Loading...
11-17-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 19-2019 Columbia Development 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 309.14-1-5 Site Plan No. 63-2019 10 Dunham’s Bay Road 3. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 239.20-1-4, 252.-1-67 Site Plan Mod. No. 29-2020 Camp Knox/Ballas 4. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 Site Plan Mod. No. 50-2020 Stewart’s Shops Corporation 12. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-65 Site Plan No. 51-2020 Peter Sheehan (Co-Trustee) 15. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.13-1-20 Subdivision No. 14-2020 Jeffrey & Joanne Mann 16. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 265.-1-23.1 Site Plan No. 52-2020 Michael & Judith McMahon `8. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-35 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, November 17, 2020. This is our first meeting for the month of November and thth our 16 meeting for 2020, and our 12 meeting thus far under the COVID Pandemic. I’d draw your attention to the red emergency exit signs in the building. If we have an emergency that is your way out. If you have an electronic device, a cell phone or other device, if you would silence, either turn it off or silence the ringer so it will not interrupt our meeting we would appreciate it. There are some items on our agenda tonight for which there will be a public hearing and I’m going to notify the public that may be viewing this meeting on the Town’s YouTube channel that they should make a note of the following phone number and that number is 518-761-8225. Should they wish to call in to this telephone and give public comment, that would be the number to call, and I will remind folks of that when I open up the individual public hearings. Those of you presenting this evening, when you come up to the podium, when you’re done, if you would use one of the sanitary wipes to wipe the microphone off for the next speaker we would appreciate it, and with that we can begin our agenda. The first item, we have a few administrative items. The first being approval of minutes from September 15 and September 22, 2020. I think we have a draft motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 15, 2020 September 22, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF thnd SEPTEMBER 15 & SEPTEMBER 22, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next we move to a couple of Administrative Items, request for extensions. The first is Site Plan 19-2019 for Columbia Development. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 19-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION KEVIN RONAYNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-This is a request for a one year extension. Is there someone representing that organization? MR. RONAYNE-Good evening. Kevin Ronayne here on behalf of Saratoga Hospital. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good evening. MR. RONAYNE-And we’ve requested the extension. As you know this is a further extension of our project at Exit 18. We were set to go and COVID hit. Really there are three components of this. One is that COVID has really slowed down our business model. We thought things were going to start coming back and just as the business has started to come back, COVID has started to come back. So we are 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) basically on hold. We had also submitted to the State Department of Health for a Certificate of Deed application for that project. We only just last week had our first communication back from the DOH. There were some questions that we need to respond to and thirdly as I noted when we first submitted the st Site Plan Glens Falls was not part of our affiliation. They became part of our system on July 1. So we are re-assessing that project to make sure that we do something that is appropriate there for all the partners involved. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. And this was originally approved just last year. So this is not a project that’s been going year after year after year. I think folks are familiar. It’s been, the issues with that site have been in the news recently. So they’re asking for, we gave them, evidently, a six month extension. That was probably during the COVID, Laura, when we I did a temporary approval, and now they’re doing a formal request for a one year extension. Any questions or comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Kevin’s letters started out saying this is an additional six month. The resolution says requesting an additional one year. I just want, whenever the resolution goes in, I think it’s important to go in just as it’s written to make sure we get that end date in there, but it says that, what it says here in the th end, it says a six month extension was approved by the Planning Board on May 27. I think the end date of this extension should be in the resolution, not to be confused, if you look back in the record and see the letter and past dates in there. MR. TRAVER-Good point. So the end of that six month extension would be 11/27. MR. VALENTINE-Of 2021. MR. TRAVER-So the new, if approved, the new extension expiration date would be 11/27/2011. Right? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments or concerns? MR. SHAFER-I thought their letter of request requested six months? MR. VALENTINE-It says a further six months, and that’s what threw me off in the beginning. MR. SHAFER-Because the resolution says one year. MR. VALENTINE-The resolution says one year from that ending date of May 27, 2020. So just as Steve said. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’re asking for May 2021 and the draft resolution says a year. So I guess I would ask the applicant. MR. RONAYNE-We did originally request six months. If you would grant us a year that would be even better. MR. TRAVER-Okay. It doesn’t cost anything extra from us, and that does give you a little more leeway, and I think, again, since this is just recently approved, and again, with all of the work, I think most of us are well aware of the issues that you have. So I think an extension to, my own feeling is an extension to November of 2021 is a reasonable request. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. MR. SHAFER-Your last comment and the article in the paper suggested that the project as originally proposed will never go forward. So why are you requesting a one year extension? MR. RONAYNE-No, we are in the process of re-assessing how we will use that building. So I wouldn’t say the project won’t go forward, but what I’m saying is the building may house different specialties an different services. MR. SHAFER-Okay. I understand. MR. TRAVER-It may come back with a modification, Site Plan modification. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to make a comment. I am just totally amazed at the three huge organizations that were involved in this merger type thing, and nothing ever slipped out about it. So I mean that was very tight lipped negotiations going on between Albany Med, Saratoga and Glens Falls, and like I said, you know, you’re asking for six months and they were working the deals and I’m just amazed nothing slipped, and someone said, hey, why don’t we get ahead. So that’s good hospital work I have to say. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. RONAYNE-I can’t take any credit for that. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments or questions? All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP 19-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT The applicant proposes to develop a 1.04 acre parcel and 0.106 ROW area by demolishing the existing restaurant to construct a two story 17,700 sq. ft. (FAR) medical office building and associated site work. The new building is 8,800 sq. ft. (footprint) with the main entrance on Big Boom Road and associated parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-7-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 19-2019 on April 30, 2019. A temporary six month extension was approved by the Planning Board Chairman on March 24, 2020 and subsequently a six month extension was approved by the Planning Board on May 27, 2020. Applicant is requesting an additional one year extension. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 19-2020 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Extended to 11/27/2021. th Duly adopted this 17day of November 2020 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Is there any discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-Can you clarify the end date? MR. VALENTINE-Yes, we did, right in the beginning. MR. TRAVER-Yes, 11/27/2021. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. RONAYNE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next we have another request for extension from 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, Site Plan 63-2019. SITE PLAN 63-2019 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So Mr. Fuller isn’t able to attend the meeting. So he writes the letter, “I see that the above application is on the Planning Board agenda for November 17, 2020. Unfortunately I have to be at a Town Board meeting in Stony Creek that evening as we represent the Town of Stony Creek. I am writing to ask that the Planning Board grant us a 1 year extension on the approvals. We are actually finalizing contracts right now to commence the work which we expect to have completed by May 1, 2021. Thank you.” th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the draft resolution says we approved it November 26 of this year, which is not possible, but I think it should be 2019, if I’m correct. Right, Laura? So we approved it originally last year, November of last year, and they’re asking for a one year extension. And there’s no one here. It’s fairly straightforward. They did send us a letter, and again, this is their first request. They were just approved last year. Does anyone have any issues with granting this? MS. WHITE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-It’s a eliminate request for extension. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s their first request, and Laura’s office has gotten a lot of requests, she’s reporting, because of COVID and various other issues, and this is only an initial one year request. So they haven’t 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) been around for years and years. Does anyone have any questions or concerns with granting this request? We have a draft resolution, I believe. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SP # 63-2019 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD 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 update an existing marina. Work is proposed to the main building to include work on first floor with reconfiguration of entry and some interior changes. Second floor includes converting a portion of the building to an open deck lounge area, updating office area and improvements to the showroom. Project includes site work for parking, pedestrian access and stormwater. The existing buildings on the site include the boat storage building at 6,913 sq. ft. and the marina building at 2,747 sq. ft. footprint. The existing floor area is 14,631 sq. ft. and proposed is 12,858 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA and Chapter 179-10 Special Use Permit for Class A Marina shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 63-2019 & Special Use Permit 3-2019 on November 26, 2020. Applicant requests a one year extension. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SITE PLAN 63-2019 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2019 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. They’re all set. Next we move to the regular part of our agenda. The first is a tabled item of unapproved development, Camp Knox, LLC/Ballas, Site Plan Modification 29-2020. TABLED ITEM – UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 29-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CAMP KNOX, LLC/BALLAS. OWNER(S): CARA & STEPHEN BALLAS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 67 KNOX ROAD. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES REVISIONS TO AN EXISTING SHORELINE LANDSCAPING PLAN. REPLACING AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 100 SQ. FT. PATIO AREA WITH 150 SQ. FT. PERMEABLE PATIO AREA AND LANDSCAPING AT SHORELINE. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,706 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SITE PLAN AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 53-2007, SP (M) 53-2007, NOA 11-2007, NOA 4-2009, AV 3-2014, SP 4-2014. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .45 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-14. SECTION: 179-6-050. CARA & STEPHEN BALLAS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant was tabled at the meeting previous back in August to this time, and the applicant has met with Warren County Soil and Water as well as the LGA to go through a planting plan, and that planting plan has been presented to you with a description. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Okay. Good evening. Welcome back. MRS. BALLAS-Hi. MR. BALLAS-Good evening. It’s good to be back in front of you all today. Thanks for hearing our proposal th again. Now as you know we were at the August 25 meeting and we agreed to table it and we were going back to the drawing board to come up with a new plan which we have in front of you here today that we submitted. In fact we really wanted to make sure we put together a good plan. So what we immediately did was when we got back we reached out to the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, as well as the Lake George Association, and I think it’s worth noting because there was a letter submitted. We reached out to the Waterkeeper as well by e-mail and phone and we did not hear back from him, but we had great feedback from these two groups. Maren Alexander from Soil and Water actually came up to our property. We walked it. We went through everything that was existing and we had a very good 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) conversation going forward with that in developing this plan. We also worked with Kristen Wilde from the Lake George Association who we sent her over all our plantings and she gave us the approval on that, all non-invasive, and said it would provide a nice buffer along the lake. So before we get going here, I just want to be clear, because I know we keep hearing the word unapproved. We purchased the house in May of 2018. We got our CO the end of 2018 and at that time we had an inherited landscape plan which we did follow. We followed everything on it and it was approved. We got our inspections, came out. It’s a 100% approved plan. Now all we’re looking to do from that approved plan is make a few modifications. MR. TRAVER-And the reason that it’s classified as unapproved is that you began those modifications before you got approval to do so. MR. BALLAS-I understand. Yes. MR. TRAVER-That’s where that comes from. MR. BALLAS-Okay. Yes. So I just want to go over, we’re actually kind of seeking three things. The plan we inherited, it really wasn’t conducive to the existing conditions around the lake. We told you before, the plants got planted in November/December. A lot of them died. There’s a big deer population around there. A lot of them got eaten. We wanted to re-do all the plantings. So that’s one item we’re looking for is to re-vegetate our entire buffer, and we actually did, along with our narrative, we have all the plants that we came up with a list, working with Soil and Water. MR. TRAVER-And we also have the correspondence between the Lake George Association and the Soil and Water. MR. BALLAS-Yes, so we submitted all that to you. So that’s Number One. We’re looking to re-vegetate all that. You can actually see on the plan we provided , kind of exactly where we’re going to be doing all that. Number Two is a patio. So we had an approved river stone patio which was there, and all we’re looking to do here is simply put paver blocks over that existing approved patio. It is a permeable patio. So it’s really not having any further impact than it does. We just added the river stone. We still are above the Town requirements of the 75% permeability. Even with adding that we’re at 76.4% permeability. And then the last area we’re looking for is we’re looking to have a little small grass area on that lower level. You can see from that drawing it’s about 15 feet, and the reason for that is it’s a nice flat area, as we’d said before. We have two young kids and it’s a nice area for kids to play on. So those are the only three things we’re looking to change from our approved plan are those three items. So as you see, we did come up with that list with Soil and Water and the Lake George Association. So this was at their suggestion. It’s what we did. We wanted to get a robust list that had all non-invasive species and are conductive to provide a nice buffer to grow along the lake. So that list was developed with them. So what we’re going to do comes springtime is work with a landscaper, work with a nursery, and we’re going to come up with a planting plan to pick from that list, and the reason why they wanted us to kind of name a bunch of species is due to COVID some aren’t growing as much anymore. Some may not be growing well that spring. So we wanted a nice big list to work with a nursery and work with a landscaper and we’re going to pick from the list we provided you to come up with the planting plan in the spring, but we gave you all the counts for each species, what we’re looking to do with that. So we really did. We took all the suggestions and recommendations from the Board and the public and we feel we came up with a solid plan. Just to further expand upon that. We know one of the main goals with the Town is to eliminate water runoff into the lake from your property. I’d say that could be the number one goal, and we’re working with them. I mean we really did solve this. We can assure we do not have any water runoff. We don’t have it now, and with this plan, it’s just going to make it even better, and to top that off, just to let you know, our house is about 85 feet from the lake. We’ve got an 85 foot setback. We have a newer septic system which is actually in the front of our house. So that septic system is about 110 feet plus from the lake. So that’s in good shape, and we also have two drywells installed on the property. So