The URL can be used to link to this page

07-21-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 16-2019 Alex & Michelle Wilcox 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 278.20-1-3 TEMP. MORATORIUM Ground Mounted Solar 3. TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 18-2020 Frederick & Linda McKinney 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.16-1-13 Site Plan No. 21-2020 David Hartman 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Site Plan No. 23-2020 Mary Harris & Anne Walsh 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.7-1-23 Site Plan No. 22-2020 Ran Saunders Property Development, LLC 11. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-28 Site Plan No. 27-2020 The Spa Studio Adirondacks 16. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-23 Site Plan No. 28-2020 Price Chopper 18. Tax Map No. 302.10-1-7 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting st for Tuesday, July 21, 2020. This is our first meeting for the month of July, our eighth meeting for the year, and our fourth meeting under the COVID Pandemic constraints. If you have a phone or electronic device, please silence the ringer or turn it off so it will not bother us during our meeting. In the event of an emergency, please observe the illuminated exit lights. That will be our way out, and for those observing the meeting on the Town YouTube channel, we will be taking public comment. I believe there’s three applications this evening for which we will have public comment, and note the number, please of 518-761- 8225 if you wish to comment via the phone line. That will be the number, and I will be reminding people when we get to the public hearing on those applications. We have a few administrative items to begin th with this evening. The first being approval of minutes for our May 27, 2020 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th May 27, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: st Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have a request for a one year extension for Site Plan 16-2019, Alex & Michelle Wilcox. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-They did include with their request a letter. Laura, did you want to discuss that? MRS. MOORE-So they’re not able to build this year so they’re asking you for that extension, with the COVID and their expecting. So they’re request an extension for a year. I think that’s a reasonable request. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’re having a baby, what is it in October or something? MRS. MOORE-In October it sounds like. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions, comments on their request for a one year extension? We have a draft motion for that. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE YR. EXTENSION SP # 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: (Revised) Applicant proposes construction of a 2,616 sq. ft. single family home with 477 sq. ft. of porches and associated site work. The house to be constructed is located within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The site includes grading, lot clearing for house, septic and well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction occurring within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 16-2019 on August 20, 2019. Applicant requests a one year extension. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: st Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. We also have, the Town Board is extending or re-enacting the six month moratorium on the ground based, ground mounted solar energy systems, and they sent us some information on that and they’re looking for whether we have a favorable or unfavorable opinion on that moratorium request. Discussion? I know they’ve been working on crafting some laws governing these systems and I think that they are, and, Laura, would you like to clarify or comment? MRS. MOORE-Just that the only thing you’re acting on in the recommendation is the Local Law itself, not the actual, the resolution to enact the moratorium, not the Local Law itself, only the zoning code language. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The result of which would be a six month moratorium on these systems. Okay. MR. SHAFER-I would just have a question on what drove the six months? I mean with the importance of solar panels and our energy future on so on, I notice there’s language in here about sooner if the Town Board can do it. Is there any? MR. TRAVER-Yes, well this is narrowly focused on the ground mounted systems, and I think it was initiated because a year or so ago there was a resident of the Town that woke up one morning, and I may be exaggerating, but basically found that there was a ground mounted solar system right next to his property line and he found that to be problematic and brought it to the attention of the Town and there were no regulations regarding, I guess, or they didn’t address the situation. So the Town agreed, and I’m paraphrasing a lot of people here, but basically my understanding is that they recognized that this was something that they wanted to address, and I know there’s been some discussion about what a law possibly allowing such systems might be, but in the meantime, and until they get all of that ironed out, they want to put a moratorium, not a ban, but a moratorium for a period of time to allow them to further review that situation, and this applies only to ground mounted systems, not the more common. MR. SHAFER-I understand all the background. My question had to do with the six month, whether there’s, do we know what drives the six months of the moratorium? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don’t know. Do you have any information? MRS. MOORE-I would just say it’s a standard request, six months. It sounds like they could do it sooner than that, but at the moment it’s enacted for a six month period. MR. SHAFER-Yes, as a matter of fact there’s language in here that says January or any earlier date that the Town Board adopts regulations. So I guess that leaves the door open for them to do it sooner. Which I would encourage. MR. HUNSINGER-I just think it’s important we get it right. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If it takes a little more time to do some research and get it right, it’s worth it. We have solar panels on our house. So I’m a supporter of it, and I don’t think waiting a couple of months is going to, I agree with you, but I don’t think it’s going to hurt. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-And again, it’s narrowly focused on the ground mounted systems. MR. MAGOWAN-Correct. We’re not going all over. It’s just for the ground mounted, and we have certain setbacks for sheds and other additions and that. So I mean getting the wording correctly is right. So I don’t have a problem with extending it six months as a moratorium for the ground mounts. MR. TRAVER-I know that right up until very recently they were trying to craft language that might, you know, might work. So it’s not something they’re not dealing with. They’re just putting off, they’re working on it. They’re just looking for more time. Okay. Is there any other discussion before we vote? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: MORATORIUM GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: ___ of 2020 entitled, "A Local Law to Reenact and Reestablish Temporary Moratorium on Installation of Ground- Mounted Solar Energy Systems” which Law shall authorize a temporary moratorium on the installation of ground-mounted solar energy systems located within all Town of Queensbury Zoning Districts through th January 20, 2021 or any earlier date that the Town Board adopts regulations relating to installation of ground-mounted solar energy systems, whichever date comes first, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this Local Law, Now, therefore, be it resolved, that we find the following: MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR MORATORIUM REQUEST; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we can move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda being Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first applicant on that portion of the agenda is Frederick & Linda McKinney, Site Plan 18-2020, and for applicants and representatives speaking to us this evening, if you could, when you’re finished, if you would use the applied materials and sterilize the microphone for the next speaker. Thank you. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 18-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FREDERICK & LINDA MCKINNEY. