifies through Site Plan that that’s too high or that causes some sort of sight issue. MR. JACKOSKI-But the trees and the shrubs and all that at the other end of the property are allowed to be used to screen the property. So why couldn’t they have planted that instead of a fence? MS. WHITE-I couldn’t agree more, MR. TRAVER-Well that probably would have been our condition had we had an opportunity to review that. MR. JACKOSKI-I certainly see no reason to approve what’s there. When are we going to stop allowing us to be taken advantage of? MRS. MOORE-So we discussed this prior to this, that when an applicant is identified as being non- compliant with our current Code, they are given information via either a citation or a conversation with our Code Compliance Officer, definitely a conversation with our Zoning Administrator, sometimes conversations with Building and Codes. Most likely it falls upon our Code Compliance Officer communicating with that applicant saying you’re non-compliant, you need to come into compliance. If the applicant doesn’t come into compliance and refuses to comply, then they’re issued a citation and they’re brought before a judge basically. The judge’s first comment is have you exhausted your administrative remedies, remedies being that they have to complete the Site Plan or the Area Variance application. So this applicant is coming into compliance by applying for Site Plan Review. MS. WHITE-But the question comes back to, would we have approved it as it stands if this came before us prior to it being done. MRS. MOORE-It’s a Site Plan. MR. JACKOSKI-The way I look at it we have a very nice organic sign for the Town of Queensbury just feet away. Right? And we’ve got this big wuthering wall looking at us. MR. TRAVER-No question. Well as it stands we have a draft approval motion with a condition that the fence be painted. We should specify a color. You did. MS. WHITE-In addition to painting, if you look at this second picture, this end which is now facing the street needs to have something done with it. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-If it does get approved and we say painting. MR. TRAVER-We need to be specific. What exactly do you want? MS. WHITE-Hedges. Something. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. Where are you looking at? MS. WHITE-The one you actually have up there right now. MRS. MOORE-So that’s not the applicant’s property. So just to be clear. MR. TRAVER-It ends at the right of way. MR. JACKOSKI-Well then take a section out and put shrubs in. MS. WHITE-Plant some trees. MR. JACKOSKI-The fear is, I like what Mr. Deeb suggested with the vinyl fence which is very little maintenance, but as soon as thing gets painted or stained it’s going to be an upkeep thing and then it’s going to be weathered and it’s going to be shabby. I think it’s a big mistake to allow this fence to stay here. MR. TRAVER-Well it hasn’t been approved. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we need to, to Mr. Bhatti’s benefit, we need to be specific if we’re requiring any changes. We’ve added painting. We’re saying we need to, or we’re proposing potentially in this draft approval motion that he needs to remove how many feet of the front? MR. DEEB-How long is a section? MR. TRAVER-A section is probably. MR. MAGOWAN-Eight foot sections. MR. TRAVER-Eight feet. So remove an eight foot section and replace it with trees. MR. DEEB-That’s hide some of the fence also. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And, let me look at the map again. Where does the building begin? Okay. So the Econo Lodge where the first bathroom would be, where the mechanicals are, is quite a ways back, isn’t it? Okay. So if you’re proposing removing an eight foot section and you want trees you’ve got to be able to tell him how many trees. MR. DEEB-Well I would propose the eight feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-To replace the fencing. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but you want what? Four trees, five trees? MR. SHAFER-Are we talking trees or shrubs? MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s what I’m saying. We need to be very clear. MR. JACKOSKI-An eight foot privacy fence is what we’re looking for. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-That’s result, but we need to be specific with regards to numbers and species and all that stuff. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you tell me how far off of the road or how far off the first fence post the first hotel window is that we’re trying to create privacy for? MR. TRAVER-Well you can sort of see it on the map. The scale isn’t real clear. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s at least 20 feet. There’s two sections at 16 feet. You’re probably 20 feet to that first corner where the, you know, where the vent pipe is and that. MR. JACKOSKI-To the first corner, but then the window’s into that and further. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-If you look at the second picture, you first come up to, I mean I would ask, I mean one of the problems you have is people parking, looking into the windows, and I can understand that because the parking lot is a little higher than the hotel, but I say bring back the fence to the corner of that building. MR. TRAVER-So now we’re up to two sections. MR. MAGOWAN-At least two sections, if not two and a half sections. MR. TRAVER-Can you do a half section? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BHATTI-And may I say something? Also my apartment is there. You can see the door. That’s my apartment. MR. JACKOSKI-But the door is solid. Correct? MR. BHATTI-Yes, but I have a window. The one picture, that’s my apartment window there too. MR. MAGOWAN-He’s got a window right there. MR. DEEB-So if we remove two sections. MR. TRAVER-That’s 16 feet. MR. DEEB-Where’s your apartment? Does it start after the 16 feet? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, does this thing have a scale on it? MR. DIXON-I thought I saw, one inch equals twenty feet. MR. BHATTI-I think in the pictures it looks different. If you see the site. MR. TRAVER-Well we’re looking at an actual diagram of the site. All right. So if we say two sections, that’s 16 feet. So that’s back. MR. MAGOWAN-So if this is to scale here, one inch equals twenty feet. MR. TRAVER-That’s perfect. So to the apartment is a little less than one inch. So that’s, probably 16 feet would probably do it. MR. MAGOWAN-So how many feet of fence did you put in? MRS. MOORE-One hundred and fifteen. MR. BHATTI-One hundred and fifteen feet. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-One hundred and fifteen feet. All right. I was going to say, you know, roughly 120 feet just going out with my finger. So 115 feet. MR. TRAVER-So if he removes two sections from the front that’s 16 feet and replace it with arborvitae. MR. BHATTI-That’ll leave my apartment entrance right there, 16 feet’s going to go right there. MR. JACKOSKI-You’re going to have eight feet shrubs solid. MR. DEEB-The same effect as the fence. You just won’t have a fence. MRS. MOORE-So the map that you had is a one in forty, not a one in twenty. MR. MAGOWAN-This is one in forty? It says one in twenty down there. MRS. MOORE-No, but it’s not to scale. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what I’m looking at, if I’m looking down here, there’s 23 feet, or 21 foot three from the edge of your office building to the property line where the fence begins, and that’s kind of at angle, right? Can everybody kind of see it’s angled? But if you look back you’ve got 20 feet. So you’ve got 20 feet. So we’re asking for two sections which is 16 feet. So that’s going to bring you four feet past the edge of that office toward the road. MR. TRAVER-And even then there would be arborvitae. MR. MAGOWAN-And the arborvitaes I’d be looking for are, you can get nice, you know, six,, eight foot tall big shrub arborvitaes that are solid and if you put them right next to each other it would be just like a fence. MR. DEEB-About the same size, same height as the fence. MR. BHATTI-I think so. Maybe this one is not on the property line. You guys have to check it out before you approve it, it’s way before that. The dimension is not right by that. It’s not two sections. It could be one section where the end of the building is, not two sections. I don’t know why it’s showing here. You guys have to see it physically. And it’s only one section, not two sections. Because I know that because the building ending, up there eight feet is one section. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I’m looking at what’s highlighted here. Laura, is the highlighted part, that fence comes all the way to that property line. Correct? MR. TRAVER-And if you look at the striping, you can see the parking spaces. MR. MAGOWAN-That front little iron post there, the end of the highlight. That’s how far the fence comes. MRS. MOORE-That’s my understanding. It comes to the front of this property line. MR. JACKOSKI-But why can’t we just simply state that it’s an arborvitae hedge, eight to nine feet tall, whatever you choose, solid arborvitae to the corner of the actual hotel section itself? MR. MAGOWAN-I like that idea, Steve. That would be up to the rest of the Board. MR. TRAVER-Well would that be sufficiently accurate for a motion, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, because you’re being specific. It’s going from the edge of the hotel to the edge of the, to wherever he decides to end it. MR. JACKOSKI-The hotel itself, the rooms themselves, not the actual office. MRS. MOORE-Not the office, but it starts, say it starts at the hotel rooms and extends towards Aviation Road. MR. TRAVER-And before you erected this fence, there was nothing there? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. BHATTI-No. MR. TRAVER-And for how long was there nothing there? MR. BHATTI-Twenty-three years I’ve owned it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We have that in the motion. MR. DEEB-So I’m going to word the motion, I’ll word it from the, at the property line there where the pipe is. MR. TRAVER-From the end of the existing non-compliant fence back to. MR. DEEB-Well from the start of the non-compliant fence back to the corner of the motel. MR. TRAVER-Of the motel. Correct. MR. DIXON-Do you think we’re going to have to spell out the physical number? MR. TRAVER-I would say normally yes, but in this case it’s because it’s for privacy purposes I suspect that Mr. Bhatti will probably plant sufficient number or even perhaps better than a fence there. MR. JACKOSKI-Let’s say it’s contiguous and solid in nature. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And I would say that the point which is at 9.1 feet off of the property line. MR. TRAVER-For it to begin you mean? MR. JACKOSKI-That’s the part we’re trying to screen, correct, where the rooms are, where you don’t want people looking in? MR. BHATTI-Yes, but I also have my apartment and a window there and I’d like to protect that one, too. So I’m not actually on the property line. Maybe the yellow mark, you guys can send your guys and check it out. I’m way behind there. MS. WHITE-Do you want us to table? Are you going to provide us with more information? Is that what you’re asking for? MR. BHATTI-Yes, because I’m not right there on the property line. MS. WHITE-Okay. So you’re asking for this to be tabled. MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure that’s in our best interest because it’s non-compliant. I mean I think we have photographs. We have a map. We can be specific. We don’t have to be specific with the numbers, but we have a measurement now because we can go from the edge of the hotel out to the street replacing the existing non-compliant. MRS. MOORE-So it would be from the edge of the hotel, that section of fencing towards Aviation Road that you’re having the applicant remove. MS. WHITE-To that iron pipe? MRS. MOORE-No, to whatever the fence edge is. MS. WHITE-The fence. Okay. Where it is right now. MRS. MOORE-Where it ends now. MS. WHITE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-That way that addresses the applicant’s comment that the fence may not be to the iron pipe. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. JACKOSKI-And it’s not over the iron pipe. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. It’s not over the iron pipe. MR. DEEB-So then we’re going to go from the edge of the. MR. TRAVER-Hotel building. MR. DEEB-That would be the southern end of the building. MRS. MOORE-So I guess I want to make sure it’s understood that the vegetation, because one of the issues was snowplowing. So one of the issues that’s going to come up is snowplowing and the maintenance of this vegetation in the long run. So the applicant’s still responsible for maintaining the vegetation even if it proceeds to die, which is potentially possible due to the fact that the neighboring property is also deficient in location of snow removal. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean I think the applicant would be sufficiently motivated to maintain it because if it dies then his barrier’s going to go, other than the remaining unapproved fence. MRS. MOORE-But I’m just pointing out that one of the issues is the plowing of a neighboring onto someone else’s property. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point. MRS. MOORE-And it’s not the applicant that’s doing it. It’s the neighbor that’s doing it. MR. BHATTI-Can I say something? Twenty-three years they’ve been dumping snow on my property. I still consult with them, and last year I had my furnace exhaust come out of there on this part right here, and snow was five feet high. I went to them and I asked them. They didn’t do anything. I had to dig it up to have, my furnace guy, and then I asked them to do something and they didn’t do anything. Then I came up with this fence. I didn’t know I needed a permit. I’m sorry for that, and then I even asked him, I want to make sure I’ve got the survey. I gave him one week. I even texted him, make sure I’m not going on your property. Here I am. Here the posts are and if you have any objection, tell me, and that’s what I’m protecting my property not to have snow dumped. Then I have to take care of the grass. I have to take care of the snow and they’ve been doing it, and I’m still a good neighbor. I did not complain or anything for 23 years. Now I put the fence, and I also want to protect my apartment, the privacy. MR. TRAVER-If this approval goes through, you still have fencing in the area where your furnace exhaust is and the arborvitae would only be in front of that. MR. BHATTI-I know. Nobody’s going to dump snow there so the furnace will be fine now because no snow is coming from the parking lot of The Silo to this side and if they took care of that maybe I would not have thought about a fence, and I’m sorry I spent so much money. I can take it out. You guys have to tell them they can’t put the snow on my property. I can take out the fence. MR. TRAVER-Well they shouldn’t be putting snow off their property anyway. MR. BHATTI-They’ve been doing it 23 years. MR. DEEB-That’s an enforcement issue. MR. BHATTI-If you guys want me to move it, I’ll move the fence. Not a problem. You just have to go and tell those guys they cannot have any snow on my property. MR. TRAVER-Well we may have a solution. We may have a solution. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I’m thinking on where you’re removing the fence and putting the arborvitaes to make sure that they don’t push the snow into your arborvitaes. Because there are split rail fences. Just run a split rail fence. If they go, along where the other fence was that you removed, to protect from the plows going over and pushing snow into the arborvitaes to make them last, and it would kind of blend in with the split rail fence that they have. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. BHATTI-The other thing I can do to protect my property, I can put a Jersey barrier. Take the fence out, put the Jersey barrier there that high. They’re much cheaper. I can put it there. I don’t need any permit for that because I can just put it there. I’m not putting anything permanent. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. What type of barrier are you talking about? MR. BHATTI-A Jersey barrier. I can buy it and put it right there. It would be cheaper for me. They can’t do anything on my side of the property. MR. TRAVER-You might have more support actually on the Board for doing that if you remove the fence. Is that what you would rather do? MR. BHATTI-That would look uglier than a fence. MR. JACKOSKI-Wait a minute, a Jersey barrier is still, in my mind, a man-made structure and considered a fence. Correct? MRS. MOORE-I’d have to defer to the Zoning Administrator. I couldn’t tell you. MR. TRAVER-So if we do not approve this and the applicant comes back with an alternative plan that involves these barriers that goes through. MRS. MOORE-If it’s determined to be a fence. So the Zoning Administrator would have to make a determination. MR. TRAVER-All right, but it sounds like that might be in the applicant’s interest to do that if the real issue is the snow. MR. BHATTI-Snow and also privacy of the windows back at my apartment, electrical panel, gas lines are there. Cars are coming right there. They can go two feet down they can hit the gas line. MR. TRAVER-Well we have a potential compromise that we have been discussing that would involve some of the fence remaining, some of the fence, as you’ve heard, being replaced by arborvitae. Would you rather return with an alternative plan, take down the fence and come back with an alternative plan? MR. BHATTI-Can I just go to the map? I want to make sure you know. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. BHATTI-Okay. This is the office. Okay. The fence is right here. It’s maybe not too far here. I just maybe marked it wrong here. That’s what I’m saying. If you can tell me where this property is coming. MR. TRAVER-We can see from the photographs that it’s clearly up to where the yellow mark is. I mean you can look, if you look at the photograph next to that map, right in front of you, you will see. MR. BHATTI-No, that property is not ending there. This is that corner. That’s that corner. This is this corner. MR. TRAVER-Right. You can’t quite see the edge of it, but you can see that the fence is obviously beyond it. MR. BHATTI-It’s almost from there to this property line is almost I think it says about 15 feet or maybe longer. MRS. MOORE-It may be the perspective of the photo. MR. TRAVER-Well it doesn’t matter because the draft resolution that we’re talking about speaks about the end of the motel, not the end of the office. MRS. MOORE-So this is where, the fence would be removed from this point all the way to wherever the end of the fence is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So it really doesn’t matter what the exact measurements are because in our draft resolution we’re talking about from the end of the hotel outward. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I mean in a compromise situation, and I understand because you can see the apartment window in this photo here. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-But you wouldn’t be able to from the other side of the fence. MR. JACKOSKI-Or the arborvitae. MRS. MOORE-Or the arborvitae. The point is the arborvitaes would be in place of the fence. MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean I’m just throwing it out there, if you went out to the first bump out at the one story, brought there fence back to that far and then planted the rest of the arborvitaes up to the road, the property line. MR. TRAVER-We need to be specific. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, from there. That way it would cover the apartment window for car headlights and people looking in that way, and then it would open it up from the corner back and the arborvitaes there out there. MR. JACKOSKI-Why wouldn’t the arborvitae shield the headlights? MR. TRAVER-I’ll tell you the concern that I’m starting to have is this is becoming our project. I mean we’re spending a ridiculous amount of time on this, and I don’t think that that’s a good habit for us to get into. MR. MAGOWAN-And I agree with you. I do agree. It’s tough to know, because we have to go with the yellow line, you know. MR. TRAVER-Well we can go with the end of the hotel as we’ve been discussing for now I’m not sure how long. MS. WHITE-More than 20 minutes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean I know there’s large arborvitaes that are out there, and a good example of them are right up there across from Lockhart Mountain on 9L. The people that bought that they offset these big huge, and it’s beautiful, and they offset right now, and it just really fills in nice. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree with you. Do we have the last version of the draft motion where we talked about from the? MR. DEEB-All right. For the conditions then, the fence should be painted the same color as the building and secondly a minimum six foot arborvitae privacy hedge should be planted from the start of the southern end of the motel to where? MRS. MOORE-The end of the fence going towards Aviation Road. MR. JACKOSKI-The existing non-conforming fence. MR. DEEB-The end of the existing non-conforming fence. MR. JACKOSKI-Toward Aviation Road. MR. TRAVER-We also have, Laura, and I understand this would be an enforcement issue, but can we stipulate a minimum amount of time for that portion of the, not necessarily for the arborvitaes to be planted but at least for that section of the unapproved fence to be removed? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. BHATTI-Can I say something? I’m just going to remove the fence then. MRS. MOORE-So you can stipulate a time saying you’d like that one fence section to be removed by the spring of 2020 and the arborvitaes to be planted by the spring of 2020. I mean you can do both. MR. TRAVER-I guess my thought was sooner rather than later just removing at least that section of the unapproved fence and then the applicant can install the arborvitae, I mean that’s what, a year normally? MR. DEEB-I don’t have a problem waiting until the spring. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-If that’s the case. MR. BHATTI-Then I will do something different where they’re not going to dump snow. Any time they dump snow or anything else I will come to the Town. I will remove this one. I made a mistake, but if I’m going to do something, I will get something different done and I will come up there, Jersey barrier or something. Otherwise I’m not removing the fence where the property line ends. Will you guys give me that? If you don’t want to give me that, that’s fine. I want it at least up to here. I know this building. Otherwise I can take the whole fence out. MR. TRAVER-It sounds like we have a compromise of our own design now that we can offer you, and if you don’t want to do that, you can come back to the Town with an alternative plan. So let’s see if we can get this approved. MR. DEEB-Are you saying you want to withdraw this? MR. BHATTI-The main thing is, it doesn’t make sense if I’m going to go all the way back. My office ends, I can go equal to that and remove all the fence up to this side. I don’t know how far it is, one feet, two feet, I can remove it. At least that will help me. They’re not