our gutter systems from the house all tie into the drywells. We have no water runoff from the house whatsoever, and actually as you come down from the house, you can see in the drawing we have two other nine to ten foot buffers. So we tiered it. So as water hits the surface it’s going to come down. It’ll hit that first buffer nine to ten feet. Then there’s another buffer of nine to ten feet and then we have our main buffer there. So I mean we can assure you, if we don’t have one of the best water management systems on the lake in Assembly Point, it’s got to be Top Five, like we worked tirelessly to get this house to the point. I think we all know the history that people brought up at the previous meeting. We didn’t realize all this history. We knew there was some of that, but we didn’t realize the extent of it when we purchased it, and we really did work hard to clean everything up, come up with a solid plan. We have a couple of letters of support from the neighbors, one’s an immediate abutter. Another one that lives down the road and in fact even mentions how we cleaned up this whole laundry list of problems that the house had. So we really did work hard with that. We do understand we have opposition, and they’re probably going to get up here and say what happened 14 years ago. This was 14 years ago when this property supposedly got cut. We had nothing to do with that, absolutely nothing to do with that. The fact is we purchased it in 2018. We did our renovations. We did work with the landscaping plan that was approved, and now we’re just simply looking to alter a few things from that plan after being in there a couple of years and we want to make it more conducive to conditions around the lake. We brought in the consultants and feel we came up with a really solid plan. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) So I guess we’re just asking the Board tonight if we can just focus on the proposal, because we all understand the history, and that’s in the past and we really did work hard to get where we are today and we’re working off an approved plan and we hope you like the plan, and with that we’re certainly happy to take any questions. MR. TRAVER-Well, we certainly appreciate that you heard our feedback the last time that you were here and it’s clear that you did put some effort into addressing some of the issues that were raised. So we very much appreciate that. So I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. They do have supportive correspondence. MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to say thank you. I know it’s a long trip. I think you live in Massachusetts and you did listen to us, and you did inherit, but it wasn’t your fault. I was very pleased to see this, and for the patio, the pavers over the stone, I’m happy with that, if you’re not removing the stones, just putting the patio block over the top. MR. BALLAS-It looks a lot nicer, too. The stone, as you know, unless you’re containing it, spreads out.. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s hard to walk on. MR. BALLAS-And it’s permeable, too. So we’re not making it any less permeable than it is. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So I know you have a good subbase underneath the stone to take the water. So I don’t have a problem. I just want to thank you for doing this. I know it was a lot of work to do, and I’m sure it was at quite a price, too with all these people involved, and I believe Chris will have a chance to speak, but I just wanted to say thank you. MR. BALLAS-Thank you for the comments. We appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience who want to address the Board on this application>? I see a couple. Chris, I think your hand was up first, Chris Navitsky. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I want to thank you for your continued review on this application and thank the applicant for their effort. I do believe that they did contact my office shortly after the meeting. I believe I was away on vacation and a lot of times if I don’t hear a second call back then I’m not sure the project’s going forward, but I apologize for that, and they did reach out. I feel, again, that the Planning Board should not approve hard scape within the shoreline buffer zone and should require the restoration of the buffer to the requirements of 179-8-040. If you take a look at the application, 70% of the buffer requirement is what’s being proposed. Thirty percent of the requirement will not be provided. The letter from the Soil and Water Conservation District is a recommendation letter. They also recommended a couple of other landscape improvements on the property that I don’t are think are part of this application. I still have a question when this patio, stone patio was approved. I’ve followed this application since 2006. I don’t know when that patio was actually approved. I think the most recent modification, to my records, was back in 2014 and that was not part of the approved plan by this Board. So I’m still not sure where that patio came from, and we just think it would be good, they referenced how good the stormwater management plan was, and I just think that that should be certified for the record. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, the stormwater plan should be what? MR. NAVITSKY-Should be certified that it was constructed as per, just to be certified. I don’t know whether, I think that was a requirement back, and I don’t know whether that actually was certified to the Town. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And while Chris is cleaning the mic, I’ll also announce a reminder to people watching us on the YouTube channel that if they wish to call in and make public comment on this Site Plan 29-2020 that they should call 518-761-8225. Yes, sir? JOHN COLLINS 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road, just down the road from the applicant. I want to thank the Board for all the hard work they’ve done in developing the current regs which work to further protect the lake, and this effort was done before recent events, recent hazardous algae bloom. When you look at the recent events, we should be reviewing the application in light of that. These events should be viewed as a clarion call to property owners and to all lake stewards that even minor variances, when viewed on their aggregate impact on the lake is significant. It appears to me as I review the file that the focus of the comments are the representatives of the Lake George Association and Warren County Soil and Water were centered on the types of plantings that should be appropriate for the location without specifically addressing the current Town regs related to the buffer and the two story concept. My main concerns are centered around that. This has nothing to do with the problems of the property in the last 14 years. They have to do with the conditions of the property today based on what was approved in the past, unauthorized changes made, and now we are finally dealing with algae blooms on the lake. So we really have to pay attention each property for all variances. We no longer have the luxury to be able to just let small things slide. Everything is important, and the Town has spent a lot of time to come up with a 35 foot buffer and the two story canopy concept. So in my mind the focus should be on that and then also the hard scape, the pavers. I wasn’t able to find where that was approved either. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence of proof of hardship if they were required to fully comply with the regs as they exist today. They just don’t want to. Therefore, I’m requesting that the applicant be required to re-submit their plan in full compliance to the current regs and even, by the way, if you went back to the plantings that they actually did in the past that died off, there were trees along the, birches and maples planted along the shoreline and there are no new trees planted down there in the current plan. There is no time pressure to approve this plan today. They’re not going to be purchasing the plantings and trees until the spring. So they have time to address the plan in full compliance with the regs. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Laura, are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There’s written comments from previously and they were previously read into the record. MR. TRAVER-But no new comments? MRS. MOORE-The only new comment was from the Waterkeeper and he’s stated his comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone else. We haven’t gotten any phone calls. I guess we can close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Well certainly the comment that was just made about the algae bloom is very disconcerting. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That was Harris Bay. MR. COLLINS-If I could state, there was in fact the main location of the hazardous algae bloom was in Harris Bay along the eastern side of Assembly Point, but there was algae that came out and round and went all the way down past our house. You can see it in the water. MR. BALLAS-Yes, there was, I mean we obviously heard about this as well. I mean there was nothing from our property that caused this. I mean there was nothing viewable from our property that contains this. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’m not sure that it’s a, and we don’t want to get into a long scientific discussion about the problems of the algae bloom, but I think it’s generally agreed that it’s not a, in this case it’s not a single site source issue. It’s sort of a global situation where we continue to try to improve the environmental impact on the lake. We had some warm water and various other things that contributed to that, but the point is well taken about the buffering. Other comments, questions? MR. SHAFER-I guess I have a question. Does this plan as proposed by the applicant meet Town Code for buffering Lake George or not? MRS. MOORE-So I can interject on that a little bit. So in reference to the Town Code, this item under shoreline buffering is that there’s not a specific, you know, does this applicant have to have five trees. That’s not how it’s worded in the section of Code. It’s a guidance. So that decision is up to the Board to say is this reasonable to be used as a shoreline buffer as presented, and that’s why I provided in the Staff Notes the guidance about what the numbers could be. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, there was a question about this stone patio. Have you, and this came up the last time in August as well. Have you found any evidence of a prior approval for that? MRS. MOORE-With the patio this project site was Code compliant, and my understanding is that patio was presented at that time. Whether it be maybe that was something that was discussed between the applicant and the Zoning Administrator at that time, I’m not certain of that, but I know that our Code Compliance Officer signed off on this project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BALLAS-So the original drawing, which I did submit to everyone, I mean you can see it right in here, river stone, number two free draining river stone. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you, but we’re not really looking for a drawing. We’re looking for some record of. MR. BALLAS-Well this was the approved drawing that they went off of to get approved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. BALLAS-And we did submit that to you. So it’s what was on the drawing and what was put in and what got approved. MR. DEEB-So it was signed off on, then. Okay. MR. BALLAS-Yes. We got our CO at the end of 2018. And just to add to that, too, what we did was we brought in the same amount of plants, and it’s actually even more plants than we have on the other approved one. So we brought back in the same number. We actually have 15 large trees that are down in the buffer currently, and then we’re adding 55 larger trees, I mean, excuse me, smaller trees, large shrubs, and 100 herbaceous plants, and that puts us, it’s actually, with the one that didn’t die, it’s actually going to exceed what we had there before that was approved. MR. VALENTINE-I had a question to that. So on your plan here, the 15 are the cedar, the spruce, the hemlocks, locusts, red maples, red pine then two white pines, but Mr. Collins I think I heard you say that there are no new trees proposed here. Is that what you said? MR. COLLINS-I wasn’t aware that there’s new trees, but what I was also referring to trees that had been existing that got cut down, which were two maples and a birch, were right in front. MR. VALENTINE-Right. No, I understood that, but then I heard you say right after that that there are no new trees being proposed, but that’s what this plan is. MR. BALLAS-These are existing trees. Those are there right now. We have 15 large trees in the buffer right now. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. So there are in fact no new trees being proposed beyond what is there right now. MR. BALLAS-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. BALLAS-Because per the. MR. TRAVER-For large trees, but then you’re talking about smaller? MR. BALLAS-So, yes. Per the city guidelines, if we were to go by the Code of what’s in a buffer, we would, and Laura put it in the notes I believe it was five large trees or six. So we’re actually more than double the amount of large trees in the buffer right now, and now it’s a matter of adding in the shrubs and the herbaceous plants. MR. TRAVER-And your plan would do that in the spring obviously. MR. BALLAS-Yes. So like I said we’d work with a nursery so that list we got you we would pick out of that list which was the dogwood that got approved there. MR. COLLINS-If I could ask, how are you defining the buffer? Because you’re drawing the buffer. MR. TRAVER-We’ve closed the public hearing, sir. Thank you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. COLLINS-Sorry. MR. SHAFER-Are these photographs accurate? MR. BALLAS-That was when we purchased the property. MR. SHAFER-Well the Staff Notes says there are 15 large trees there now that will remain? MR. BALLAS-Yes, so we own both tree lines. MRS. BALLAS-There’s that wooded lot, the woods on the side. MR. BALLAS-We own both tree lines. MR. SHAFER-So they’re on the side. MR. BALLAS-That’s not our full lot. They’re on the side. Correct. So we own, it’s about 15 feet of tree line to the north of us, I’m sorry, 20 feet to the north of us, 15 feet to the south of us. So both those tree lines are our property. MR. SHAFER-So the buffer by the lake will include new large trees? MR. BALLAS-We’re not proposing any new large trees because we have 15 of them in the buffer currently. So what we’re adding is the small trees, large bushes and herbaceous plants. MR. SHAFER-I hear what they’re saying, but the point is there’ll be no new trees in that view. MRS. BALLAS-That was what was so heated last time and what everyone was upset about was that that was clear cut 14 years ago. MR. BALLAS-Yes, that had nothing to do with us, the clear cut. That’s how we purchased the property. MRS. BALLAS-Right. MR. BALLAS-But there is, in the buffer, there are 15 large trees currently there. MR. SHAFER-But along the corners. MR. BALLAS-On the sides. MR. SHAFER-But my point is there will be no new large trees planted in that view. MR. BALLAS-That’s where we have the 155 smaller plants. MR. SHAFER-Such as? MR. MAGOWAN-They’re all right here, John. MR. BALLAS-Yes, they’re all on there. MR. SHAFER-Can you read that? MR. BALLAS-I can read you the list if you like. MR. SHAFER-I couldn’t read the plan. MR. TRAVER-So I think that some of what we’re hearing as far as concern probably could be remediated with a minor change in your planting plan, and that is that you have, on either side as reflected in that photograph, diagram, you have some large trees on the side, and you’re talking about putting in some undergrowth and so on sort of in the center. We heard talk about the two level concept. That has to do with the management of the rainwater and sunlight and so on. So if you could add, perhaps on either side of the path, a couple of more trees, to fill in that gap in the center. Would you consider doing that? MR. BALLAS-We’d consider that, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So how does the Board feel about that? If they add say two trees on either side of that path that’s going down the center of that road on the shoreline buffer, maybe halfway between the, probably say between the lake and the end of the, edge of the buffer. I’ll take some liberty and say a couple 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) of trees here and a couple of trees here. That would certainly make it more robust and handle the water better. Although the soils here, from what I understand, are. MR. DEEB-Where are you at in the trees? MR. TRAVER-What’s that? MR. DEEB-Where are you adding the trees? MR. TRAVER-Where? MR. MAGOWAN-Near the stone patio on either side of the walkway, but off, you wanted to fill this right here, right, Steve, like in this area and that area? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-First you said two trees and then you said four trees. MR. VALENTINE-Two on either side. MR. MAGOWAN-To me, I think we’re getting a little carried away here, but that’s just my opinion. I mean they’ve got a good buffer on either side, and they’re putting in 155 planting in the middle, and they’ve got two tiers coming down. MR. BALLAS-We actually have a total of 53 feet of buffer. MRS. BALLAS-If I may, we are solving the problem here, and I know that this property brings up a lot of ill feelings just because it was wooded at one point and it got clear cut. MR. TRAVER-Well, to be honest with you, we’re not concerned about the past. We’re just trying to, since you’re already involved in rectifying the situation, then putting in a good shoreline buffer hopefully you won’t have to address in the future. So my thought is, and again I’m not speaking for everyone on the Board, but my thought is you’ve got nice trees here and here. You’ve obviously putting in some low level plantings here which is great. So my thought was while you’re at it, it wouldn’t take much, it doesn’t seem to me, to add a couple of full size trees in here, and when they fill out it’s going to provide a multi-layer buffer, which is really the intent of the buffering in terms of helping the lake and with all the work that you put into it, it doesn’t seem like adding a few trees