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 23 MASON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION OF 430 SQ. FT. THAT IS 860 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA AND TO RAISE THE ROOF LINE OF A PORTION OF THE HOME, TO CREATE A FULL SECOND STORY FOR MECHANICAL, SITTING AREA, BATHROOMS AND BEDROOMS AND A NEW ADDITION FOR GARAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 7-2000, SP 13-2000 SUNDECK; 98692-7193 STORAGE BUILDING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LG PARK, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .75 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-13. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. JON LAPPER & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. Fred and Didi McKinney are here. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, Jon. Let me ask Laura, I apologize. Let me ask Laura to introduce the application. MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a two story addition of 430 square feet which is 860 square feet of floor area, as well as to raise the roofline of a portion of the home, 46 by 24, to create a full second story for mechanical, sitting area. The new addition second floor is for bathrooms and bedrooms. The first floor of the new addition is for the garage. In addition there is a porch to be added that’s also explained on the drawing. The variances that are being requested is the north setback where 12.9 feet is proposed where a 20 foot setback is required. The permeability decreases to 71.9% where a 75% permeability is required, existing is 72.8%. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I’m sorry, Jon, go ahead. MR. LAPPER-Fred and Didi are here, as well as Luke Dobie from Hutchins Engineering. So I’ll make some comments and then I’ll ask Luke to come up and walk you through the specific variances. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-In general they’ve owned the property for 24 years, since ’96, and then the site itself has been there since the 40’s with the sea wall. I think that the Zoning Board’s not going to have a problem with the variances. They’re relatively minor. They’re only going out to the footprint of the building and going up to have a real second floor knee wall, a better garage. This is their permanent year round home, a better entrance area and a fireplace. These are all important tweaks for them but not a lot of square foot. Just making an older home nicer, year round. The issue I think for you is, on the shoreline, now there’s a requirement of 35 feet of vegetation, and this is kind of a unique property on the shoreline. The house is only about 40 feet from the seawall. They have a boathouse, and then most interestingly what really attracted them to the property is this stairway that goes into the lake. I’m sure you were all there to see that. That’s what really got them interested in the property to begin with. So the idea of having to vegetate it, plus there’s a seawall that prevents anything from running off into the lake and really infiltrates from the flat ground. There’s plenty of trees to comply with the requirement, but their concern is just to take away the grass that’s been historical here, you know that lovely area in the backyard, that house is so close. That’s why they don’t want to do and that’s why we didn’t propose that. We hope we will get through tomorrow night and we’ll be back to talk to you about it in a week, but that’s the only thing unique about this application. With that, I’ll ask Lucas to come up and show you specifically what we’re asking for. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, and good evening, Board. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and pretty straightforward site plan from some of the other projects we’re used to, quite honestly. All the work is on the roadside. It’s proposed to not disturb beyond the rear plane of the home essentially. We’re proposing a 18 by 24 addition coming out from the base of where the garage sits today, primarily over the driveway area. So we’re only realizing a 305 square feet increase in impervious coverage on the site. So it’s quite a minimal increase in our opinion. Some of that increase is due to the new porch and then re- doing some lofts. Also proposed is an eaves trench along the eaves lines on the north and the south where none exists now. So we’re trying to mitigate runoff from the roof whenever feasible, and also with the requirements we’re proposing to upgrade the septic tank. So we’ll increase at least 250 gallons, overflow 50, where one exists now that’s 1,000 gallon. So we’ll accommodate that and Fred and I did look at the distribution box about two weeks ago, one of those nice hot days. The D box was clean. There was suitable sand in the field which is on the east side of Mason Road towards the boat storage building. Quite a bit of separation to the lake there. We did not encounter any signs of failure. So we’re comfortable with the system, especially with the new septic tanks and we’ll probably do a pump up grade. So again we’re just asking for our variance from the Zoning Board for the setbacks, the permeability and expansion of a non-conforming structure. And we’ll ultimately need your approval for the new floor area in the Waterfront Residential zone, and with that I’ll be happy to entertain any questions or Mr. Lapper can. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I really have is on the larger addition. It’s not going to be any wider than the existing frame of the house. Is it? Because you can’t really tell from the drawing. MR. DOBIE-That’s correct, Mr. Hunsinger. It’s taking the 24 foot wide garage and extending it 18 feet closer to Mason Road and extend the roof, raise the roof up with knee walls and a little bit flatter pitch to allow better upstairs area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I do have a comment. When I did a site visit out there, the homeowner did come out and talk with me, and it was an interesting project that they’re proposing. There’s a personal 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) aspect that I think is important to be mentioned here. So the concrete walkway that’s currently there, that’s being proposed to be removed, it was my understanding. A new walkway will be put in place which is more pavers is my understanding as well, and one of the reasons that concrete walkway will be removed, the water comes off of there in the springtime, early winter, and it becomes quite a hazard. I did look at it. The way it’s constructed, it’s interesting. In the North Country it doesn’t fit in very well, and the homeowners had expressed that they would like to possibly live out their remaining years in this place and would like it livable with access to the second floor. So I wanted to share that. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and which walkway are you referring to? MR. DIXON-So, if you’re looking at the floor plan, on the southern elevation, you’ll see a concrete walkway near the garage there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-It’s my understanding that that’s being removed, and the front porch is going to be taken off and moved more southerly. MR. DOBIE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. DIXON-It makes for better access, or I shouldn’t say better access, but it eliminates that hazard of the ice, freezing rain coming off that roof line and making that sidewalk slick. MR. DOBIE-Yes, and I appreciate you visiting the site and talking with Mr. McKinney and he apprised me that he is willing to do permeable pavers for that which will eliminate any of the, should eliminate any of the runoff coming off that stone sub base. I just showed it as concrete for simplicity, but they are willing to do the permeable pavers is my understanding. MR. DIXON-Because that would certainly work out better. MR. MAGOWAN-So with pulling the concrete out, you’re putting in the eaves splash trench I see, right? MR. DOBIE-That is correct, sir. MR. MAGOWAN-Now on the north side you’re keeping that concrete there. MR. DOBIE-That’s how I have it shown on the drawings, but based on our discussion now, if we’re going to put the permeable pavers in there. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re going to take out both sides. MR. DOBIE-That’s my understanding, especially on the north side, it doesn’t get any sun. There’d be some real benefit to that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that’s what I was going to say. If the rain comes off the south side and I’m thinking it’s even worse on the north side. MR. DOBIE-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I think that’s a good idea and I think that’s a good idea and I like the eaves splash trench there. MR. DEEB-Will that affect the permeability variance? MR. DOBIE-That will improve it because we have 50% credit. MR. DEEB-So we’re going to have to have a revised Site Plan? MR. LAPPER-We’ll recalculate it. MR. DOBIE-We’ll recalculate it. IT’s not going to be a tremendous amount. We’re proposing 180 square feet in additional walkways. So take 50% of that. So it’s, they’ll be reducing the variance request. MR. DEEB-So it’s a good thing. MR. DOBIE-We’re conservative on our calculations. MR. DEEB-That’s fine. I just want to make sure when you get back here with your Site Plan everything’s in order. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. DOBIE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments regarding the variances? So we mentioned, we touched very briefly on the buffer, the shoreline buffer and I know that this evening we’re speaking directly about the variances and you’ll be returning presumably at some point for Site Plan Review, but I do think that’s something that we need to consider. So right now it’s basically lawn and I understand, you know, we often hear from applicants their desire to enjoy the shoreline as it exists. I would just ask, and we’re not doing Site Plan tonight so we won’t get into a lot of detail, but I would just ask the applicant consider that the environmental needs have changed since the 40’s and we are looking to try to acknowledge, property owners to acknowledge that and help us protect the lake by the establishment of a buffer, particularly where none exists. MR. LAPPER-And we understand that. So we spoke with them tonight and there’s an area on the north side of the boathouse where we think it would be appropriate to do some low plantings in addition to the trees that are already there on the other side. So hopefully we’ll be back next week and we’ll have something to talk about. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-On the north side at least. MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay. So how do Board members feel with regard to the referral to the ZBA? Are we comfortable moving forward? Do we have specific items that we want to mention in our referral? They will be coming back for Site Plan. So really this evening we’re really just looking at the variances, not getting into a lot of the Site Plan details. Are we ready to move forward? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well we have a draft resolution in our packets. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 13-2020 MC KINNEY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two story addition of 430 sq. ft. that is 860 sq. ft. of floor area and to raise the roof line of a portion of the home, to create a full second story for mechanical, sitting area, bathrooms and bedrooms and a new addition for garage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability and expansion of non-conforming structure. 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. 13-2020 FREDERICK & LINDA MCKINNEY. 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. st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-See you next week. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-Next we have Site Plan 21-2020. This is David Hartmann. This is also under Recommendations to the ZBA. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DAVID HARTMANN. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 51 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 1,513.2 SQ. FT. HOME (FOOTPRINT) TO CONSTRUCT A 1,771.6 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,474.5 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER, LANDSCAPING, AND SEPTIC. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK, HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 71-2014, RC-0749-2019, 2010-275 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LG PARK, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .28 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-15. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to remove a 1,513.2 square foot home (footprint) and to construct a 1,771.6 square foot home, also the footprint. This includes 3,474.5 square feet of floor area. The new home to have a full basement area. A portion of that basement will be less than 5 square feet. So in reference to the variances being requested, for the shoreline setback where 52.65 is the required setback as the average of the two adjoining homes and 52.3 is proposed; side setback is 15 required and 6.2 feet is proposed for the north side and 13.1 foot on the south side; height where 28 ft. is the maximum and 30 ft. 4 ¼ inches is proposed; and floor area where 22% is the maximum is allowed and 28.12% is proposed. The applicant had a similar application in 2014 where the request for setbacks and floor area have been reduced in the current 2020 application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? I’m not seeing anyone. We did receive, was it yesterday? We did receive by e-mail some engineering comments on this application. Hopefully everybody had an opportunity to look at them. Laura is going to put them up on the screen. I noted with concern one of the initial comments from the engineer was that the Site Plan application was incomplete and therefore they were able to make little if any judgement on the site. I find that concerning. I was actually kind of surprised that it got on the agenda because normally if a Site Plan isn’t complete it doesn’t, but this is a plan that’s been in the system for some time. I don’t know how other Board members feel. I’m quite honestly and I guess obviously uncomfortable making a recommendation when the engineer says, you know, I don’t have enough information to comment on this, the concern being, of course, that there’s potential, maybe significant potential, for the engineer to make comments that result in a change in the plans and therefore potentially a change in the variances. So I feel as though we have, in effect, nothing in front of us. MR. DEEB-They aren’t here anyway. Are they? MR. TRAVER-Evidently the applicant is not here and the applicant is apparently representing himself and it may be there’s some anticipation. Laura, have you had any recent conversation? MRS. MOORE-I didn’t have any comments coming in from Mr. Hartmann. MR. DEEB-I don’t know how we can act on it. th MR. TRAVER-I do notice in his letter, and he wrote a cover letter, this is going back to the 16, and in the first full paragraph he says there was, I’m quoting here, “There was a misunderstanding regarding the need for full plans and the footprint on the original request.” I’m not sure why there would be a misunderstanding. I would, for the benefit of Mr. Hartmann, should he review this Board meeting at a later date, I would urge him to speak with Planning staff and seek out some assistance to clarify the need for full plans because I think the need is there, particularly. MRS. MOORE-I can give you a little bit of information. So when he did come in with a building permit, the plan that he provided was not the same as the plan that was reviewed, and so he misunderstood, didn’t understand that the type of building that he was proposing needed to match the same building that was reviewed, and that was under previous regulations. The new regulations indicate that you have to come in for the floor area, for Site Plan. He was here, again, with a Site Plan and Area Variance previously. We’ve had a new Code section added. So that in turn is part of the application requirement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I’ll look for comment from the Board. My sense would be that this application should be tabled and with the condition that the applicant contact the Town Planning Office and obtain instruction as to what is needed to submit to be reviewed. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that we asked Chazen to look at this information in a stormwater sense. So I understand there’s a comment about Site Plan but remember it’s for stormwater on the site. MR. TRAVER-Right. th MRS. MOORE-And so in reference to tabling, our next deadline would be August 15 for September’s agenda. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you need a second on that, Mr. Chairman? MRS. MOORE-You need to make a motion if you’re going to do it. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it probably, some parliamentary opinions say a Chairman cannot make motions. So I’ll leave it to the Secretary to make a motion, and I’m only expressing my own opinion thus far. I’m anxious to hear from others as well. MS. WHITE-I agree with you. MR. DIXON-I agree. MR. MAGOWAN-I agree with you. MR. DEEB-It’s kind of a moot point. They’re not here. We can’t do anything anyway at this point. I mean I wouldn’t do anything without them being here. So we really have to table it, but what date in September are we talking? MRS. MOORE-I would table it to our first meeting in September. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The first meeting. MRS. MOORE-And again it would be for recommendation, as well as addressing the comments from the Town Engineer. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would be September 15, and there would be an August 14 deadline. th MRS. MOORE-Actually that may be the 17 because we try to give them an extra day. MR. TRAVER-You’re going to give them an extra day or so? MRS. MOORE-Usually that’s the way it works, but thank you. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the deadline is the 17. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove a 1,513.2 sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a 1,771.6 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a floor area of 3,474.5 sq. ft. Project includes site work for stormwater, landscaping and septic. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback, height and floor area. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption: thth Tabled to the September 15, 2020 Planning Board meeting with a deadline of August 17 for submission. For further clarification of Site Plan with engineering comments to be addressed. st Seconded By Jamie White. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next under Planning Board Recommendations we have Mary Harris & Anne Walsh, Site Plan 23-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 23-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARY HARRIS & ANNE WALSH. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 20 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 585 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,875 SQ. FT. HOME. NEW FLOOR AREA IS PROPOSED TO BE 3010 SQ. FT. (22.1%), AND EXISTING IS 1,890 SQ. FT. (13.1%). PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA AN EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2015-463 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LG PARK, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .31 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-23. SECTION: 179-6-065. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a single story, 585 square foot addition to an existing home. The new floor area to be 3,010 square feet (22.1%) and existing is 1,890 square feet (13.1%). I will clarify the single story addition. There is a full basement under that single story addition. They’re request for relief in reference to the setbacks 18.1 feet from the front back where a 30 foot setback is required. The side setback is to be 10.5 feet where a 20 foot setback is required. Relief is requested from the floor area where 22.1% is proposed and 22% is the maximum allowed. Relief is also being requested for permeability where 67.6% is proposed and 75% is required and existing is 71.8%. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. Good evening everybody. Again my name is Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering representing Anne Walsh who can’t be with us tonight. She lives in the mid-west, but her sister Mary Virginia Harris is with us with her husband John and they’ve been living up here this summer and enjoying it. The home was built, it’s my understanding, in the early 60’s when the previous generation bought the property. So it’s been in the family quite some time, and Mr. Harris re-modeling a little bit as we speak on the existing home and they’d love to build a new 16 foot 3 by 36 addition on the east side, in line with the roadside plane of the house, and that will have a new kitchen and a new master suite, and then re-model, again, the existing home, and they propose a full basement under the addition for storage. Right now the home doesn’t have a lot of interior storage. So that’s where we’re increasing our floor area a little more because of the basement as opposed to just the slab on grade addition, but they feel it’s important to have that storage and as part of the project we would put in a new septic., What’s there now is a smaller septic tank and then I believe a seepage pit that’s probably sitting in the ground water some of the times of the year. So it would be a nice renovation to the rear of the property. We’ll put a shallow bed system in with a little pump up, and again our variance requests are for permeability. A 565 square feet increase in impervious coverage. Not terrible in our opinion, and then a floor area ratio of 15 square feet over. It’s just how, when the survey came in we had just a little less lot area, and they had been a ways along in the planning process for the addition. So we’d like to stick with the design they have and ask for that variance, 15 square feet over, and then front and east setbacks, and then expansion of a non-conforming structure. So again, if we’re successful with our variance request tomorrow night we hope to be back next week to see you folks and to ask for your approval because they would like to construct that this fall if they could and get weather-tight before the winter. So we’ll be back to you for the new floor area in the Waterfront Residential zone. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions, and the applicants are here, as I say. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Lucas, I see it says lake water supply. How do they do that? MR. DOBIE-It’s my understanding it’s an old pipe that goes to the east and bored under Assembly Point Road is my understanding. Certainly Mrs. Harris correct me if I’m wrong. MR. SHAFER-And out into the lake. MR. DOBIE-Yes. Fortunately because we wouldn’t be able to get a well and a septic on this lot with any kind of conformity. MR. MAGOWAN-That doesn’t go year round, does it? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MARY HARRIS MRS. HARRIS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Really? MRS. HARRIS-Yes. MR. DOBIE-They have a little bilco area, Brad, that’s on the southeast corner that’s dug down as the pressure tank and e tape on it and I believe a heat lamp, but that’ll be going away and a modern water system. MR. MAGOWAN-That must be down there below because that shoreline’s got to freeze up pretty good. So, hey, that’s some beautiful soft water there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this evening specifically we’re looking at the variances requested, setbacks, permeability, and floor area. They don’t seem severe, but we’re looking for any comments that would lead us to include something in our referral to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-Lucas, just a question I had. You’re only 15 feet over the FAR, 15 square feet, but you said the plans were made before you realized that you were going to get to that stage. MR. DOBIE-That’s correct. I don’t like asking for that variance, normally, but it’s such a minimal request. MR. DEEB-It is minimal, and to offset it you would have to re-do the whole. I know it is minimal. MR. MAGOWAN-What did you go off kind of the edge of the lawn roughly when you were measuring things out? It looks like the edge of the lawn is over into the wooded area a little bit. I mean that looks like probably close to 15 feet. MRS. MOORE-Can I just interrupt for you for a second? Brad, since Lucas is at the table. MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry. Lucas, the edge of the lawn. MR. DOBIE-No, I think where they found some old evidence of pulled tape, I think perpendicular to the road, measured that out and got a number slightly higher based on the old deed and then when the survey came back, here’s a modern survey and it’s just a hair bit smaller of the lot than they anticipated. So that’s where we’re coming up short a little bit in that floor area. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t have a problem with it. It’s minimal. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else before we consider a motion? All right, Mr. Secretary. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 16-2020 HARRIS & WALSH The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a single story 585 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,875 sq. ft. home. New floor area is proposed to be 3010 sq. ft. (22.1%), and existing is 1,890 sq. ft. (13.1%). Project includes new septic system and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability and floor area. 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. 16-2020 MARY HARRIS & ANNE WALSH. 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. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. Hope to see you next week. MR. TRAVER-Next we move into the next section of our agenda which is New Business, and I would note for members of the public either in the audience or viewing the proceedings on line that at this stage we will be taking public comment on the remaining three applications before us this evening. If you are watching on line, please note the phone number, 518-761-8225 that will be available to you when we open the public hearing on these applications. And with that the first item under New Business is Ran Saunders Property Development, LLC Site Plan 22-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 22-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. RAN SAUNDERS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 235 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,840 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING. THE NEW STORAGE BUILDING WILL BE ACCESSED WITH A NEW INTERNAL DRIVEWAY AND UPDATED SWALE AREA, AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK INCLUDING CLEARING. THE PROJECT SITE HAS AN EXISTING 23,220 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR SKY ZONE RECREATION AND ASSOCIATED PARKING THAT IS TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A STORAGE SHED IN A CLI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP PZ149-2016, SP(M) 8-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. LOT SIZE: 6.2 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-28. SECTION: 179-5-020. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSTY SAUNDERS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a 3,840 square foot building. The information that you have received shows a smaller building structure. We had revised the agenda as well as the Staff Notes. So you do have the correct information now, but I just want to advise you that you had originally a smaller building. So the project includes removal of an existing home, garage and driveway. The new storage building will be accessed from the new internal driveway and updated swale area. The project includes clearing approximately 37,400 square feet and the project site has an existing 23,220 square foot building for the Sky Zone recreation area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I’m here with Rusty Saunders, Ran Saunders Property Development. This is the property, if you’re familiar with the Sky Zone trampoline park, and when Rusty first acquired this property, he acquired two separate parcels. This is the, what was the adjoining parcel with an old residential structure that was beyond it’s useful life which was located right up near the road. That structure has been removed from their demo permit from the Town, and the parcels have been merged. So we have one parcel just over six acres and he proposes to add an accessory building that would be on line. This is the Sky Zone building. It would be basically on line with the front of that building, would be accessed only from the rear and would be for storage of his materials and equipment, maintenance supplies, trampoline parts. There would be a water supply brought to the building with one bathroom for the employees and maintenance folks and as far as the technical stormwater, the site functions very, very well. There’s a rather sizeable infiltration area back here that has additional drywells in there. It functions very well, rarely has standing water, and we’ve proposed a slight little addition to that to cover anything additional as well as some heat infiltration along the sides of this building. Again, this would be only accessed from the rear. There would be a man-door, one man-door and an overhead door for equipment and maintenance equipment and such, and that’s pretty much it. We’re not asking for any variances. It’s compliant. So with that I’d turn it over to the Board. Rusty, do you want to add anything? RUSTY SAUNDERS MR. SAUNDERS-It’s just, I have a loader and things. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-Can you talk about lighting? MR. HUTCHINS-Lighting, there’d be one or two wall packs on the back side of the building where they’re entering from. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-You’ve got water going in, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Will the drive be paved? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And what’s the material and color of the building? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s a metal building basically the same color as the existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Same color. Okay. They did send us a rendering. MR. SHAFER-Tom, I noticed that the limits of clearing on the east are right at the property line . Is it necessary to go quite that far to the east side of that? MR. HUTCHINS-I wouldn’t always want to do that, but this vegetation is not overly desirable. It’s very skinny, very tall scrubby pines, and Stewart’s has essentially cleared to that line on the forward portion of that. So instead of leaving a strip of skinny little pines we opted to take them out. MR. DIXON-May I ask you a few questions on the northeast? So the northeast area where the existing house and garage were, so they’ve all been removed. What are your plans? Are you just going to re-seed that? MR. SAUNDERS-We’d landscape it. It would be tastefully done for sure. MR. DIXON-And the one thing that’s, I’m going to call it a pet peeve of mine, but as we continue to link the other businesses, the hotels, is there any consideration for even a sidewalk in that section? Maybe not the existing area of the Sky Zone. MR. SAUNDERS-I could do a sidewalk in there. MS. WHITE-Should he be answering at the microphone. MR. SAUNDERS-We could do a sidewalk. MR. DEEB-Could you introduce yourself? MR. SAUNDERS-I’m Rusty Saunders. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. SAUNDERS-We can put a sidewalk. That’s not a major issue. I mean I have a masonry business also. MR. DIXON-I think that would be a tremendous improvement. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Tom, what about replacing some of the trees that you’d take down? Is there any chance that something could go back up? MR. SAUNDERS-Yes, we could definitely make it tastefully done. MR. DEEB-If you’re going to remove some trees, it would be nice to have something else to replace it, if possible. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We intend to landscape this front area and we can put some trees along this side, probably not between the buildings, but along the eastern side. MR. SAUNDERS-Yes, because I don’t think Stewart’s did totally right to the line. It’s very close, but they might have some scrubs in between there. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MS. WHITE-Well, you can not necessarily where they are right now, but replace them somewhere, you know, landscape where the house was, plant some trees. MR. SAUNDERS-Yes, absolutely. Yes, we want to do it tastefully. MS. WHITE-I think the addition of some additional trees, landscaping and a sidewalk would be great. MR. TRAVER-Let me open the public hearing on this application and remind the public that may be viewing this broadcast that if you have public comment, you wish to make comment, the number to call is 518-761-8225. It’s the number that I gave you some minutes ago and, Laura, are there any written comments on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Was there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application this evening? I’m not seeing anyone. Any further questions for the applicant from members of the Board? Are people comfortable moving forward? MRS. MOORE-I just want to identify something with the sidewalk, whether the sidewalk appears on the applicant’s property or whether that’s with those that own that, whether it’s a Town issue or a County issue, and I don’t know off the top of my head whether that sidewalk is going to be installed on the, I would call it the right of way of the property. So I would like you to include language in your resolution that gives that discussion opportunities because I don’t know if the applicant wants to place it on their specific property or whether they want to work with the Town of County so that the sidewalk matches the sidewalk from Stewart’s. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, if we can have a little flexibility on that, because there’s very little technical right of way from the edge of the road to this property line. MS. WHITE-Can you say something to the effect that the applicant will work with the Town to make sure that that’s. MRS. MOORE-Is the sidewalk to be installed along the entire front property line or from the Stewart’s side to his entrance. I guess I’m going from east to west. MR. DIXON-I was looking really just for that north section, so from Stewart’s to the entrance. I think that would be a big ask to keep going from the existing building, but I don’t know what everybody else’s thoughts are. MRS. MOORE-I just want to be clear. MR. TRAVER-So, Michael, you’re suggesting that the sidewalk go to the entrance to the Sky Zone or all the way across? MR. DIXON-I was thinking just to the entrance. MR. TRAVER-Just to the entrance. Okay. Any comment from the applicant or his representative? MR. HUTCHINS-No, but that’s a County road so that’ll have to get coordinated with the County DPW and we’ll have to get some input from the Town Highway. So that, we just need a little bit of leeway to work that out. I’m not sure exactly how it will be located, and I don’t have the Stewart’s one because that’s a brand new site and I didn’t have it on my survey. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. All right. MR. SHAFER-But if there’s little property between the edge of pavement and the property line, it’s likely going to be on your property, the sidewalk. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And then comes the issue of maintenance. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. DIXON-And it’s not maintained by the Town or the County. At least that’s my understanding from Stewart’s. MR. TRAVER-One final thing. We’re working on a resolution here, and we wanted to clarify the resolution of the re-planting of the trees. Can you offer a suggestion as to how many and what type you would plant? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We can plant eight to ten, mix of deciduous and coniferous. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And if you want we could put something on the plan and run it through. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if you’d put that on the final plan, that would be great. Thank you. So they’re going to add between eight and ten mixed. MRS. MOORE-And if I can also suggest that we would need a building elevation, the lighting, that one wall pack, and the floor plan of the interior structure. MR. TRAVER-Of the new building. MRS. MOORE-Of the new building. MR. TRAVER-We’re not hearing any public comment via telephone and there were no written comments and no one in the audience has commented. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And are we ready to hear a motion? MR. HUTCHINS-Could I just add? I’m noticing here that in the area of that sidewalk there’s a sewer line, a gas line and water line. So we’re going to have to coordinate that with Town departments. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-He may not want a sidewalk over his sewer lines. MR. TRAVER-I believe that’s in the resolution that there be a coordinated effort. MR. MAGOWAN-We’ll go with a bridge. MRS. MOORE-In reference to the Town Engineer comments. As noted your Town Engineer comments were based on a smaller building and the Town Engineer is aware of that and is preparing new comments for the application for the larger building. MR. TRAVER-And it’s already noted in the resolution that they have to get signoff. MRS. MOORE-Signoff. MR. DEEB-So we don’t need to add anything. MR. TRAVER-No, I don’t think so, but it’s important because we didn’t all get hardcopies of the engineering comments. Laura’s offering that. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 22-2020 RAN SAUNDERS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,840 sq. ft. storage building. The new storage building will be accessed with a new internal driveway, updated swale area and associated site work including clearing. The project site has an existing 23,220 sq. ft. building for Sky Zone recreation and associated parking that is to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, a storage shed in CLI zone 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; 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/21/2020 and continued the public hearing to 07/21/2020, 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 07/21/20; 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 22-2020 RAN SAUNDERS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 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) Sidewalk to be installed with collaboration with the County and Town from the Stewart’s property to the entrance of Sky Zone if all parties can agree and if the sidewalk can be built. m) Trees removed to be replaced with eight to ten deciduous and coniferous trees. n) Light pack detail, elevation detail and floor plan to be submitted on final Site Plan. st Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Sounds great. Any discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-I just want to clarify with the sidewalks that they might not be able to be installed. So you might want to add some gray area that if all parties agree that it can be installed than it will be, but. MR. DEEB-All right. I’ll amend the Site Plan to if all parties can agree and if the sidewalk can be built. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have the Spa Studio Adirondacks, Site Plan 27-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. THE SPA STUDIO ADIRONDACKS. AGENT(S): MICHAEL BAXTER. OWNER(S): STACIE BAXTER. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 420 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LEASE 1,500 SQ. FT. FOR A BUSINESS SERVICE SPA. THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING IS USED BY HEBER TRAVEL 3,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE AREA. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED NO CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING AND NO SITE CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND NO SITE PLAN REVIEW IN OVER SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: VARIANCES 498 & 615. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. LOT SIZE: .96 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-23. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-020. ERICA KEAYS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to lease 1,500 square feet for a business service spa. The remainder of the building is used by Heber Travel as a 3,000 square foot office area. The applicant has indicated no changes to the exterior of the building and no site changes. The interior building, there’s only a few changes to the interior of the building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. KEAYS-Hi. Good evening. For the record my name is Erica Keays. I own the SPA Studio and we’re seeking approval to move our massage and spa studio into the lowest level of the Heber Associates building, and they are not here this evening. So I’m representing. As Laura said there’s no changes at this point to the exterior or the site plan and I’m not asking for any variances. We just had to downsize and change our business a bit because of COVID. The Governor now has pretty heavy restrictions on who we can see and what services we can offer. So we’re moving from a very large space in Glens Falls to a much smaller and easier to manage, hopefully more safely managed space. Basically it’s the two rooms at the lowest level and again we’re very limited on how many people we can see at a time. So there should be no issues hopefully with traffic as we are appointment based as well and we can’t work at the same time. So it’s pretty cut and dried, but we’ve been closed down since March so we’re very much looking forward to moving forward and being able to re-open soon. That’s pretty much it. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Very good, and because of the telephone public comment, I’m going to actually open the public hearing now and invite people who wish to comment to call in, 518-761-8225. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-It’s cut and dried, like you said. MR. TRAVER-Yes. This is one of the cases where there hasn’t been a Site Plan Review on this address for greater than seven years. MR. DEEB-You did a great job presenting yourself. MS. KEAYS-Yes, it’s a beautiful building. It’s been in the family I think since the late 70’s, and they’re family friends of ours. They’ve been wonderful to work with and we’re looking forward to moving forward. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean the only question I have for you, and really it’s irrelevant to the Site Plan, but you said you’re moving there because of the COVID, but I mean that’s temporary. So what happens when you can fully operate? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) th MS. KEAYS-Well also just kind of, it’s a family business and we’re going into our 16 year. So we had planned on maybe at some point to downsize a bit, but again the restrictions they put in place, it looks like they are going to be there for quite a while and we’ve had a very large day spa for a long time. So it was kind of a combination of COVID and having to shut down for four months and making some new changes and the current space just was no longer conducive to what’s required for us. So it was kind of a combination of a couple of different things, and just decided to move forward as this new normal sets in. So, yes, it’s kind of a combination of those things. MR. DIXON-May I ask where you were in Glens Falls? MS. KEAYS-Well, we started out in the Union Square building on Broad Street many, many years ago, and then we’ve most recently been on Dix Avenue in the East Field Medical Arts Plaza, but, yes, it was quite a substantial space, eight treatment rooms and almost a little too big in some ways anyway. MR. DIXON-Welcome to Queensbury. MS. KEAYS-Yes, thank you very much. Very much looking forward to what comes next. MR. TRAVER-Other questions for the applicant? We haven’t received any public comment. So we will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If there’s no other comment, we can go ahead and entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 27-2020 THE SPA STUDIO ADIRONDACKS 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 lease 1,500 sq. ft. for a business service spa. The remainder of the building is used by Heber Travel 3,000 sq. ft. office area. The applicant has indicated no changes to the exterior of the building and no site changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use and no site plan review in over seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/21/2020 and continued the public hearing to 07/21/2020, 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 07/21/2020; 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 27-2020 THE SPA STUDIO ADIRONDACKS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. st Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 21day of July, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-You are all set. The next item on our agenda under New Business is Price Chopper, Site Plan Modification 28-2020. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 28-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PRICE CHOPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 677 UPPER GLEN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPGRADE THE FAÇADE, WALL SIGN AND FREE STANDING SIGN TO MATCH THE COLOR SCHEME AND SIGNAGE FOR PRICE CHOPPER/MARKET 32. THE COLORS TO BE MODIFIED FROM BLUE, RED AND WHITE TO GREEN, BROWNS AND GREYS. SIGNAGE IS TO BE REDUCED FROM NINE WALL SIGNS TO SIX WALL SIGNS FOR MARKET 32. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 42-2009. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. LOT SIZE: 18.79 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.10-1-7 SECTION: 179-9-120. TOM LEE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The proposed modification is to upgrade the façade sign, wall sign, and freestanding sign to match the color scheme and signage for Price Chopper/Market 32. This indicates a modification from blue, red and white to green, browns and greys, and those details are included in your application materials as well as the color scheme. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LEE-Good evening. My name’s Tom Lee. I work at the sign project manager for Price Chopper. So as stated in this application, we have two items that we’re looking to upgrade, one of which would be that there are nine existing building signs on the face of the building, which includes the big Price Chopper sign on the center in between the entrance. We’re looking to replace those nine signs with six new signs, which also matches your signage variance that was granted in 2009. Why there are nine signs now I can’t answer that question. MR. TRAVER-We actually have a name for that now. It’s called unapproved development, but anyway, go ahead. MR. LEE-So there will be six signs that we’ll add that will be part of the Price Chopper store. There is another sign which is the Starbuck’s which we’re going to be bringing into the store. That is a separate CO which there will also be a Starbuck’s sign that will actually be on the side of the building where there’s a Route 9 arrow blue sign that points to the north so that you don’t have to go back down to 9. So that would be in place there. The total square footage of all the signs that we’re going to have is being decreased also. I know the big thing is there’s only six signs allowed, but just wanted to let everybody know that we are decreasing the footprint of all those signs. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I actually did the math. It’s actually 112.58 square feet smaller. MR. LEE-Now the Price Chopper sign will be replaced with a Market 32 sign. I’m not sure if the Board is aware of what we’ve done on other stores. Route 50 in Saratoga was one we just replaced. That Market 32 sign is internally LED illuminated. The other five signs that are part of the Price Chopper brand, those 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) are externally LED illuminated. There’s a tray on the bottom of the sign. The LED light is turned on a 45 degree angle to illuminate the letters and not up light. In addition to the signage on the building, there is a single pylon out in front on Glen Street, and that has two faces on it that also indicate it’s a Price Chopper sign. We’re going to replace that with a similar image as what’s the new Market 32 sign. I believe that’s in the package from my signage consultant. It has the same color tones as the large Market 32. So that Price Chopper sign appears on both faces of that pylon sign and we’ll replace that with a Market 32 sign. Square footage won’t change. It’ll fit in the same profile. There is a space below that. There used to be a bank in this store, and I believe that that bottom slot had the bank’s logo on there. There is no bank, there’s no longer a bank there. We’re not putting a bank there. There won’t be a Starbuck’s sign there either. So that’s going to remain empty as it is today. The second part of this variance is painting of the exterior. As stated, our Market 32 brand consists of grays, and then multi-colored window vinyl that’ll be placed behind the Market 32 sign on the reflective storefront glass that’s there now. It kind of gives a look of some of our, we call them POC stores, Market 32 stores like in Wilton. We did a lot of wood panels on the front of that and this is a lower cost alternative to those wood panels. So it kind of gives the impression of simulated wood, and those are in brown tones. The only green that’s on the left hand side is where the reverse bending is, and a lot of our stores where we have side entrance to reverse bending, an appendage on the side of the building, we introduce a green there. So we opted in this particular store because it’s an appendage on this store to paint that small section of the three sides of that bump out green, and I believe that is everything that’s in the application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We are going to, because of the telephone public hearing, we are going to open the public hearing on this application, give people, an opportunity to call in if they wish to, and that number to call in and give public comment is 518-761-8225. Questions from members of the Planning Board for the applicant? MR. DEEB-You call is outrageous green on your submission. I wasn’t crazy about the green, but it’s not that bad. MR. LEE-It’s pretty subtle. It’s just on a brand, the brick has already been painted there. MR. DEEB-I don’t know why you call it Outrageous Green, but. MR. LEE-Just to clarify, these colors that we have listed on here are our brand colors that we use on every single store. It’s a Sherwin Williams product. It’s our standard brand, not national but our store brand. MR. DEEB-And also the inside of the store is a mess. I don’t know where anything is anymore. MR. MAGOWAN-Wouldn’t it be called more eastern regional. th MR. LEE-Yes, 135 stores we have. I think this is about our 30 store that we’re converting to a Market 32. And like I said, the store on Route 50 in Saratoga is identical to this. MS. WHITE-Yes, it will be those same colors, because that looks very nice. MR. MAGOWAN-It does, it looks nice. MR. LEE-There’s already a permit issued for the renovation inside which we already started. None of the work on the exterior has started and won’t be started until we get approval. MR. DIXON-Are you planning on refreshing the landscape or anything? Are you planning on doing a refresh of any of the landscaping? I see the sign that you’re going to replace. MR. LEE-No, we are not. I can’t remember, let me look at the photos, the planter at the front of the store, we’ll probably end up removing those shrubs. We’ve been getting away from having shrubbery growing in the front of the store, maintenance costs and overgrown. So, no, we would end up getting rid of the shrubs that are right underneath the Market 32 sign in the center of the building. There are five or six cart corrals that are within the site. Those have red bases on it. We’re replacing the red bases with brown bases, keeping the quantity of the cart corrals. MR. TRAVER-Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. TRAVER-And I see there’s no one in the audience, and we have received no phone calls. So I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-Do Board members feel comfortable proceeding? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think it’s, personally I think it’s a major upgrade with the painting. MR. SHAFER-Just a question about your affinity for shrubs or lack thereof. When I go with my dog in the car, I can’t find a place in the shade to park the car at Price Chopper. MR. LEE-It’s a big parking lot. Well there is an island just across from the large Market 32 signs. There are a few small shrubs that are there, and there’s nothing close to the building. There is, on the north side of the building, where you can go through the development and you come back out to Glen Street, there is some shade over there. There is some customer parking over there. The employees have a tendency to use that area more, and we’re not painting the whole entire building, but we are painting the front façade, the left hand side and the right hand side that’s exposed to public view, but the back part of the building is going to remain the colors that they are now. MS. WHITE-I was just going to ask if you take out, because those are some pretty big shrubs. Would that be grass? MR. LEE-I don’t know if it’ll be a colored stone material to prevent some weeds from growing out. I don’t know. I can find out and report back to Laura about what we would do there. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. LEE-But we would probably want to put something in there that wouldn’t promote weed growth. MR. DIXON-It would be a concern if you’re removing greenery to make sure that you’re placing something else there to offset the, I have concerns if you’re going to start placing new green space. That’s a huge parking lot. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean there’s not much green on that place. It’s parking lot, and I’m very familiar with the north side because I wish you didn’t put that on the record because I like parking over there, coming off of Foster, but I mean it’s a little overgrown. I would like to see, you know, some greenery, some planting there, instead of a mound of colored stone. MS. WHITE-Yes. Even if it’s just ground cover. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I’d say, even if it’s just ground cover. Something that only grows up. Just make sure it’s a native species. MR. TRAVER-So we might want to make a note on the resolution that any vegetation to be removed to be replaced with ground cover or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And if Neal has a problem with that just say that we’re going to pull in some of the green that we’re putting on the building. MR. LEE-We’ll use something close to an Outrageous Green. MS. WHITE-If you have questions about what’s acceptable, Laura can help you. MR. LEE-Okay. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-She’s great to work with. MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready to entertain a motion? MR. DEEB-I’ll give it a shot. MR. TRAVER-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 28-2020 PRICE CHOPPER 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 upgrade the façade, wall sign and free standing sign to match the color scheme and signage for Price Chopper/Market 32. The colors to be modified from blue, red and white to green, browns and greys. Signage is to be reduced from nine wall 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) signs to six wall signs for Market 32. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to an existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/21/2020 and continued the public hearing to 07/21/2020, 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 07/21/2020; 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 28-2020 PRICE CHOPPER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: site lighting, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Vegetation removed at the building Market 32 sign to be replaced with additional greenery. i) The proposed building signage is to be included in the resolution. PROPOSED BUILDING SIGNAGE: PROPOSED 'FLORIST' SIGN IS 52.54" WIDE x 1'-0" TALL = 4.38 S.F. PROPOSED ‘PHARMACY+’ SIGN IS 124.28” WIDE x 22.67” TALL = 19.57 S.F. PROPOSED ‘WELCOME’ SIGN IS 161” WIDE x 36” TALL = 40.25 S.F. PROPOSED ‘PRODUCE’ SIGN IS 59.64” WIDE x 12” TALL = 4.97 S.F. PROPOSED ‘RECYCLING CENTER’ SIGN IS 139.84” WIDE x 12” TALL = 11.65 S.F. PROPOSED ‘MARKET 32’ SIGN IS 197.5” WIDE x 128” TALL = 175.6 S.F. PROPOSED ‘STARBUCKS’ SIGN IS 4’-0” DIAMETER = 12.6 S.F. (Separate Certificate of Occupancy) PROPOSED PYLON SIGN IS 8'-0" WIDE x 6'-0" TALL = 48 S.F. (There is an existing empty signage slot on the pylon below the main sign (noting the Pylon sign has an existing sign variance for 60 sq. ft.) TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING SIGNAGE = 317.02 S.F. st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Could you please clarify what you said about the vegetation? Is it the vegetation at the building that’s being replaced with ground cover or is it the vegetation at the road? MR. TRAVER-Vegetation to be replaced, or vegetation that is removed is to be replaced. So whatever they don’t remove doesn’t have to be replaced I guess. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MRS. MOORE-So I’m just clarifying because there’s a huge shrub out in the front and I would hate to see that suddenly go. MS. WHITE-I thought the only area being discussed is around the sign out by the road. MR. LEE-The front entranceway where the Market 32 sign would be. MRS. MOORE-Right. So there was to be no changes at the pylon sign. All changes are at the building, at the green space under the Market 32. MR. LEE-Right. MRS. MOORE-I do want to clarify that because right now it just sounds like. MR. DEEB-I’ll amend it. Vegetation removed near the Market 32 sign is to be replaced with additional greenery. MRS. MOORE-At the building. MR. DEEB-Okay. Vegetation as she said. MR. SHAFER-Why are you removing these? MR. LEE-No, we’re not touching any of that stuff. MRS. MOORE-And that’s why I want to make sure that the resolution. MR. SHAFER-What are you going to be removing? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s what we just clarified, that that’s not going to be replaced. MR. LEE-If you go to these exterior building elevations, it will be these three shrubs that are sitting, there’s a very low planter at the front of the building and there are three shrubs that are there, and we’ll take those out. We’ll put in some low shrubs. MR. MAGOWAN-So that sounds like a good idea, what you’re doing up there. MR. LEE-Yes, I don’t know who maintains those shrubs. They are getting quite big. I don’t know if that’s part of ours, but we were not planning on touching those. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can you read just that part of the resolution that deals with the vegetation. MR. DEEB-Vegetation that is removed from the Market 32 sign. MRS. MOORE-At the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, at the building. MS. WHITE-No, by the road. MR. MAGOWAN-No, the road’s staying. MS. WHITE-Okay I’m confused. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was too. MS. WHITE-At the sign. MR. DEEB-You’re talking about the sign at Glen Street. MR. HUNSINGER-Those are staying. MR. DEEB-Those are staying? MR. HUNSINGER-There’s three shrubs underneath the building sign. MR. TRAVER-We’re talking about at the building. MR. DEEB-Okay. Vegetation removed at the building Market 32 sign to be replaced with additional greenery. Okay? Are we all set? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/21/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have an amended motion. Do we have a second? MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll second. MR. TRAVER-We have a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-I will add one more item. On my summary of notes I asked you to include the color scheme and description in the resolution and I outlined the signage. So that information should appear in the resolution . You need to include it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well the colors are specified in the submission. I mean by name and everything. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I just want to make sure that. MR. TRAVER-If it’s approved, don’t they have to be compliant with what they submitted? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’re covered then. Correct? MRS. MOORE-I would just suggest you include them specifically, not necessarily to this color scheme, but you notice the signage. I would include the information on the proposed building signage within the resolution. You just need to say proposed building signage to be included in this resolution. MR. DEEB-Okay. I, also, I think it’s “I”, also, “I”, the proposed building signage is to be included in the resolution. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have an amended motion. Do we have a second? MR. MAGOWAN-Second the amended motion. MR. TRAVER-All right. The motion has been amended and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Maria, can you call the vote for us, please. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? MR. DEEB-Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 21ST, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: st Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everyone. We’ll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 24