going to dump the snow because after that there’s only one parking spot left here. If I come up here they will not dump the snow because there’s one parking space there. That one I can take care of. If I can get the fence approval up to here, I can remove all of here. MR. DEEB-How many sections is that? MR. BHATTI-I don’t know, I think maybe one or two. MR. DEEB-We’re going to have to re-vamp this whole thing and maybe table it and specifically go up and take a look. MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And get some measurements on the map. MR. DEEB-Be more specific. MR. SHAFER-He’s asking to have the fence removed back to the corner of the office. Are we comfortable with that, and replace it with arborvitaes? Without knowing exactly how many feet that is. MR. MAGOWAN-We don’t know exactly where the fence ends. We have something that says it comes to the property line. MR. TRAVER-We just know where we now want the fence to end because we already have a draft motion. My suggestion would be let’s propose the motion that we’ve been working on on his behalf and see if it passes, and if he decides that he elects not to do that, he can always present an alternative before this expires to the Town and we’ll consider that, but we have a plan in front of us. I think we’ve spent a considerable amount of time on his behalf coming up with a plan and why don’t we just present what we have and see what happens. MR. DEEB-It gives you some options. MR. TRAVER-Yes, which are the same options he had before he erected the fence. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. DEEB-All right. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you still need to have a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-We do indeed. I’m sorry. Thank you< Maria. We 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. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Maria. So, now, I’m sorry, we’ll entertain that motion. MR. DEEB-All right. Motion to approve Site Plan 71-2019, Aftab Bhatti, per the draft provided by Staff, conditioned upon the following. 1. Waiver requests are granted, Were there waiver requests? MRS. MOORE-There were waiver requests, yes. MR. DEEB-Two, adherence to the items outlined in the follow up letter sent with this resolution including A, fence to be painted the same color as the building and, B., a minimum six foot arborvitae privacy hedge from the start of the southern end of the motel to the end of the existing, non-conforming fence. MR. TRAVER-And also the time limit, right? MR. DEEB-Project to be completed by April 2020. th MR. TRAVER-Do you want to say April 30? MR. DEEB-Say May? MR. MAGOWAN-May. th MR. DEEB-Project to be completed by May 30, 2020. MR. JACKOSKI-And the motel is defined as the point of the building which is 9.1 feet off of the property line or 10 foot 2 inches off of the property line? MR. TRAVER-Well the motel is the motel. I think when it’s adjudicated for compliance there will be an on-site review. MR. JACKOSKI-So which point are we asking? MRS. MOORE-So I believe it’s the 9.1 section, and it is the point closest to Aviation Road. You mentioned a southern boundary of the motel and I want to make sure that it’s clear that it’s the closest point of that motel to Aviation Road which is demarcated by a notation on the survey of 9.1 feet. MR. DEEB-So we’re going to say from 9.1 feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes, from the property line. MRS. MOORE-It’s a mark on the survey. It has nothing to do with the actual dimension. MR. DEEB-All right. So you’ve got to help me with this one. You guys have got me so confused. MRS. MOORE-So the condition is that where it starts, where that condition starts is a notation on the survey drawing that’s been submitted that’s nine feet one inch. MR. DEEB-Okay. So notated by the nine foot one inch. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MRS. MOORE-9.1 foot. MR. DEEB-9.1 foot. MR. TRAVER-Notation on the plan. MR. DEEB-Mark on plan. MR. BHATTI-Can I withdraw my application? That doesn’t even serve my purpose if you guys are going to go to that corner. My gas meter’s there. My windows are there. That doesn’t serve my purpose. Let me withdraw my plans. Then I will come up with a different plan and tell you guys stop The Silo from pushing the snow there. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense. MR. TRAVER-Sir the problem is we can’t leave a non-conforming fence there. MR. BHATTI-I can remove it. MR. TRAVER-Question for Laura. How can we execute something this evening that, since the applicant has withdrawn the plan, that would include removing of the fence in a time limit. MRS. MOORE-It’s non-compliant so there’s no time limit. It’s an enforcement action. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if he withdraws, since he didn’t make an application before erecting the fence and then he made an application that he’s now withdrawing, enforcement would require him to remove the fence fairly quickly. Right? MRS. MOORE-In a timely fashion, or make new application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So then we need to take no further action on this application. Just note that the applicant has withdrawn. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Okay. MR. BHATTI-Unless you guys can give me approval to where my office is. I can do that, but if you guys can’t give me that one. MR. TRAVER-We accept your withdrawal of the plan. MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-The next item we have before us is under New Business and it’s the South Queensbury Fire Company, application Site Plan 74-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 74-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. SOUTH QUEENSBURY FIRE COMPANY. AGENT(S): SCHODER RIVERS ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 409 DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO AN 11,920 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO ADDRESS FIRE APPARATUS SPACE, MEETING ROOM AREA AND OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENT ITEMS. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES SITE ALTERATIONS WITH PAVEMENT ADJUSTMENT AND RELOCATION OF THE PAVILION AND PLAY COURT. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC AND INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUILDING ALTERATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 91717-14894 COMM. ALT.; 2007-513 SIGN; SP 75-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 8.15 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-6. SECTION: 179-3-040. SHAUN RIVERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant has been before the Board previously for an addition to the Queensbury Fire Department. At this time there’s no longer an addition. What they’re doing is internal renovations. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) There is relocation of a pavilion area and a new storage shed and all the information in reference to elevations and things like that are included in the plans. The project includes extensive site work including new septic, installation of stormwater management and new paved area. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening. Welcome. MR. RIVERS-Hi. I’m Shaun Rivers from Schoder Rivers. RON DU FOUR MR. DU FOUR-I’m Ron DuFour with the Building Committee, South Queensbury Fire. MR. TRAVER-Welcome back. I must say, your application is a rather clever and economic use of the facilities you have there. It’s kind of a nice, I like the approach I guess. MR. DU FOUR-It’s a compromise. MR. DEEB-I’d like to go on record to say thank you for what you do as volunteer firemen. I appreciate all your efforts. MR. TRAVER-So tell us about the latest iteration of your project. MR. RIVERS-So when we were here last year about this time it was a 12,000 foot-ish addition and we were removing basically if you were to draw a line from that little island where the sign is north, the 1950 portion of the building was going to be removed. So all of that cost too much money. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I was surprised at how much it was projected to cost. MR. RIVERS-Yes. So we’re back with a renovation project that fit within the budget. So basically the focus really of the project is to make the building, the interior is basically almost a gut job on the interior for the most part. The main apparatus bays are going to remain as is, except that they’re getting a new vehicle exhaust system, things like that. On the exterior, and the 1950 portion is where a lot of the work is taking place. That is currently sort of an apparatus bay. That’s going to be converted to office, multi- use space. The 1992 portion of the building which is currently to the left, which is a large meeting room/where they rent out for events, that will remain largely the way it is by the face lift. Okay. On the exterior of the building, I don’t know if you have elevations there, Laura, yes, that’s the floor plan. MR. TRAVER-One of the things that I was particularly impressed with was the improvements you’re planning on making to stormwater. That’s always been an issue on that site. MR. RIVERS-Yes, right. So if I had to pinpoint, really this project is in two big areas. The interior improvement, you know, facelift to get them, hopefully another 25, 30 years of building life. All the roofs are being re-done for instance. They all are, a couple of them are in bad shape. There would be all new roofs and major improvements to the stormwater, and a new septic system. Okay. So that’s where probably the bulk of the money is. Now the exterior facing the road we are doing a few things to classy it up a little bit I guess, you know, we’re putting some sunshades on the windows, some cantilever awnings over the entrances, you know, which modern Code would require anyway, and then the other thing you’ll see on the extreme right where the old apparatus bay was and where the new offices will be we’re going to put a storefront glazing in there to kind of, and then there’s, you know, we have a new sign, new lettering that says South Queensbury Firehouse that’s way on the left. It’s probably hard to see, and a new emblem on the right hand side on the 1950 portion of the building, you can see, it probably didn’t show up too well on the lettering, and then the new emblem right there on the right hand side, and then we’ll have, the sign that’s in the front, that is perpendicular to the road, will be in the same place but it will be replaced, and the idea there is we’ll have a couple of small lights. Obviously we can’t have a digital sign or anything like that, but a couple of small lights to illuminate the sign, but the size of the sign will be unchanged essentially. MR. TRAVER-You talk about lighting. One of the items of additional information that Staff would like would be details on the lighting fixtures and that type of thing. MR. RIVERS-I mean they’re in here. I think there was some confusion on, you were referring to a model number that was actually on the next sheet so it was confusing, but we sent that in. So that’s all there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. RIVERS-They’re actually, the light fixtures themselves, are pretty much identical to what was proposed on the last project. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it makes sense. Yes. MR. RIVERS-The only difference is there’s only, I think, two poles in the back and we had a couple of more last time, and the rest are all wall packs and the photometrics are there, and obviously another main whole focus of this project was to allow the fire trucks to drive through. So you’ll see the arrows there so the trucks will drive around to the back and into the building. Right now they really can’t do that because the pavilion’s in the way. The radiuses don’t work out. So just to give a little history, we actually tried to buy the neighbor’s property to go around in the other direction which would have been nicer, but we struck out in that. So that’s, just so you know, it looks kind of odd that we did it this way. It would have been nicer the other way, but I think it achieves the same end result. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. RIVERS-The other thing we are doing, and I know it’s in here in the comments is that the pavement that is to the east side of the ’52 building, the Fire Company really doesn’t own that. You can see the property line kind of skew’s out there. I don’t know if you can see it very well. So, right, that’s all paved right now. The paving’s in really bad shape. That’s the other thing this job’s going to do. Basically all the paving’s replaced. So again with the idea of getting them a good service life going forward that will cover the term of the loan and things like that. So that space there will, that paving rather than put paving back that is not on their property that will be converted to green space. Okay. So I think it’ll look a little better. I think ultimately overall it’s going to look better because, you know, the appearance of the building will look better. Like I say, the focus really is on getting the trucks into the apparatus bay properly and the focus is on safety with the new vehicle exhaust system, new heating, new ventilation, things like that, and a brand new modern, compliant septic system. Right now part of their septic goes out of the ’52 building and we’re not quite sure where it goes to be honest. So that’s going to be all, it’ll be one system when we’re done. Right now it’s like two systems. MR. TRAVER-I was a little surprised when I was that that there isn’t Town septic available there. MR. RIVERS-Unfortunately no. We wish there was. MR. TRAVER-Sure. I’m sure there will be at some point. MR. RIVERS-Because it’s not an inexpensive system that we’re having to put in here. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. RIVERS-But, no, I believe you’d have to get all the way down to Dunkin’ Donuts if I remember right. So that’s quite a haul. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. RIVERS-So that’s the project in a nutshell. We do have a little storage building in the back because they’re losing storage as part of this project. It also is a practical consideration. We need to get that storage building built. It should have been built by now. MR. TRAVER-Winter’s a little early this year. MR. RIVERS-Right. Well it’s not even that. I mean the way the project works we have to take, we have to get all the stuff out of the ’52 portion of the building into that storage building so that the work can begin really. So there’s two functions. Eventually they’ll have permanent storage items. There will be phase where things like their desks and things like that will end up in there temporarily. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s certainly, from the amount of time that you’ve been working on this, it’s got to be one of the most thoroughly thought out. MR. RIVERS-We’ve gone through several floor plans. Even within this renovation we worked with the Fire Company to come up with a floor plan that they liked. We gave them the number of offices they needed, the meeting rooms they needed, the conference room, that type of thing, and also preserved their ability to generate some revenue from that space on what I call the ’92 addition on the other side. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MR. TRAVER-The building improvements might make that more saleable as well. MR. RIVERS-I think so. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. RIVERS-Well, certainly the parking’s going to be a lot better. The parking right now is iffy at best. So the parking situation as you can see will be significantly improved. So for when they do have events I believe there’s 51 spaces or 50, you know, right now there’s probably really 20 maybe that are true parking spots without starting to park on the lawn and things like that. So you’re going to have 50-ish, you know, real parking spaces that can be used for events. So, you know, that’s a big plus. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DEEB-It’s a good project. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-If you’re trying to modernize, do you want to bury any of the utilities coming into the building on the southwest, southeast corner? MR. RIVERS-We’re going through that process with National Grid. We have not gotten cooperation on that. So right now the electric service will come in right where it is. One thing on part of this project is that we’ll have a new emergency generator which is currently inside the building. That will go on the back of the building. You won’t see it. It’ll be on the back side. MR. TRAVER-That’ll save some space, too. MR. RIVERS-Yes. That space is going to be reallocated, but it was more just of a practical consideration, too. It’s a real pain in the neck to put a generator inside a building. In fact the one that’s there now you can see where they removed part of the wall to get it in there. So for future maintenance and, most of them are outside now too anyway. It’s just kind of the way they’re done. So you don’t have to worry about generating too much heat, exhausting the heat. Now it’s outside. MR. TRAVER-And they’re loud. I can tell you my office the one we have is outside and it’s not far from my office and when the power goes off and that thing starts up it’s, I know about it. MR. RIVERS-Yes, I mean this one’s natural gas, but they’re still loud. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think ours is, too. MR. RIVERS-So we think it’s a good project. It’s a compromise. There’ll be new landscaping. In fact I think you guys have cut down some of the old landscaping. The landscaping in the ’92 addition had taken over and it’s covering up the windows and creating some issues, drainage, you know, with water and mold into that building. So that’s going to go away. It’ll be replaced with much smaller perennials so that’ll be an improvement, too. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I would like to start by saying thank you, one for your service and two for your endurance on going through this. I know it’s been a long process and I was very pleased to see this and seeing the existing. I mean, but it’s been a heartache for you guys but really like for all the work you do and protecting us, this is going to look great and thank you for hanging in there and coming to so many meetings and putting up with your engineer. MR. RIVERS-I wasn’t too popular a couple of times. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CECILIA TANNER 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MS. TANNER-I came to support them. I live right down the street and I came to support them. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. If you would like to make public comment, would you come up to the table and just introduce yourself. MS. TANNER-I just came to support them. That’s all. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I didn’t understand what you said ma’am. MS. TANNER-I live right in front of the Firehouse on the street right in front. I just came for support. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. TANNER-I think they’re doing a great job up there and I think they should get what they need. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments, and just for the record, can you state your name? MS. TANNER-I’m Cecilia Tanner. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. All right. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Planning Board? I guess we’re ready to move forward with a motion then. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 74-2019 SOUTH QUEENSBURY FIRE COMPANY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes interior alterations to an 11,920 sq. ft. building to address fire apparatus space, meeting room area and other fire department items. The project also includes site alterations with pavement adjustment and relocation of the pavilion and play court. Site work includes new septic and installation of stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, building alterations 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 11/19/2019 and continued the public hearing to 11/19/2019, 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 11/19/2019; 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 74-2019 SOUTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers requested; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) 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 th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2019by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Thank you very much. MR. RIVERS-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-To the Firehouse after this for a soda? MR. TRAVER-I have one quick administrative item, maybe one and a half for the Board. I did reach out to Chris and David and they are willing to serve as officers again for the Planning Board. I would be interested in serving again as Chair. I know that the By-laws call for me to make that announcement at next week’s meeting, but it seems as though we have quite an agenda there already. So I will make that, but I thought I would mention it tonight in case anybody wanted to discuss that. There is an election as you probably know. I did give another hard copy of that section of the updated By-laws to David so the Secretary has that. There’s actually a formal election call for nominations in December. I think we vote formally at the last meeting in December, but anyway there’s a heads up, and, Laura, I see you’ve uncovered the popcorn machine for us. Is that for next week? MRS. MOORE-I’ll try. That’s really for our holiday festival, things like that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Is there any other business then before the Board this evening? If not I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DIXON-Steve, just a quick question, administrative item, when do we approve the calendar for next year? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/19/2019) MRS. MOORE-You can approve it at next week’s meeting. This week’s primary function is to make sure that you look at it and if you see any questions that you need answers on or you’re saying half my Board will not be here on X day, I need to know that sort of stuff. MR. DIXON-I just see that we’ve only got one meeting scheduled in September and one in December. MRS. MOORE-Usually there’s two. MR. TRAVER-And I noticed that there was, and I didn’t bring those with me because I already labeled by 2020 calendar, but I noticed that the one handout that’s just a list of the dates versus the calendar format, one of those dates is incorrect. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That’s what I need to know. I’ll re-look at that. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-No, what happened is you had the deadline date and meeting day together. See that’s deadline date and meeting. It should be Planning Board meeting. MR. DIXON-So if I take the time to read it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you’re hear as many years you just understand that that’s our day period. MR. TRAVER-All right. So do I hear a motion to adjourn? MS. WHITE-So moved. th MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2019, Introduced by Jamie White who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-I will see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 39