would be too much more. MRS. BALLAS-No, not too much more, but it would block our view. When we purchased the property, that’s what we really enjoyed about it, and we had nothing to do with the view or the clear cutting that happened . We want to solve the problem of runoff and buffers, and I think that we do that with everything that we put into the property before and the stuff that we’re adding to it. I wouldn’t be opposed to looking into it. MR. BALLAS-Yes, because we actually do have more than double the required large trees that is in the Queensbury Code, and then we’re looking to add all the other plants. MR. MAGOWAN-Can I ask a question? What are the plantings that you have on the two other buffers? I see, what is it, a WC? MR. BALLAS-Yes, they’re coded, which I’m not, I don’t know all that. I mean it’s bushes and then it’s like some smaller herbaceous plants. I don’t know exactly what they are, to be honest, but we do, both of those buffers are filled with plants. So as you mentioned, we do, as you come down from the house, we actually have 53 feet of actual buffers with plants once we finish planting them. MR. MAGOWAN-’Well that’s what I thought when I looked out at it. I mean, my personal opinion is that with those two upper buffers and the lower one, and keeping that little spot in between on either side, we shouldn’t be asking them to close off their view with all the plantings that they put in there, and 155 plants is a lot of plants to be putting all around there. MS. WHITE-And it does say smaller trees and large shrubs. So they’re going to grow over time. MR. BALLAS-Yes, those will. MS. WHITE-So I feel like they are perfectly fine as is. MR. TRAVER-So you’re happy with what they have. MS. WHITE-I am. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. DEEB-Yes, I don’t think we add anymore onus to their, they’ve done a lot to do this. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. DEEB-There’s more than enough tree plantings in there to satisfy the guidance issue. So I don’t think we need to create anymore burden on them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. How do other Board members feel? Do you feel their planting plan is adequate or they need to add more trees? I mean they have a proposal in front of us. Should we just vote and see how it goes? MR. MAGOWAN-Please. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, why don’t we do that. Does anyone have any other questions or comments for the applicant before we consider a motion? Okay. We did the public hearing. Why don’t we go ahead and go with the draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD. # 29-2020 CAMP KNOX/BALLAS 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 revisions to an existing shoreline landscaping. Replacing an area of approximately 100 sq. ft. patio area with 150 sq. ft. permeable patio area and landscaping at shoreline. The site has an existing 2,706 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an existing site plan and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/25/2020 and continued the public hearing to 11/17/2020, 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 11/17/2020; 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 MODIFICATION 29-2020 CAMP KNOX, LLC / BALLAS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is 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 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Planting plan to be completed by June 30, 2021. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17 day of November 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Could I suggest something? The applicant indicated that they would have the planting plan done by the spring of 2021. MR. TRAVER-Add that as a condition? MRS. MOORE-You could potentially add that as a condition. MR. TRAVER-Should we say May? Do you think you’d have it done by May, or do you want June? MR. BALLAS-Maybe June. MRS. MOORE-I was thinking June or the end of the summer, based on not knowing what’s happening with COVID, not knowing what our weather condition’s going to be like with winter, how long that will last. MR. MAGOWAN-Why don’t we compromise at August? MR. TRAVER-Well the only concern I guess that I would have is if the buffer is not completed, it leaves some exposure. So if they plan on doing it in the spring, why don’t we make it June? Could we add a condition that the buffer be completed by June. st MR. HUNSINGER-The end of June or the 1 of June? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the end of June. MR. TRAVER-The end of June. MR. HUNSINGER-Well I’m asking for clarification. MR. TRAVER-The end of June. MR. DEEB-All right. MR. TRAVER-So June 30, 2021. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. BALLAS-Thank you very much. MRS. BALLAS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next section of our agenda is Planning Board recommendations to the ZBA, and the first item is Stewart’s Shops Corporation, Site Plan Modification 50-2020. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 50-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 1002 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO PLACE A 280 SQ. FT. GENERATOR SHED AT REAR OF PROPERTY, RELOCATING THE 10’ X 10’ SHED TO ONE PARKING SPACE. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 4,929 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND A 2,560 SQ. FT. FUEL CANOPY – NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50- 2009, AV 47-2009, 2010-241 BANK, 2014-648 ALT., 2010-075 GAS TANKS/CANOPY, AV 40-2020. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2020 SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.46 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-65. SECTION: 179-9-120 CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The application is to place a 280 square foot generator shed at the rear of the property. This is considered a modification because it wasn’t part of the initial proposal. They’re relocating the 10 by 10 shed to one of the parking spaces. I did try to explain in my Staff Notes that they’re still compliant with their parking, even though they’re losing one space, and no other changes to the site are proposed. MR. TRAVER-And the variance is basically because of the setback. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Ten feet from the property line as opposed to the requirement of 25 feet. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And is there someone here for the applicant? Yes, sir. MR. POTTER-Good evening. Chris Potter from Stewart’s. As Laura said, we’d like to build an enclosure for some generators that we’re looking to store on site. If our shops in the area have power outages, we can dispatch them out to those shops that would have long time power outages, and this is a central location based on other locations that we have these at to infill an area that we don’t have generators in. So There’s an existing 10 by 10 shed in that location currently. We would just move that over onto the blacktop on the opposite side of the dumpster enclosure, and then kind of hide that in between the row of trees that are there and the dumpster. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and because of the nature of the lot, the parking lot and where you want to put it, that’s why you need the variance. MR. POTTER-Yes. There’s really no other locations on the site that would I guess work well to have, it’s a generator on a trailer that our maintenance people would tow with the van. So we need a little more space to back it in and get it out. MR. HUNSINGER-So these wouldn’t be running. MR. POTTER-They’re strictly for storage. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re just sitting there. MR. POTTER-Yes, and if there’s a power outage in the area and if it’s going to be for a long time then they would get taken out and brought to the shops that were out of power. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So it’s not necessarily just for this site. MR. POTTER-No, not just for this site. They could house two generators there that are in trailers and they would tow them out to the shops that would need them. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought like you did, Steve. I thought they were going to be for this Stewart’s Shop. MR. TRAVER-Yes, right. MR. HUNSINGER-And that they would be running, and that was my concern is how are the neighbors going to like listening to it. MR. MAGOWAN-Are they going to run the whole store or just the register? MR. POTTER-No. Usually what they house is one that would run everything and then one that would just kind of do flip stuff on and off. So it would run the coolers and freezers and registers, and you’d swap off the coolers and freezers just to maintain temperatures. MR. VALENTINE-Gas pumps still run? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. POTTER-With the large generator that would run everything, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. TRAVER-So you’re here tonight for the variance actually as opposed to the site plan. So does anyone have any issues with the request for setback relief? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VALENTINE-But I think the variance would tie into one question is there’s a loss of a parking space. Does that create another variance? MR. TRAVER-I think that they need 30. MR. DEEB-Laura already said that. MS. WHITE-Laura just said that. MR. DEEB-She said that already. MR. VALENTINE-She did. Did I miss that? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they do lose a space, but they’re still compliant. MR. DEEB-They’re still compliant. So it costs you more to come in here and get this done than it would to do the whole thing. Right? MR. TRAVER-All right. Well if no one has an issue, then we’ll send this along to the ZBA. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 40-2020 STEWART’S SHOPS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a site plan modification to place a 280 sq. ft. generator shed at rear of property, relocating the 10’ x 10’ shed to one parking space. The site has an existing 4,929 sq. ft. building and a 2,560 sq. ft. fuel canopy – no changes are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for dimensional requirements. 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. 40-2020 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 17 day of November 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. POTTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next also under Planning Board recommendations we have Peter Sheehan, Co-Trustee, Site Plan 51-2020. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) SITE PLAN NO. 51-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PETER SHEEHAN (CO-TRUSTEE). AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION; 31 BIRCH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 224 SQ. FT. SUNROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME OF 4,279 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. THE NEW FLOOR AREA PROPOSED IS 4,503 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW OPEN DECK OF 224 SQ. FT. ABOVE THE SUNROOM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6- 065, 179-6-050, AND 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 76-2012 DEMO AND REBUILD SF HOME, 89508-2020 REPLACE DOCK, AV 42-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .83 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-20. SECTION: 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, 179-13-010. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The application is for a 224 square foot sunroom addition. The sunroom addition will also have an open deck above and the relief being sought is for setbacks at the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins on behalf of Peter Sheehan. Peter’s the owner, Trustee of 31 Birch Road. This is the site that our office did a site plan for. We started it in 2012 and this Board had approved the site plan for a re-build of this residence. His parents actually built the beautiful residence there and their needs have kind of adjusted a little bit and they’re proposing to build a single screen room on the shore side of the residence, which will be a single story enclosed room, sunroom we’re calling it. Lots of windows with a roof and a deck above that’s accessed from the main floor, from the second floor. Just due to the layout of the site and the way the geometry with the rooflines and the existing building work, in order to get the space that’s workable, we’re at 45 and a half feet, 45.6 feet from the mapped shoreline of Glen Lake. I would add that the property is very well maintained. The shoreline is very well buffered. Hopefully you’ve had a chance, you probably haven’t had a chance yet to go and have a look at it, but it’s very well buffered. It’s very neat. It’s got a modern septic system. We designed it. It’s got modern stormwater controls that all work very well and I’m here tonight to ask your support for the recommendation to the Zoning Board to ask for relief from shoreline, and with that I’d turn it over for questions. MR. TRAVER-And the relief is 4.4 feet? MR. HUTCHINS-4.4 feet, yes. So 50 feet is the requirement and this now would be 45.6 feet from the shoreline. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I was looking at the old sheet. We grew up as kids there, but really I kind of like the design. It really kind of like fit in there. I did like, I liked the buffer zone and what you’ve done. I think it would be a, I don’t have an issue with it, no. MR. TRAVER-So what we’re looking at this evening, as with the previous application, is the variance, is the discussion this evening for the referral. And again it’s 4.4 feet, 45.6 feet versus the 50 foot requirement. There is no public hearing for this, at this point in the application. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s really an issue for the Zoning Board, but when I looked at that my first thought was, well why did you turn the long way towards the lake? If you had turned it the other way you would require two feet less of a variance. MR. HUTCHINS-The issue comes in with the roofline and where the water strip, there’s no gutters on the building, just drop them into eaves trench. The issue becomes with the roofline there’s a couple of valleys there and there’s a sort of half octagon on an angle thing that’s got a valley roof that would impact with the deck if it was rotated. That’s why. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean again that’s the Zoning Board’s determination. We don’t approve the variance. We approve the site plan. So I didn’t think it was going to affect the site plan, but like I said it was my first thought. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. HUTCHINS-I expect we’ll hear that question tomorrow. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? Does anyone have any concerns about the variance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MS. WHITE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft resolution or referral I should say. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 42-2020 PETER SHEEHAN CO-TRUSTEE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 224 sq. ft. sunroom addition to an existing home of 4,279 sq. ft. floor area. The new floor area proposed is 4,503 sq. ft. The project includes a new open deck of 224 sq. ft. above the sunroom. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-080, 179-3- 040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050 and 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for dimensional requirements. 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. 42-2020 PETER SHEEHAN (CO- TRUSTEE). Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 17 day of November 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. We move to the next section of our agenda which is under New Business. The first application under New Business is Jeffrey and Joanne Mann, Subdivision Sketch Plan 14-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 14-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JEFFREY & JOANNE MANN. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR- 3A. LOCATION: BAY ROAD AND PICKLE HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SIX LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION IN RR-3A ZONE – LOTS ARE GREATER THAN THREE ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES SHARED DRIVEWAYS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION AT SKETCH PLAN STAGE. CROSS REFERENCE: 2003-244 DEMO, 2003-407 NEW SF HOME. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS, APA. LOT SIZE: 34.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-23.1. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application for discussion is for a six lot residential subdivision in an RR-3A zone. It includes Bay Road and Pickle Hill Road, and I’ve identified some of the Code excerpts from Rural Residential Three acre zone. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Thank you, Laura. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board members. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. With us also in the back row are our clients, Jeff and Joanne Mann. They’ve owned the property since 2003 and they’ve built their home on the easterly adjoining parcel, 23.3, which is 6.3 acres currently for sale. So they’re quite honestly trying to simplify their lives and their daughter graduated last year and they’re looking to sell the big house and then also their approximately 35 acres which comprises our proposed subdivision. In addition they own a flag lot of 17 acres just to the east of their existing home, which is also for sale, that’s not part of this project, possibly something in the future, and we’re proposing the subdivision. Quite honestly there’s somewhat of a limited market for this big of a parcel in the Lake George area, Town of Queensbury area, very desirable area. So certainly many more potential buyers for a five acre lot than a 35 acre lot. So they’ve looked at doing a project for some years now. They did a preliminary layout that didn’t make it very far is my understanding in 2007, and we basically resurrected that plan and are looking to move forward with it. With the zoning re-write in 2009, the lot width requirements doubled as did the setbacks, which are much more restrictive. So they’ve somewhat been zoned out, if you will. So we’re going to ask for the relief from the Zoning Board to go from 400 feet of lot width and road frontage to 300 feet, which we still believe is very reasonable, not encumbering upon the neighborhood at all in our opinion. It’s got good amount of acreage and good amount of depth to it. So the homes will be set back quite a ways off of Pickle Hill Road, approximately 500 feet of driveway, and then to minimize our road cuts we’re proposing two shared driveways off of Pickle Hill for those four lots, and then the two lots off of Bay Road will have their own driveways. Very happy with the design so far. We’ve got a lot of work to do to get to our Preliminary phase, the survey work, topography, all of our engineering, but we want to take a nice first step with the Board and we would appreciate your feedback so we can go forward. So thank you for having us. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So the previous plan, what were the issues expressed then? Was it topography? MR. DOBIE-I think just the project never materialized, Mr. Hunsinger. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-It didn’t have any issues. It just never got off the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I see the stream crossing, and you avoided that, and there are some good slopes in that area. MR. VALENTINE-I was going to ask you, why didn’t, you didn’t put the shared driveways into common property lines. I mean if I have one of the two houses, like right in the middle you’ve got both driveways are on that one lot. Whereas if you put it at the common property line you could split the driveway off. For the four lots you could work both of them that way, and I didn’t know if there was a reason why, and then Chris mentioned the topography and the stream flow and I didn’t know what was there. MR. DOBIE-Your point’s very well taken, Mr. Valentine. It’s, again, just a very preliminary design, but we’ll incorporate that into our full design. It would work quite well. MR. HUNSINGER-Especially Lots One and Two. MR. VALENTINE-I don’t know which numbers are which, but I’m just seeing those four things, and then Three and Four. Okay. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Lucas, keeping it two curb cuts on Pickle Hill, is that driven by sight distance requirements or just the concept of two instead of four? MR. DOBIE=No, that’s just, we’ve got all kinds of sight distance, with it being straight, and it’s just, if I lived in there I would rather see two road cuts as opposed to four. MR. SHAFER-So the vertical curves are not a problem? MR. DOBIE-Not until we get way towards Bay Road when it starts up the hill real steep. We’re quite a ways east of that. MR. VALENTINE-So you’d have to have maintenance agreements in the deeds or something? MR. DOBIE-Yes, correct, and reciprocal easements and stormwater maintenance. MR. SHAFER-Have you done any test pits or perc tests? MR. DOBIE-I have not, but based upon the, it’s a cornfield, a majority of it on Pickle Hill, and I walked it with the Park Agency biologist in September. It’s quite sandy. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. DEEB-Jeff’s been there a while, too, in that area. MR. DOBIE-Yes. MR. DEEB-So he would know if there were any problems. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the big lot on Bay Road? I mean that’s quite a hill. MR. DOBIE-Yes. As I understand it there used to be a house pretty close to Bay Road once upon a time, where the clearing is. We need to site topography work there to get a better feel, but it certainly is quite steep to the west. We’re trying to stay on the flatter ground as feasible. MR. HUNSINGER-But it looks like, I mean you certainly have enough room to, if it is steep, to put a driveway in without being ridiculous. You’re not going to build it straight up. I mean you have a drawing. You can use the contour of the land. MR. TRAVER-Any other feedback for the Sketch Plan? MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say, Lucas, I really like when you bring out these preliminaries., I mean really you put in some thought, and some of the ones you’ve done in the past really turned out nice. I just have to say kudos to Jeffrey and Joanne. I didn’t realize you owned that parcel there, but I really like the idea of the shared driveway on the common line. One of the things that caught my eye, especially the middle one there, Lot Three, whoever buys that one, and say Lot Four is a busy house and all those cars in and out, trying to get to that house. I mean if you could split them off, that would be great, but I like the size lots. I know that Lot Six is a tough one, and I’m trying to remember, I think I remember that house, a house that used to be there, at least the foundation that used to, going back into the 70’s and 80’s. I like the project. I think you’re going to go back and tweak it a little bit more and really come up with something nice. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any questions for us? MR. DOBIE-I don’t believe so. We’ve done enough of these over the years. We’re pretty comfortable with the process, and we’ll work with Laura and we’re going to get to work on it over the winter. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You’re welcome. Thanks for bringing it in. Next under New Business we have Michael & Judith McMahon, Site Plan 52-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL & JUDITH MC MAHON. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 28 BAY PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO AN EXISTING HOME AND GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 3,630 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND A FOOTPRINT OF 2,605 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR THE HOUSE PROJECT AND SHORELINE AREA INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF NEW PLANTINGS. PROJECT INCLUDES PERMEABLE PAVER DRIVEWAY AREA, PATIO AREA SITE PLANTINGS AND PATHWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 AND 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 70-2017 3,638 SQ. FT. HOME. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA. LOT SIZE: .38 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1- 35. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179-6-050. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is demo of an existing home and garage and construct a new home of 3,630 square feet floor area and a footprint of 2,605 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Hello again. MR. HUTCHINS-Hello. Tom Hutchins for the record on behalf of Michael and Judith McMahon. The McMahon’s own the property at 28 Bay Parkway. This is a site that this Board looked at in 2017 I believe. What we’re showing you now is very similar. The footprint is the same as the residence that we showed you and you approved back in 2017. It is a different owner. They’ve made some changes to the interior layout of the home, but it’s the same footprint. We’re proposing to remove an existing residence. It’s 11 and a half feet from Lake George, and it’s kind of neat and it’s kind of strange and it’s kind of past it’s time. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) So we’re going to take that residence that’s 11 and a half feet from the lake and remove it and put in a fully compliant structure, we believe to be fully compliant, and setbacks, FAR, permeability, everything, brand new septic, enhanced treatment. New stormwater controls. We’ve shown the full 35 foot buffering per your new standards, and we’re pretty pleased with this plan, and we’d turn it over to the Board for comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and before we do comment, I want to remind folks that may be viewing us this evening on the YouTube channel that we do have a public hearing on this application. So I’ll let you know in advance that if you plan on calling in and commenting on this, the number to call is 518-761-8225, and open it up for members of the Board for questions and comment. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s quite a transformation of this property here. MR. HUTCHINS-It is. The old garage that’s there is five feet from the road. So we’re going to fix that problem, too., MR. TRAVER-So you mentioned an approval in 2017? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I think it was 2017, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was in the Staff Notes. MR. HUTCHINS-It was under a different name. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MR. HUTCHINS-It was under Gardner. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think I remember that. MR. DEEB-Yes, me, too. MR. TRAVER-Are there folks in the audience that want to address the Planning Board on this application? I see a hand from the Waterkeeper, if you want to come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’d really like to recognize the low impact development concepts that they’ve put in on the project. It’s good aspects of the project. Pushing the house back, fully compliant shoreline buffer, really a short driveway on this. We would like to encourage the applicant to increase stormwater management, to decrease runoff and the nutrient runoffs to the lake, especially in light of the recent harmful algae bloom, which is right off of the property. The applicant should consider providing stormwater management for runoff from the existing impervious area, which they take credit for. The proposal will only manage the runoff from the increase in impervious cover, and if we ever want to improve the water quality of Lake George we need to address the runoff from the existing. So we would really encourage that they try to maybe make those raingardens larger or some way that they can increase stormwater management. We have a question, permeable pavers on the driveway and on the patio, but the stone reservoir important for storage is twice as large on the patio than on the driveway, and we just had a question on that, and the one thing, talking about nutrients, there are planting notes, and we recommend that they eliminate the note regarding composted manure. We really don’t think that should be put in close proximity to the shoreline. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, just Chris’. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience? I guess not. We haven’t received any phone calls on this, so we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So you heard the comments from the Waterkeeper. A little more stormwater for the existing impervious. MR. HUTCHINS-And I can comment on that one specifically. MR. TRAVER-Sure. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) MR. HUTCHINS-I’m not sure how Chris has looked at, this is designed, we have designed stormwater controls for the entire area of the new roof, the entire new driveway, the entire patio, and it’s in accordance with Queensbury’s criteria for stormwater within Lake George for minor stormwater projects. We did not take the credit for prior impervious area. In other words we didn’t take the old impervious area and subtract it from our new impervious area and treat that area. We treated the new impervious area. Chris is mistaken, or I respectfully disagree with him on that point. As far as the driveway and the patio differences, yes, we’ve got more storage under the patio because part of the building roof drains over that. So there’s additional area besides the area of the patio that that’s treating, and I’m fine with taking the manure out of the compost. Compost is recommended, that’s part of the blend for the soil mixture that provides the filtering treatment within the raingarden. So I’m fine with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there’s been quite a bit of discussion recently about mulch and compost and so on as a source of nutrients for the lake. Mulch is a big one. Sometimes it’s made out of ground up wood products and things like that that even can have chemicals in them. So we really try to get away from any of that stuff, and certainly the manure is going to contribute nitrogen to the lake. MR. HUTCHINS-And again compost is part of the accepted blend of the mix in raingardens, but I’m fine taking that out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Tom, Chazen had some comments about the elevation of some of the infiltration devices not being two feet above the seasonal high groundwater mark and two feet above bedrock. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, they had one there, and I’ve got to address that. I’ll either have to. It was very close but I may have to raise one of them up a little bit, but I was generally pleased. MR. VALENTINE-It wasn’t really a long letter. MR. SHAFER-No. MR. VALENTINE-This is an observation. Don’t take it either way for you guys, but you guys sit together while there’s other presentations being made, the two of you don’t go over your comments that you’re going to make beforehand and say, iron some of these out or something like that, or you’re aware of what his comments are? MR. HUTCHINS-We generally don’t talk about a lot of specific projects beforehand. I mean we talk frequently. We’ve worked together on a number of wastewater projects in the lake, some fairly advanced ones, but, no, I don’t call up Chris and say, hey, what do you think about this plan. We communicate. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments, questions concerns? Do you have a resolution ready for us? MR. DEEB-We sure do. MR. TRAVER-And you added the item on the compost? MR. DEEB-No, I didn’t. All right. So we are removing. MR. TRAVER-Part of the current Site Plan calls for composting as part of the shoreline buffer and that’s not to be done. No composting. MR. HUTCHINS-I actually had to look for that one when he brought the comment up. It’s the new planting notes on S-5. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 52-2020 MICHAEL & JUDITH MC MAHON The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to demo an existing home and garage to construct a new home of 3,630 sq. ft. floor area and a footprint of 2,605 sq. ft. The project includes site work for the house project and shoreline area including installation of new plantings. Project includes permeable paver driveway area, patio area site plantings and pathway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) 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 11/17/2020 and continued the public hearing to11/17/2020, 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 11/17/2020; 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 52-2020 MICHAEL & JUDITH MCMAHON. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is 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) The planting notes should be revised to eliminate the use of composted manure. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17 day of November 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. I wanted to report a couple of items to the Board. One is that we had a Technology Committee meeting this evening right before the regular Planning Board and I think we made some progress, including that the Supervisor has indicated that he may try to get IPads for the rest of the Board members. So that’s something that you can look forward to in the coming weeks. We had, I think, a good discussion about some enhancements to the IPads that are newly re-issued for this new go around for the IPad project. I think we made some progress there. I think we had a good discussion, and moving forward we’ll continue to see some progress. Laura reported, too, she’s been working hard with 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2020) StoredTech on delivering the meeting documents to us and they’ve come up with a methodology. I haven’t myself tried it yet, but I will be probably later this evening where instead of having to load individual documents we can go to an offsite cloud storage and retrieve basically a packet much like the stack of stuff that we get every month from the Town. So I’m sure that will be very helpful and we’ll look forward to that. So I just wanted to express my appreciation to everybody who attended the meeting and especially to Laura and John Strough for coming and being so helpful to us there and we look forward to moving forward with more progress, and also just a heads up from Laura that next month I understand we’re going to have a pretty busy agenda. So be prepared for that. Last but not least, Laura, something I forgot to ask you during our Technology Committee meeting, a few months ago we had requested that we have the ability to change our default passwords on our e-mail accounts. Have you made on any progress on that? MRS. MOORE-I have not heard back from that, but I did bring it up again today. I have not heard anything. I had some other questions in regards to IPad access. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So that prompted me to say what happened to being able to change your password appropriately as you usually do with any other company, but you don’t have authority to do that and I don’t know why. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s rather odd. I think that they have to send us a link, which you go to a link and then that prompts you to enter your old password and then propose a new password, enter that twice, and then that’s the new password. We used to be able to do that even on the Town accounts but for some reason, but we lost the ability to do that, but if you could follow up on that I’d appreciate it because that is really a security concern, and I apologize I forgot to bring that up at the meeting. It was on my list. Is there anything else before the Board tonight? MR. VALENTINE-Are we going to do that training? MRS. MOORE-I am not doing training tonight. MR. VALENTINE-Well not tonight. MRS. MOORE-I’m going to try to do that where I send out a PowerPoint so you can do it on your own. There’s Workplace Violence and Sexual Harassment training. MR. TRAVER-It doesn’t sound like you want to do that next month, Laura. MS. WHITE-If we just had it, can we just tell you that we already had it? MRS. MOORE-Yes, so let me just say this again, so this is for Mike’s benefit because I made a mistake. If you have taken it, you can send me your certificate from your workplace so that we can check your box off. MR. DEEB-Really? I already took mine. I’ll bring you mine in. MR. TRAVER-If there’s no other business before the Board, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. VALENTINE-So moved. MR. DEEB-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. See you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 23