Loading...
02-18-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 81-2019 Meghan & Daniel Frazier 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-11 Site Plan No. 53-2019 APEX Capital, LLC 9. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2, 315.5-1-2 Site Plan No. 8-2020 Thomas Heinzelman 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.7-1-19 Site Plan No. 5-2020 Aftab (Sam) Bhatti 12. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51 Site Plan No. 7-2020 William Rudenko 14. Tax Map No. 279.-1-9 Site Plan No. 10-2020 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 15. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-2.2 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 Meeting 02/18/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH FEBRUARY 18, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE – ACTING SECRETARY MEMBERS ABSENT JAMIE WHITE DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning th Board meeting for Tuesday, February 18, 2020. This is our first meeting for the month of February and our third meeting thus far for 2020. I want to make note of one application, APEX Capital, LLC. If there’s anyone in the audience that’s here tonight to comment on that application, it’s going to be tabled for one week for some additional information that we’re seeking. So instead of seeing that tonight we’ll be seeing th that a week from tonight on the 25. We’ll have a motion to that effect in a little bit. So the first item is approval of minutes under Administrative Items. And before I do that I should point out the illuminated exit signs. In the case of an emergency those are your emergency exits. If you have an electronic device, which I’ll remind myself, please either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it doesn’t interrupt our meeting. th And with that we’ll do an administrative item, which is approval of minutes from the December 17, 2019 th and December 19, 2019 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th December 17, 2019 th December 19, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH DECEMBER 17 & DECEMBER 19, 2019, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 18 day of February, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-Next we move to our regular agenda and the first section of the agenda is Tabled Items. The first item is Meghan & Daniel Frazier, Site Plan 81-2019. TABLED ITEMS SITE PLAN NO. 81-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SHORE ACRES ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 4,915 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT OF A 14,240 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR A 500 SQ. FT. BUNKHOUSE AND A 360 SQ. FT. PORTE-COCHERE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND SHORELINE BUFFER PLANTINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AST-580-2019 DOCK, DEMO 532-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: 2.84 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-11. SECTION: 179-3-040. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MICHAEL O’CONNOR, LUCAS DOBIE & JUSTIN WINTERS, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a new 4,915 square foot footprint, which is a 14,240 square foot floor area single family home. This includes a 500 square foot bunkhouse and a 360 square foot porte- th cochere. The porte-cochere was approved as a second garage on December 18 of 2019, and the new revisions to this project are, the plans indicate the septic field to be located at the front of the property near Cleverdale Road. The plan shows a driveway for the new home and a driveway area to allow access for an adjoining neighbor to access a building on the neighbor’s property. The sport court has been relocated to be installed more in the center of the front yard area. The plans for the rear of the home include patio, pool and spa areas –water features, also a garden area then the shoreline area of the home includes walking paths, retaining walls and a beach area. And noting the bunkhouse, the kitchen effects have been removed so it is now considered just a bunkhouse. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant represented? Welcome back. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Thank you. I’m Michael O’Connor from Little, O’Connor & Borie. I represent the applicants who are sitting here with me, Dan and Meghan Frazier. We’ve been here I think before when we talked about the second garage. Since then one other thing that we did that Laura didn’t note was we eliminated the gazebo as a freestanding accessory building and basically put that square footage into the addition to the existing porch, and Craig has approved it as part of the porch, not as a freestanding accessory building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-We worked with the team trying to answer questions that have been given to us by one of the neighbors. The sport court was set at the setback line of 25 feet and we have moved it now so that it is 75 feet. So it’s three times what has been required. We also have worked out an agreement as to a driveway that the adjoining neighbor can use for access to their property. We basically are going to do a boundary line agreement, and a boundary line adjustment which we probably will have to come back to you for or do it as part of this thing. Basically we’re giving up a strip of land 20 feet in width. Some of it’s a little bit wider, to accommodate the driveway as it’s being built, it needs to have support because it’s going to be higher than the existing ground level because of the bank with that support may make this wider. I think the math shows it 40 feet wide at the road and then going back to a 20 foot width. MR. TRAVER-That’s part of the right of way road? MR. O'CONNOR-We actually are going to convey the underlying land of the new driveway to the adjoining neighbor. They will actually own that. It won’t be a right of way. They will own it in fee. So we’ve tried to accommodate what we thought were concerns that were being raised . We are doing a lot of planting. I think you noticed that before. At one time or another I think at that time we had 10 trees, 50 shrubs and 300 perennial plants. I asked the question as a layman, do we really need that many plants or should we thin them out a little bit. We’re following what was the regulations saying so many plants on so many square feet. But in truth I was told that that may be overkill. It may not be the most healthy thing to help the plants survive. I’ll leave that, ask permission to leave that to the landscapers to plant substantially that number of plants, but in a manner that they will survive. MR. TRAVER-I would think if there was concern about overcrowding in terms of meeting the buffer requirement it might be species related. So it could be that the species that you’re thinking of planting in that density, that density might be too great for the species you have in mind, but perhaps the landscaper would be able to come up with a species that would meet the shoreline requirements without overcrowding. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It’s as much away from the shoreline as it is within the shoreline, the concern. You’ve just got to take a look at the planting. The landscaper is here. Maybe he’ll address that during his, you can have that conversation with him. MR. TRAVER-I can’t even keep my office plant alive. So I just know that there are some issues with density and that might be addressed in terms of species selection, but that’s fine. MR. O'CONNOR-So basically I think we’re here to answer any questions that you have. We did re-submit the engineering comments. I don’t have a final signoff for that. It was just submitted this past Monday or a week ago. We just haven’t gotten the comments back. I did get a letter from Craig Brown talking about the porch we talked about and the adjustments that we made to the bunkhouse and he was satisfied and we did get a letter from DEC as to habitat and there’s no infringement upon habitat by the project as you have it, and we already had a letter from SHPO that there’s nothing historical on the site. I don’t know if that is in the file or not, but if you don’t I have copies that I can give you. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have those letters? MRS. MOORE-We have those letters from Craig. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have the Jeff Hayden letter from DEC? MRS. MOORE-I don’t recall that one. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll give you one of those. I’ve got a couple of those. Parks and Rec, I had a couple of those letters. I think these two items were maybe mentioned in the engineering report. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-And that’s basically what I would do as far as the presentation. There are people from the landscaping firm here and people from the architectural firm here to answer whatever questions you might have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? We did look at this prior, obviously, to them going to the ZBA. Laura, in terms of process, we are awaiting, it sounds as though the applicant is awaiting updated information from the engineer. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So there’s only a couple of comments, and I think Lucas can go over that. I don’t anticipate anything that is outstanding. Just addressing those few comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So in the Staff Notes it said that we had the lighting plan for the Sport Court, and I didn’t see that in the submission. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know if there was a lighting per se. There were lighting fixtures I thought that was included. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn’t even see those. MR. O'CONNOR-Any lighting that we had would be downcast fixtures. MR. HUNSINGER-On the Staff Notes it says that site lighting has been provided for the Sport Court. MR. TRAVER-So that being the case, Laura, would you have reviewed that? If you can see if it’s in your file. MRS. MOORE-I’m just looking to see if it was in a previous file. MR. O'CONNOR-The two lights shine right on the centerline of this court. MR. TRAVER-If you’d like to give us your comment. If you could come up and give us your name for the record and speak into the microphone, please. MR. WINTERS-Sure. Justin Winters with Studio A. The lighting for the Court is directly located on the centerline on the house side, on the lakeside. So it’s casting outward from the lake, from the front yard. It’s a complete dark sky compliant light that shines directly down onto the Court. There’ll be no residual light pollution from this particular fixture. MR. TRAVER-And have you supplied the fixture schematics to the Town for the record? You say it’s dark sky compliant. Typically with these type of fixtures, with any type of fixture, there is a cut sheet. Do you have that? MR. WINTERS-We don’t have that with us at present. I can have that provided. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes if you can supply that to the Town that would be helpful. MR. WINTERS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. WINTERS-I don’t know the lumens offhand. I think it’s one foot candle per. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MR. O'CONNOR-Any other questions? MR. SHAFER-I have a question. Will this be used exclusively as a single family home or will there be supplemental through Air BNB or whatever? MEGHAN FRAZIER MRS. FRAZIER-No. I grew up four houses down from there and we plan on turning that into our family home. We have six children. MR. SHAFER-So it’ll be exclusively a single family home. MRS. FRAZIER-Right. Just as they grow older. MR. SHAFER-I have some questions on the wastewater system. MR. O'CONNOR-Lucas. Lucas Dobie is with Hutchins Engineering. They did the engineering for the site. MR. DOBIE-Yes, for the record, again, Lucas Dobie of Hutchins. Yes, sir, Mr. Shafer. What can I address for you? MR. SHAFER-It’s a Puraflo system. Tell me a little bit about it. Is that in the DOH guideline manual for the design of a wastewater treatment system? MR. DOBIE-That is accepted by DOH, yes, as an enhanced treatment. It’s a passive system. I personally think it’s the most reliable, highest quality outside of an aerobic unit. We’ve done several of them in the area around the lake. Our southerly neighbor has one. It was put in a year or two ago, and it’s a nice pod, an eight pod system where you get a tremendous amount of treatment from the pods with the peat filters in them prior to discharge to a standard stone bed. We could do just a traditional stone bed system. We thought in this application that it makes sense to have this real nice enhanced treatment system. MR. SHAFER-You answered my next question about whether you had done one before. MR. DOBIE-Yes. Our oldest one is about 15 years and it’s been super reliable on a very difficult site. MR. SHAFER-The design manual talks about winterizing the tanks. I assume that will be done properly. MR. DOBIE-It will be if it’s shut down for the winter. I imagine this is going to be a year round use for the most part. So it’s going to stay right in operation. MR. SHAFER-The manual also talks about having a maintenance agreement or a maintenance document. Is there such a thing for Puraflo that the owners should have with them or understand? MR. DOBIE-I believe that’s an agreement with the distributor which is Emmons Pump out of Albany. They’re a very good company. Because there is a sampling port provision on these to test the effluent on an annual basis. So that would be an agreement with the owner. MR. SHAFER-The document also talks about replacing the materials every 15 years. MR. DOBIE-That’s my understanding. MR. SHAFER-Has that been communicated to the client? MR. DOBIE-It will be certainly. Yes, sir. MR. SHAFER-That’s all I had, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? The public hearing is actually still open from a previous discussion. Yes, I think I see a hand. Yes, sir. If you would give the table up for public comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JIM MEYER MR. MEYER-Well for the record, Jim Meyer, and my wife Jody is in the audience. We own and reside in the home immediately south of the property under discussion. Jody and I feel the plans presented 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) represent responsible development of one of the larger lots on the lake. It appears to me that the plans meet or exceed every zoning requirement except a covered drive which has already been, I guess, approved by the Zoning Board. So the residence and the bunkhouse are setback farther than required and farther than most homes on the lake and certainly most if not all of those on Cleverdale. As it’s designed the project will have minimal impact on our view of the lake from our principle living area. We do spend a fair amount of time enjoying the backyard or I call it a backyard, the road side of our home, whether we’re working on our small garden or splitting firewood or gathering sap and making maple syrup in the springtime. With the driveway moved to the south side of the property we see a little more traffic than we’ve gotten used to but the driveway meets all codes and is, after all, in the back of the house, and that doesn’t really impact us adversely in any way. I see that they moved the Sport Court to the center of the lot from the north side, which is different than originally proposed to the Zoning Board, but we have no problem with that. It seems fair enough. So in the end Jody and I have no issues with this plan as proposed and we look forward to seeing it come in. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MEYER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this application? Do we have any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a Type II SEQR. Is there any other discussion or questions from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The only thing I’d like to say is it was really well done and thought out, everything. I mean I have to say I really enjoyed going over the plans and knowing the property from the previous owners years ago you really did a nice job, and thank you. The enhanced system on the septic, it’s a little bit more work but I think in the long run, and I forgot, six kids. Congratulations on such a nice project. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anyone else? Let’s see. We have some, I’m thinking in terms of a motion. We do have, as mentioned, some outstanding engineering, but that’s already, signoff is a requirement. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want to hear from Mr. Dobie on that, on the engineering, the outstanding engineering? There’s a few items. They’re not big items. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Yes, that would be fine. MR. DOBIE-Yes, we did re-submit for seven comments to Chazen last Monday and with the re-design, with the Sport Court move, we totally re-worked the northerly portion of the site. So we really took a big swing at updating everything and getting everything in line. So we’re actually quite pleased to only have seven comments and they’re generally very light comments. So I’m comfortable that if we’re not there on this round we’re one or two away. We did receive our endangered species signoff was one of the outstanding comments as well. We’re very comfortable with the design that we’re going to get there very shortly. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Do Board members feel comfortable moving forward? MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. Did you have any questions about landscaping? The applicant brought up shoreline plantings and things like that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Did you have any comments? MR. TRAVER-Well, the Code, I see in the Staff Notes the Code is fairly clear. Did you want to comment on that? There was a concern about the density of the, one of the plant species I think. MR. WINTERS-Well, the shoreline requirement has a specific formula for plants to fall within that area and we’ve found, and there is a very prescriptive list of plants provided, and so we’ve stayed within that species requirement and the density of the planting at the formula rate is such that I’m concerned about the health of the plants going forward. It’s going to have an adverse impact. They’re going to be too close together so once they get to a certain size there will be some need to thin it out. Just having worked in the industry for over 20 years now, it’s a little bit too dense for my comfort zone. We’ve provided two planting 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) plans in the presentation. One is a compliant plan and then one is our recommended layout. I think you’ll find, if you look at both of the plans, there is just a slightly reduced quantity of the plants, but we still I think are living within the spirit of the buffer requirement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. I myself have not heard, with the compliant plantings that have been happening around the lake, an issue with specific density. So I guess my sense would be to be compliant, but I’ll ask if other members of the Board have comments or concerns about the planting requirements and what is proposed or the density that’s been raised. Laura, have you heard any anecdotes. MRS. MOORE-No. In the past since this has started we’ve only, I would say only a handful have actually come forward and presented a plan that has been considered all built according to spec. In most cases both Boards have seen projects where the applicant has described the existing situation and a few additional plantings. So in this case where the applicant has pointed out that there may be some density issues, versus an opportunity to look at the recommended plan, I don’t have a preference for either one, but this is not my field of expertise at all. So the Board could actually evaluate whether the recommended one would be just as sufficient as the one that’s required. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think I earlier disclosed it’s certainly not my area of expertise either, but that being the case, I would tend to want to go with the compliant plan. MR. O’CONNOR-What sheets are you talking? MR. WINTERS-The sheets that I’m referring to, they’re numbered L3.10 and that reflects the compliant plan, and we also have, if you look at the bottom of that sheet, we have the total quantity of plants listed at the bottom. It’s at the bar chart, 35 foot buffer, shoreline buffer requirement all the way at the bottom and you can see the total quantity listed out, 11 trees, 160 shrubs and 320 perennials. And I just want to point out, as far as species selections go, we did try to provide, I think the spirit of the requirement is looking to have something that’s not a mono culture. It’s a diverse botanical environment., So we’ve certainly tried to mix it up, and if you refer to Sheet L3.11, that’s our recommended plan. We’ve only reduced the quantity a slight amount but I think this gives you a better chance of long term maintenance , survival rate on the plants, and from there we’ve only reduced it by one tree. So 10 trees. We’ve reduced it to 80 shrubs total and then about 300 perennials total. So it’s not, we’re not slashing it say by half or anything like that. MR. TRAVER-Right, understood. MR. VALENTINE-Density or type? MR. WINTERS-I think it’s density. Certainly type, we wanted to do something that had some, like I said, some diversity amongst the species. So in trying to find species that have different sizes, different heights, different widths, so it is a very rich environment which I think is what the goal is, and they all fall within the required plant list, but it’s certainly, in doing so it does create a very dense environment if you’re sticking with the prescribed formula. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. VALENTINE-Will this be your weekend hobby? I’m looking at this and I’m looking at just a standard Joe Blow house of my own, and I don’t get, you know, summer weekends and stuff, they just fly right by me. I don’t have time for, I’m amazed at it. DANIEL FRAZIER MR. FRAZIER-That’s where the six kids come in handy. MR. VALENTINE-Well good . I could see a concern for density just looking at it. There’s a formula, but I think the only thing you can base it upon, has there been a past history where this formulation has been a problem. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I’m not aware of that, but as Laura pointed out our history isn’t complete. I mean we haven’t see a lot of new, you know, I mean usually as she said there’s usually existing , some existing vegetation there and for the most part it’s modified. MR. VALENTINE-Well there’s a lot of grading on this site. So you don’t have any choice but to plant new stuff. MR. TRAVER-Right, and I don’t know, either, what information was included in the development of the guideline or the code. I mean I would think that they would have someone that knows more than I about plants to come up with a specific formula. So my sense, again, is, all things being equal, I would say go 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) with something that’s compliant, but what do members of the Board feel, that we should go with an alternate? Yes? MR. MAGOWAN-Being a perennial guy, and my wife always reminds me, you know, it’s too much, but at the time when you put them in they’re all small, and then when they start to take off, it is, it becomes too much. And then, you know, the next thing you know you’re taking and replacing . That’s a lot, and with the front. So I don’t have a problem with the recommendation. If he’s saying it’s too much, I agree with him, because I’m constantly splitting my perennials because, you know, I’ve just overcrowded them, and they do, they don’t work well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well the biggest difference between the recommended and the compliant plant is the number of shrubs. If you’re going from 320 to 300 perennials, that’s not that much of a reduction. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the shrubs are the same thing, I mean the perennials and the shrubs. I’m talking all planting. MR. WINTERS-Shrubs are generally woody plants. MR. HUNSINGER-And it looks like most of them are up closer to the lake. MR. WINTERS-Correct. So it is about getting that close to the lake itself, but I think there’s challenges there also as well with the shoreline a that’s in place there already. So it’ll be very, it’ll be a lot more hand work in getting planting in there certainly. MR. TRAVER-So, Chris, is it your sense that you could accept the recommendation? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was just pointing out where the significant difference was. It’s mostly in the shrubs. One tree and 20 out of 300 perennials. MR. DIXON-Is there a particular species that you’re going for? MR. WINTERS-No, we’ve tried to disseminate it amongst the collection of shrubs that we’re proposing, and if the desire is to have a little bit more balance, we could certainly look at the plan and achieve more balance in the mix if we could still move towards a recommended planting plan. We certainly wouldn’t mind taking a swing at that. MR. TRAVER-So would you be comfortable going with the recommendation of the landscaper? MR. DIXON-The 10 trees, 80s shrubs and 300 perennials? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s the alternate. MR. DIXON-I would be. MR. TRAVER-John? MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And it sounds like you would be, Chris. Okay. Well I can support that. MR. DIXON-Do we want that spelled out at 10 trees, 80 shrubs and 300 perennials? MR. TRAVER-Yes, we probably should be specific. MRS. MOORE-You can just use the plan sheet number. MR. TRAVER-So landscape 3.11 to be used for the landscaping. Okay. Anything else? All right. Then I think we’ll be ready for a motion shortly. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 81-2019 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a new 4,915 sq. ft. footprint of a 14,240 sq. ft. floor area single family home. Project includes site work for a 500 sq. ft. bunkhouse, 315 sq. ft. gazebo, and 360 sq. ft. porte-cochere. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and shoreline buffer plantings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) 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 12/19/2019 and continued the public hearing to 02/18/2020, 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 02/18/2020; 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 81-2019 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) The landscape drawing L-3.11 will be used for the landscape plan. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the record, in my conversations with the neighbor, I th sent the neighbor an e-mail on February 12 at 4:15 p.m. and it specified the specifications of the driveway that the Fraziers are going to construct. So I would want that to be part of the record, and I’ll give Laura a copy of it. I didn’t copy it to her beforehand. It spelled out the width of the roadway, the width of the pavement and the depth of the pavement. MR. TRAVER-So it’s the neighbor’s property. MR. O'CONNOR-It is presently our property. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MRS. MOORE-Right. So it is to be, in our mind right now it’s considered part of the entire project. at a later date the applicant’s doing a lot line adjustment that has nothing to do with this project, but right now as part of the project it exists on this property. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-At a later date it’ll be moved over. If the applicant wishes to enter that information about the road depth and type of road material, that can be entered as part of the record for the applicant to submit. I don’t necessarily think it needs to be part of the resolution. MR. O'CONNOR-I told the neighbor I would. MR. TRAVER-All right, and so it is. It’s part of the record. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s shown on the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-So you said there’ll be a lot line adjustment later. Won’t that come up at that time? MRS. MOORE-No, because if both lots remain at the correct acreage, it does not necessarily come back before this Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it’s of the dimension that Craig can approve of it as an administrative. MR. VALENTINE-It’s an administrative. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we’re clear on that. Thank you, Laura. And thank you, Mike. Any other comments on the motion? Maria, can we have the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda is APEX Capital, LLC, which I mentioned earlier is going to be tabled th from tonight until a week from tonight on the 25. We are awaiting some additional information. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. APEX CAPITAL, LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A LANDSCAPE ARCH. DPC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC/MDR. LOCATION: 59 WEST MT. ROAD (MAIN); 47 & 53 WEST MT. RD. (PARKING). (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 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. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-2002 CREATE 2 NONCONFORMING LOTS, SP 22-2008 ADDITIONS & DECK, SP 34-2011 ALPINE SLIDE & ZIP FLYER, SP 61-2011 SHED ADDITION; SP 60-2018; PZ 584- 2019 RE-ZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 382.34. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2 315.5-1-2. SECTION: 179-3-040. MR. TRAVER-And I think we can make a simple tabling motion. We don’t have a draft but we can kind of wing it. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the February 25th, 2020 Planning Board meeting. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to the next section of our agenda, which is under Planning Board recommendations to the ZBA, and the first item is Thomas Heinzelman, Site Plan 8-2020. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 8-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. THOMAS HEINZELMAN. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 52 REARDON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 740 SQ. FT. HOME AND 715 SQ. FT. PORCHES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME – 1,510 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 2,604 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SITE WORK INCLUDES GRADING, NEW WELL AND NEW SEPTIC (SEPTIC ON ADJOINING PROPERTY). PROJECT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SHORELINE PLANTING AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY AND SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26-2004 DECK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .30 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-19. SECTION: 179-3-040. LUCAS DOBIE & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to remove the existing 740 square foot home and 715 square feet of porches for the construction of a new home which is 1,510 square feet footprint and 2,604 square feet of floor area. The relief that they’re requesting from the Zoning Board is permeability for the lot and then setbacks for the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, again, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. At the table with us is Curt Dybas our architect on the project and Thomas Heinzelman, the landowner who’s project is pretty near and dear to my heart, quite frankly, as he was the Athletic Director when I was in high school in Hudson Falls. We’ve known each other for 25 years and it’s kind of come full circle and we’re almost neighbors here.. It’s a stone’s throw from where I live. I’ve been working on and off with this throughout the fall fine tuning the design and I’m very happy with an efficient house design that meets the floor area ratio and meets our sides and front setback. Where we’re asking for relief is from the shoreline to the deck which Mr. Heinzelman received a variance in 2004 to construct the deck that is there currently at 38 feet. So our logic was to hold to that 38 feet with our new deck and bring the house to the compliant 50 feet. So he would still have a nice lakeside deck for his family and patio below and a one car garage, and again, we’re compliant with the zoning aside from the permeability which I’m sure as you’ve seen is very common around Glen Lake with these smaller lots to not be able to meet the 75% green space. We’re only increasing the site coverage by 465 square feet. So we’re comfortable that it’s not an extravagant or unreasonable proposal by any means. Providing a new well down by the shore where right now he has a dug well in the driveway approximately 30 to 40 feet from a cess pool. So those two features are, bathing only in the current situation. Those two are going away with a new drilled well down by the shore and a new compliant absorption bed on the southerly parcel which Mr. Heinzelman is a partner in as well. They’re all agreeable. Everybody’s working together on the project is my understanding and we’re providing stormwater mitigation as well because there’s a fair amount of water that comes down their driveway and for the most part it goes right to the lake. We’re very, again, comfortable with the design. It’s a nice wide lot. At the shore it’s 59 foot of frontage. So we’ll have a little room to work here which is nice. We’re here to answer any questions and ask for your zoning recommendation. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. So the deck that’s being proposed does require a variance, but there is a prior deck that was essentially the same setback and did receive a variance at some point in the past. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MR. DOBIE-That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DIXON-You mentioned the lot to the south that’s a shared lot. Is there any modifications to that at all or it’s just standing right on the build site? MR. DOBIE-There’s no changes as far as surface coverages or boundary line adjustment or anything like that, sir. They will convey an easement, the three partners, an easement for the installation of the septic to this lot which we’ve done on several other ones around Glen Lake. MR. SHAFER-So it will be a formal easement. MR. DOBIE-It will be. It will not be a true boundary line adjustment. MR. SHAFER-I noticed you used one to five minutes per inch in the septic design, but I didn’t see any perc test date on the plans. Did I miss that? MR. DOBIE-No, you didn’t miss it. That’s because of our winter conditions we didn’t get it done in the fall. We’ve done, frankly, probably 10 or 15 within a quarter mile of here so we know our soils. It’s the Glen Lake cobbly sand where you have more cobble than sand. MR. SHAFER-So you’re comfortable with one to five? MR. DOBIE-I’m very comfortable with that. That’s frankly why a lot of these old cess pools are still working after 50 years because of the course soils. It just flows right down through. MR. TRAVER-So tonight we’re here for the permeability and setbacks. Are there any other questions or comments from the Planning Board in terms of a referral to the ZBA? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s interesting is they’re here for a variance on permeability and it’s less permeable than the existing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I certainly don’t have any issues with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well if there are no concerns to be raised in our referral, then we can go ahead with our draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 5-2010 THOMAS HEINZELMAN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing home 740 sq. ft. home and 715 sq. ft. porches for construction of a new home - 1,510 sq. ft. footprint and 2,604 sq. ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, new well and new septic (septic on adjoining property). Project proposes additional shoreline planting area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for permeability and setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN. Introduced by Michael Dixon 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 18 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Board. MR. TRAVER-So the next application also under ZBA referrals is Sam Bhatti, Site Plan 5-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 547 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE AN EXISTING “QUALITY INN” TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING 288 SQ. FT. PORCH TO CREATE A SUNROOM OFF OF NATATORIUM (ENCLOSED POOL). ALSO IS A NEW 240 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH TO REAR OF THE BUILDING FOR GUESTS. THE EXISTING SITE HAS TWO LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SHARE PARKING AND ACCESS TO AVIATION ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK AND FAR. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-2003, AV 85-2002, AV 55-2002 HOTEL; SP 1-2011, AV 3-2011 CANOPY; SP 82-2019, MANY OTHERS WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 2.19 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51. SECTION: 179-3-040. SAM BHATTI, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to add additions to the Quality Inn. One addition is a 288 square foot porch which is to create a sunroom off the existing enclosed swimming pool, and then the other addition is a 240 square foot covered porch to the rear of the building for the guests. Relief is requested for setbacks and then also for floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Tell us about your project. MR. BHATTI-Behind the pool, there’s a color picture there, there’s an existing deck there. So I’m just covering it up to make the pool area, so people are sitting there covered and make a sunroom there so the sun comes in. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BHATTI-The backside of the building I’m proposing a 12 by 20 deck. People mostly smoke outside in the back and they don’t have anything there. So I put a table there and I thought it was a good idea to build a deck there, a covered deck so they can smoke. That’s like where the smoking area is, because the hotel is non-smoking and they’re going to smoke in the front, so they come in the backside. So I’m proposing that one, and a 12 by 20 deck covered to build there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And what we’re looking at this evening is the setback and the floor area ratio for the variance that they’re seeking. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-Specific to the variance I don’t have questions , but just a note, when I was looking at the plans, it looks like a very flat roof that’s going to be going on there. I know we don’t necessarily have to talk about that tonight, but. MR. BHATTI-It’s going to be pitched. MR. MAGOWAN-A shed roof. They call it a shed roof. MR. TRAVER-A little bit of a pitch. Any other questions regarding the variance request from members of the Board? Any concerns to pass along to the ZBA? MR. SHAFER-Not on the variance, Mr. Chairman, but, Sam, it looks like you’re going to use the concrete footings for the deck and just build up? MR. BHATTI-This one is the pool. This is one deck which is already existing there. I’m covering and making a porch there, a covered porch. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MR. SHAFER-You’re going to cover this. MR. BHATTI-But the back of the building, this one will have a concrete. MR. SHAFER-My question has to do with the footings under the deck. I see concrete sonotubes. Will you be using the same ones for the addition? MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. SHAFER-It doesn’t look, from the drawings, like they go below the frost line. Do they go below the frost line? There were no dimensions on the drawings. MR. BHATTI-Gary designed everything. MR. SHAFER-I’m sorry, what did he tell you? MR. BHATTI-He told me he was going to go with the building truss and also with the existing footage. MR. SHAFER-So he must have confirmed that they go below the frost line, the concrete pillars? MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Because they should. MR. BHATTI-Yes, they are. That’s what he told me and that’s what I have. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other variance concerns? All right. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 3-2020 AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to update an existing “Quality Inn” to enclose an existing 288 sq. ft. porch to create a sunroom off of natatorium (enclosed swimming pool). Also is a new 240 sq. ft. covered porch to rear of the building for guests. The existing site has two lodging establishments that share parking and access to Aviation Road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback 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. 3-2020 AFTAB BHATTI. Introduced by Michael Dixon 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 18day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. BHATTI-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. The next section of our agenda is under New Business, and the first application under New Business is William Rudenko, Site Plan 7-2020. NEW BUSINESS: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) SITE PLAN NO. 7-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM RUDENKO. OWNER(S): JAMES VALASTRO. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 982 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING 20’ X 20’ SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND TO A 30’ X 20’ SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND TENT FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD STARTING WITH 2020. PRODUCE STAND IS TO OPERATE SEASONALLY JUNE TO OCTOBER. PROJECT SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING RESTAURANT TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PRODUCE STAND MODIFICATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 60-2012 RESTAURANT; PZ 75-2016 PRODUCE STAND. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2020. LOT SIZE: 2.74 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-9. SECTION: 179-3-040. WILLIAM RUDENKO, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to modify the existing seasonal produce stand from a 20 by 20 tent structure to a 30 by 20 tent structure and a new start to his five year clock, starting in 2020 to operate between June and October. The applicant has obtained permission from the property owner to have his produce stand. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. RUDENKO-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board members. My name is William Rudenko and I am a partner in Bull Hill Farm along with my wife and we have a prior approval from the Planning Board, Site Plan approval, to run our produce stand with a 20 by 20 canopy, but we did want to increase it due to mounting competition in the area. Other than that, we’ve been there four years. We’ve had great success with the owner, the tourists who come through the area and all of the local residence, they frequent us quite often. A lot of repeat business. No problems with ingress or egress from 149 or 9. Safe, but we just want to come in one year earlier just so that we can upgrade our canopy to add a bigger product line and bigger displays because we sell our produce so fast our tables look empty like this when it comes to selling cucumbers and peaches sometimes. So with a little more table space our displays would be attractive and appealing to those people who do pull off the road to trade with us I guess. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. RUDENKO-Any questions I can answer, concerns? MR. VALENTINE-Will the tent stay up overnight? MR. RUDENKO-Yes. It’s permanent and it’s placed there for 14 to 16 weeks depending on the length of the season. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you’ve been there for some time. The only difference in this is an updated 10 foot extension. MR. RUDENKO-Ten by ten foot enlargement. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any questions from members of the Planning Board? We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone that wanted to discuss this application with the Planning Board? I don’t see anyone. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any concerns with the five year renewal, or obviously the increase in the size of the canopy? All right. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 7-2020 WILLIAM RUDENKO The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to modify an existing 20’ x 20’ seasonal produce stand to a 30’ x 20’ seasonal produce stand tent for a five year period starting with 2020. Produce stand is to operate seasonally June to October. Project site contains an existing restaurant to remain with 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) no changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, produce stand modification 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 02/18/2020 and continued the public hearing to 02/18/2020, 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 02/18/2020; 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 7-2020 WILLIAM RUDENKO, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. RUDENKO-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have Hudson Headwaters Health Network, Site Plan 10- 2020. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK. AGENT(S): MJ ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 27 CAREY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE THE EXISTING MAIN BUILDING IS TO BE CONVERTED TO OFFICE SPACE AND THE WAREHOUSE SPACE TO BE ENCLOSED FOR HEATED STORAGE. PROJECT IS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING HUDSON HEADWATERS COMPLEX FACILITY ON ADJACENT PROPERTY. SITE WORK INCLUDES CLEARING, NEW PARKING, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER AREAS AND SIDEWALKS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REUSE OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: CC-310- 2015 NEW OFFICE, CC-490-2016 OFFICE ALT., PZ-257-2016 FENCE, SP 45-2018 SHED. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2020. LOT SIZE: 1.70 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16- 2-2.2. SECTION: 179-3-040. JAIME EASTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to utilize two existing buildings where the existing main building is to be converted to office space and the warehouse space to be enclosed for heated storage. The project is associated with the existing Hudson Headwaters complex facility on the adjacent property. So there’s quite a bit of site work that connects it to the adjoining property of Hudson Headwaters. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MR. EASTON-Good evening, Board. My name is Jaime Easton. I’m with MJ Engineering. I’m here tonight to talk about Hudson Headwaters expansion. Due to their ever growing health care needs and meeting patient requirements they purchased 27 Carey Road, the existing two metal buildings. One is basically a three sided pole barn right now which is to the south on that drawing, and the north was an office space/indoor manufacturing or fit up space for stuff. The existing building that was really office space, we provided a floor plan by A Plus Architects, and elevation changes. Basically that’s going to be all converted to office space for that one building. The current three-sided basically I’ll call it a pole barn, open-sided, two bays will be closed off and heated. The other two bays, it was to my, I found out later on that they’re actually going to close those off, but they will not be heated. Okay. So those elevation drawings are correct. I know I made reference to that in the stormwater report and that was actually a good catch by someone that saw the difference between the two. Certainly we’ve received comments from Chazen and from the City engineer in regards to water connections because we are taking the existing building. Hudson Headwaters would like to sprinkler the building, even though it’s not required by Building Code. So the current engine has service that feeds this building or one in service that feeds the building. We’ll be taking that out and putting in a four inch service so that sprinklers can be installed and will be installed inside the building. Part of Hudson Headwaters’ overall complex her, obviously if you look at some of the other aerial images or the plans that we have, certainly they own the three other parcels that surround this, and their current parking for this, I think it’s called West 2, currently that parking lot, the fence that’s right there, it’s approximately like three, four feet away. It’s not that far, and a lot of the doctors I guess park in the back, and the main parking field out in the front is where customers or patients go and enter the building. So due to the lack of space in the back side of the building, Hudson Headwaters Health Network wanted to increase available parking for their doctors and provide connectivity to basically the other sites to have flow between all sites. So we included the sidewalk coming up near their front entrance to their main building, another sidewalk and activity near the dumpster enclosures. Some of it right now if you’ve been there, you’ve kind of got to jog around the dumpster pads to get from one place to another and circulation isn’t the best. It wasn’t thought about as they built onto these things. So we’re trying to address some of the issues as we’re going through. Certainly for the office building that’s being converted we certainly have enough parking, but we over parked., We had some additional parking in the rear and that was because of their desire to add basically parking in the rear for additional doctors. As a complete side note, as part of the sewer district that was improved in this area, the existing buildings, as we show in our documents, the existing septic fields will be basically abandoned and will be connected to the existing low pressure sewer force main for their other three buildings that I’ll be taking care of and there was one light improvement near the main road due to a recent accident there. The light fixture wasn’t, they wanted to make sure that it was better lit at that location. So we’ve also added that information onto the drawings, even though we’re really talking about 27 Carey Road. We’re just showing the global impact of what Hudson Headwaters is proposing for this whole site., At this point I’ll turn it over to the Board and I’ll answer any general questions they may have. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, before we get started, I do have to add for full disclosure I work for a company that leases space from Hudson Headwaters. I can’t even tell you which building it’s in. So honestly there’s no conflict, but just for the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well you’ve disclosed that. Thank you very much. I agree there’s no conflict. I th have a question about the Chazen comments that we’ve received that’s dated February 14 and there are a number of items in there where they’re concerned about missing information or incomplete information I would say. One of them, Number Four, is speaking about the infiltration facility, flow conditions, including a remark that there may be additional site plan review if soil conditions as disclosed end up changing the infiltration design. Are you aware of that comment? MR. EASTON-Yes, I am aware of that comment. I understand where Chazen’s coming from. They’re kind of leaning towards the New York State DEC regulations and stormwater requirements that once you go over one acre on the project site there’s different requirements. I will agree with Chazen that there’s additional areas of disturbance that I should include in that to come up with that, but we still feel that we’ll be under one acre. The areas that, because the time of year that we did this we could not do the test pits for infiltration results, but we do have historical information when 27 Carey Road was designed and built. So the septic field which is right behind this right here, there’s a bunch of existing test pit data that was already performed and I used that same percolation rate as the infiltration basin is 30 feet away from it, and that same assumed rate to the south. With that I also assumed in the stormwater report a safety factor and so I included the safety factor above that which is not required. So again to provide a buffer area at least to ensure that everything infiltrates. We did follow the requirement that 10% of the bottom of the area go to four foot below for infiltration below the frost line. We did all those requirements but we don’t have the additional test pits. We can certainly do those test pits, but I don’t think it’s going to change the design. Certainly the soil infiltration rates here compared to other documents that are surrounding the site and certainly from doing Stewart’s just down the road, the stormwater engineer for Stewart’s and that project, those results are typically the same as these results here. I don’t expect it to change. It’s all sand. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MR. TRAVER-I mention it primarily because there are three or four items where there’s a concern, in their opinion, that there’s incomplete information. That sounds like you’re confident you can come to an accommodation. MR. EASTON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You need to have engineering signoff obviously. MR. EASTON-I would totally agree, yes. I think, you know, what needs to happen is I need to come up with a response letter, provide Chazen with additional information for clarity purposes, and then they can look at this and then agree with my assertion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. MR. VALENTINE-Jaime, just a broad stroke on this I’m looking at. We have really four buildings here, sort of in three different areas. Right? So 161 there are two buildings, there are two, it’s like a connection of a bunch of them. 161, is the only thing going on there pavement improvements at 161? MR. EASTON-161, yes, the only area of pavement improvements on 161 is to the existing handicap parking stalls out in front. The porous pavement out there has failed, and basically has caused puddles in the front so as the handicap people get out of their cars they’/re standing in puddles to go into the facility. So they want that to be changed. So we’re installing drywells only for those two locations. We pitched the pavement in that area and made that all work. So we’ll have a little disturbance area, getting back to Chazen’s letter, you know, for that. So I need to account for that, but that’s the only pavement improvements on 161. MR. VALENTINE-And there is a force main going in to 161 also. Right? MR. EASTON-That is correct. So the low pressure grinder pump lines that we’ll install, they’re all directionally drilled so there’s no pavement disturbance or any ground disturbance because it’s an inch and a quarter line. You can directionally drill up to about 300 linear feet of inch and a quarter line without any problems before you have a receiving pit. MR. VALENTINE-That was sort of where I was going to. You’re doing a push underneath, then. MR. EASTON-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. EASTON-I’m pushing the whole thing. MR. VALENTINE-And the areas where you show pavement changes and stuff, there was nothing in there for pavement changes where the force mains were. MR. EASTON-That is correct. MR. VALENTINE-Then the only other work is at 27, and that is, as you mentioned, again, force main, new water connection, and milling and paving. MR. EASTON-That is correct. MR. VALENTINE-There’s nothing done to the southerly building except for enclosing that one side? MR. EASTON-Yes, that is correct. MR. VALENTINE-All right, and that seems to be the weak sister as far as the landscaping plan goes. There’s nothing on that compared to the one to the north. I know it’s only a garage or storage, but, so it’s sort of like the weak link there. MR. EASTON-Certainly I can bring it back, we could add some landscaping to it. Certainly the tree line and everything else around the building, certainly could we add more, I’ll call it landscaping on this periphery right around here. MR. VALENTINE-Well, that’s your snow storage. You marked that and you marked the other one to the north as snow storage, but there’s a tremendous loss for the parking area, tremendous loss of whatever type of that vegetation. So I was just looking at those southerly two buildings saying there’s nothing really there to say, okay, we’re taking this as garage, sorry, you don’t get any landscaping. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MR. EASTON-Certainly the major, the whole front area in here is all large pine trees. So to put bushes or shrubs in there, they’re just going to die. So there’s really no light underneath the canopy that we would really look at for placing in the front. The trees that are going to be taken down, I’m kind of highlighting this area, is between the existing wood fence and approximately 20 to 30 feet back here where there’s trees in there where the trees will be taken down, but the rest of it is all currently pavement out there to begin with. So if there’s additional landscaping, our landscape architect would love to add more stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-So what happened to the porous pavement? MR. EASTON-The porous pavement, there’s lots of factors that can go in to make it fail. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. EASTON-I’m not going to go into the history of why it failed and things like that, but typically the problem is education and making sure that the proper people know the proper things you need to do. So for example you can only use true salt. You can’t use a salt and sand mixture because that clogs the pores. So if the maintenance guy doesn’t tell the snow plow operator to do that, then it causes problems, and maybe in his contract he said I’m going to use a salt and sand mixture so it clogs the pores. Well then you’re supposed to vacuum it also about four times a year. Did Hudson Headwaters know about that? The larger issue why 161 Carey failed is more to do with the grade and pitch of it. Certainly the design of that parking lot, it’s generally what you try to do with a normal parking lot, you try to sheet flow it away from the building. There’s still, there’s a high point in the center that kind of drains it towards the building, and they were anticipating that all porous pavement, all the water would sink through the pavement before it got to the curb line, but what happened is as that pavement has since not been maintained properly, it’s now migrating towards those handicap parking stalls and then it’s getting the sediment load to those locations, preventing it going through. So there is a place in the design, but you also as an engineer have to design it in a way that if it does fail due to lack of maintenance, lack of education, you need to make sure it goes some place to a normal facility, but most times up in the northeast I don’t particularly like porous pavement, even though it’s a very nice idea. You’ve got a lot of sand, you can move the stormwater to a location and you can get it to infiltrate very efficiently or an underground raised system. There’s ways to do it without compromising the inevitable problems that you could potentially come with in the sense of human error, whether that’s using the right plow blade because you use a steel plow blade on it, you just rip up the pavement. So there’s lots of little things like that that you can have a porous pavement. It’s a great idea, but again, it’s for the right location for the right things. MR. HUNSINGER-I was on that site not long after it was put in. I mean it was really beautiful. We were there in the pouring rain and you stepped out of your car and it’s dry. I mean it was really neat. So I’m sorry to hear that it didn’t work out so well. MR. EASTON-Again, typically the porous pavement works great. It’s all about the maintenance and education of that and understanding what’s really required and then relaying that down the chain of command and making sure that they all have that, and it’s tough as an engineer. You typically want to design things as failsafe so if that fails it can go someplace else, and then those things just come into play. MR. VALENTINE-So your mill and fill is going to be standard. MR. EASTON-Yes. So everything that we’re showing here is the standard asphalt. That’s what they wanted. We’re milling the front area right in, you know, this existing parking lot, removing a little bit of pavement, but we’re milling that because there is a low spot directly right in front of, right about there there’s a low spot an it’s shown on our survey plan that water gathers right there so that’s where I’m putting in a drywell. That’s one of actually Chazen’s comments. They’re like you’re putting in a drywell and you’re saying that no stormwater leaves the site because it doesn’t. Everything just goes to that low spot. After it spreads out and goes into the tree area a little bit and it infiltrates right there. It literally moves 10 feet and just infiltrates, but there’s little things like that they want us to fix and correct. So it’s tough to make the pavement move where you want it to go so you’ve got to mill and fill a little bit here. MR. MAGOWAN-Back on the parking lot, every time I was in there, you know, it looked like the stones were always coming up and it really, due to the tight radius parking lot , people backing up, turning the wheels, not moving, you know, and the sharp corners, does that have some effect, too? MR. EASTON-It absolutely does. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, a straight road or something that you’re moving, that’s great. I mean you look at the Beach Road. You don’t have the problem there. That’s a little different site. This is a little courser, but I notice on the hot summer days there, especially, you know, the big tires, the vehicles. I have a dually and going around the corner sometimes. MR. EASTON-So typically the rule of thumb that we normally try to use is when you use porous pavement you typically want to put it in the parking stall areas only. The main traveling you still want as standard 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) pavement. Sometimes the contractors generally don’t like doing that because they’re bringing in different things and it’s just tough for them to do. So that’s why it just drives up costs, and it’s all these other little things, but you are correct, pavement, snow plowing, everything else you start taking up the pavement and then you see the snow pile with 10,000 pieces of aggregate in it, and then that’s just really wearing down your, wearing labor, and that’s a problem. I’ve also seen in other communities where people forgot that there’s porous pavement and then they want the parking lot re-striped, and that happens a lot, but what also they do when they typically re-stripe is sealcoat. So they sealcoat it and then they just, and stop it from there. So I’ve also seen that and someone asked me, ii have a drainage problem and I’ve walked out there and looked at it and said you have a sealcoat problem. That’s what you did. So some of those little, again, inherent errors that people do over time. They don’t think it’s a big deal. Again you hire someone to do something because, and they just don’t know the engineering. So there’s an educational problem. So, like I said, most of the time I try to stay away from it as an engineer because there’s too many inherent errors that could possibly go wrong. MR. DIXON-May I ask you a question on the lighting plan? MR. EASTON-Sure. MR. DIXON-So on Page C-9, so on the lighting plan, which looks fantastic, I’m just curious, I guess it would be on the west side, there’s two handicap parking spots, but according to this plan there’s no light there. MR. EASTON-We didn’t simulate, there is a light on the front of the building. We can simulate that, to light that up. That’s easy enough. We’ll provide that, and if it doesn’t provide enough we’ll change out the wall pack because obviously the electrical is right there and we just have to change it out from, I’m just going to make up a number here, from a 50 watt lightbulb to a 100 watt lightbulb, just to make it simple, but it will be downcast and everything else. MR. DIXON-Is that anything we have to identify, then, Laura, or is that? MRS. MOORE-If you notice the pole light issue, I identified that it’s pretty bright compared to what we see for an office area, but I know that the lot is in the rear of Carey Industrial Park. So I don’t know if there was a detail of that, why it was so bright versus what we suggest as a guidance, which is that one for a small office, between 4.27 and 7.18. So it’s tripled. MR. EASTON-Yes. Certainly it’s high because we’re using the existing light pole bases to light up the whole parking lot on both sides. So now you’re having two heads within realistically five feet, three feet from each other. So the foot candles at the bottom of it are very intense, but we can also look at, very simple. LED lights now come with dimmer switches. You can dim them down and just reduce down electrical demand and reduce down the power. So that’s something that we can easily add to it. So we have no problem doing that. We saw that in your comments and it was one of the items we can easily address. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments>? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-How do members of the Board feel on this application? We have, the applicant has offered to submit some additional information. I don’t know if we need to see that before we move on this? MR. DIXON-I’d be okay either way. I have to say Hudson Headwaters does a beautiful job with their properties, maintaining them. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-The additional light back there, I mean since it is a wooded lot, I don’t see an issue with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then I guess we’re comfortable moving forward. Okay. Very good. Then we’re ready to entertain a motion. MR. VALENTINE-Did you close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Did I? I’m sorry. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 10-2020 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to utilize two existing buildings where the existing main building is to be converted to office space and the warehouse space to be enclosed for heated storage. Project is associated with existing Hudson Headwaters complex facility on adjacent property. Site work includes clearing, new parking, landscaping, stormwater areas and sidewalks. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, reuse of commercial buildings 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 02/18/2020 and continued the public hearing to 02/18/2020, 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 02/18/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 10-2020 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 18 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/18/2020) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. EASTON-Thank you, Board. MR. TRAVER-So that concludes our agenda. Laura, you mentioned the possibility of having three meetings next month. MRS. MOORE-Right. So there were two applications on your agenda that will be removed from your agenda next week, which would be Heinzelman and Bhatti. At the ZBA level the Post Star didn’t advertise correctly. So we actually have to move those two particular applications to a different night in March. So with that in mind I had four other applications for the Zoning Board that got bumped to a March meeting. So we tentatively have 3/30 or 3/31. So if you could check your calendars or if you know, one’s a Monday and one’s a Tuesday, that we would have a third meeting in March., MR. TRAVER-Now I had for some reason, and maybe I wrote it down incorrectly, but I had, as a proposed th potential third meeting in March, the 26. MRS. MOORE-Correct. It’s a Thursday, and Thursday this room is used. . We didn’t win out. thst MR. TRAVER-All right. So you’re suggesting either the 30 or the 31. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. So if folks could look at that and then we would vote on that next week. MRS. MOORE-Next Tuesday. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else before the Board tonight? Then I guess we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY TH 18, 2020, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 18rh day of February, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 22