Loading...
05-20-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 15-2020 Frank & Erin Steinbach 1. REQUEST FOR 1 YR. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18 Site Plan No. 48-2021 Mark Prendeville 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Site Plan No. 21-202 David Hartmann 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Site Plan No. 49-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 3. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Site Plan No. 9-2021 Trevor Flynn 5. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48 Site Plan No. 30-2021 John Graziano 6. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-1 Site Plan No. 33-2021 333 Cleverdale, LLC/San Souci 9. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43, 226.12-1-44 Site Plan No. 32-2021 Town Fair Tire 10. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-34 Site Plan No. 28-2021 Stephen A. Burnett, Trustee 20. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Site Plan No. 31-2021 Wayne & Michelle Williams 24. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-18 Site Plan No. 29-2021 Country Inn & Suites/David Menter 26. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 295.8-1-9 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 05/20/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th meeting for Thursday May 20, 2021. This is our second meeting for May and our 11 meeting for this year. It should be noted we were informed as we arrived this evening that for those that are fully vaccinated a mask is no longer required. So we have an amended COVID protocol that we’re following this evening. If you note the red exit signs, illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency, that is the way out. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that so it doesn’t interrupt our meeting. There are a number of items on our agenda this evening that involve a public hearing, and I will advise those in the audience and the public that we will be taking public comment at that time and if those watching our meeting on the Town YouTube channel would like to phone in when those public hearings are called, make note of the number 518-761-8225. That is the number to call in to the telephone here at the Planning Board meeting and I will repeat that number as our public hearings occur. With that we have some administrative items this evening. Some requests for extensions and tabling. The first is Site Plan 15-2020, Steinbach request for a one year extension to June 15, 2022. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2020 STEINBACH REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant hasn’t been able to start the project due to COVID and they’re actually looking to do some additional work. So this project may come back to this Board for an updated actual plan. So at this point they’d like to maintain what they’re proposing and they’re asking for an extension to next year. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Yes. They discovered they needed some additional work on the foundation or something I guess. Yes. So, very good. Anyone have questions or concerns with granting Steinbach an extension until June of next year? I think we have a draft resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 15-2020 FRANK & ERIN STEINBACH 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 construct a 154 sq. ft. addition to the rear portion of the home where a portion of the deck is to be removed. Site work includes updating concrete steps at front of home with new steps and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6- 050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant requests a one year extension to June 15, 2022. The Planning Board approved a one year extension to June 15, 2022. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR FRANK & ERIN STEINBACH. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) th Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next we have Site Plan 48-2021 for Prendeville. Request for tabling until September 28. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2021 PRENDEVILLE REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this is the second meeting in September because they need to go back in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and at this point it’s best to move them to September. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Anyone have any questions on that? All right. Then we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 48-2021 MARK PRENDEVILLE 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 a two story addition with a basement to an existing home with associated site work. The existing home is 778 sq. ft. footprint with a floor area of 1,964 sq. ft. The floor area of the new addition is 3,844 sq. ft. with a 1,518 sq. ft. footprint, total new floor area 5,808 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010 & 179-4-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and previous shoreline vegetation removal in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tabled to the May 20, 2021 Planning Board meeting. Request to further table to September 28, 2021.. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 48-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer. Tabled until the September 28, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by August 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 20day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-And next we have Site Plan 21-2021 for Hartmann. They’re requesting a tabling to September 2021. SITE PLAN 21-2020 HARTMANN REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant never received Planning Board recommendation. However he understands what he needs to do but he hasn’t had an opportunity to respond to engineering comments. So in turn he’s asked for a tabling to September and we think this Board may want to further discuss that in September, maybe have the applicant come in at that time to determine if we need to deny this without prejudice or if he’s able to move forward. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions on that request? Okay. I think we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN 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 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) of Appeals. Tabled to the first meeting in May 2021. Applicant requests further tabling the first Planning Board meeting in September 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 21-2020 DAVID HARTMANN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled until the September 21, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by August 16, 2021. th Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Next we move to the regular agenda. The first section being tabled items, and the first item is, under Unapproved Development, Jeffrey Godnick, Site Plan 49-2020. TABLED ITEM WITH UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN NO. 49-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JEFFREY GODNICK. AGENT(S): JON C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 312 GLEN LAKE ROAD REVISED: APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A 188 SQ. FT., 10 FT. HIGH SHED TO REPLACE A SHED THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE EXISTING HOME IS 4,259 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A SITE FLOOR AREA OF 5,962 SQ. FT., WHICH INCLUDES 188 SQ. FT. SHED. HARD SURFACING HAS BEN REDUCED WITH NEW PERMEABLE SURFACE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 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: AV 71-1994, SP 95-21323, 2008-016 DOCK; AV 39-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .49 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-84. SECTION: 179-6-065. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application received variances last evening in reference to maintaining a 188 square foot shed. There were some items that were brought up in reference to setbacks. The shed is located 3.9 feet from the side setback. It’s 44 feet to the shoreline. The Zoning Board had tabled it previously to request updating the permeability. They’ve done that. They went from 64% to 65.8% and additionally they understand that they granted relief for the floor area and permeability. So at this point they’re back before this Board to maintain a 188 square foot shed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. So this was just sort of a neighbor, neighbor issue. The shed acts kind of as a buffer between two sites. It’s painted green. It’s next to a hedgerow. The site’s very nicely landscaped. So we’re not proposing any changes, but as Laura said the Zoning Board asked for it to be more permeable and that was the change that got the Zoning Board approval last night. I’m sure you’ve all seen the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So as a result of the review with the ZBA, are there any changes to the plan that we looked at? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? All right. Well, if there are no questions or concerns, I believe we have a draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-Prior to you doing that, you did have a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. So my apologies. So this is subject to public hearing. I will ask people that are viewing us by telephone, if they wish to call in and comment by public hearing I’ll repeat that number, 518-761-8225. And I’ll ask Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MRS. MOORE-I’ll identify that there was written comment back in October 2020, and since it did not make a public hearing presence in the Site Plan Review, I’m just going to highlight some of the information. It’s a letter from Caffry’s office, signed by Amanda Kukle. She represents one of the interested parties, Erin McNeil. They were concerned in reference to the setback issues, the permeability and the fact that it was done without approvals. And then I have a letter from Margaret Choppa of 328 Glen Lake Road that is in support of the shed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application before the Board tonight? I’m not seeing anyone. We haven’t received any phone calls. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we can hear a resolution now. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Revised: Applicant requests to maintain a 188 sq. ft., 10 ft. high shed to replace a shed that has been removed. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. (footprint) with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft., which includes 188 sq. ft. shed. Hard surfacing has been reduced with new permeable surface. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 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; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/20/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 05/19/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/27/2020 and continued the public hearing to 05/20/2021, 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 05/20/2021; 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 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK; 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. The waivers are reasonable as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 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: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Next under Tabled Items we have Trevor Flynn. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TREVOR FLYNN. AGENT(S): BRANDON FERGUSON, EDP; JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): DANIEL GRASMEDER. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3222 RT. 9L. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 884 SQ. FT. LIVING ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, A 436 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BREEZEWAY/MUDROOM ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME CONNECTING THE EXISTING 1,315 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MASTER BEDROOM THEN ALTERATIONS TO THE THIRD FLOOR TO INCLUDE A 48 SQ. FT. STUDY NOOK AND A NEW ROOF OVER THE EXISTING BATHROOM AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITH THE UPPER LEVEL GARAGE AREA OF 576 SQ. FT., LOWER LEVEL OF 672 SQ. FT., AND WORKSHOP AREA OF 572 SQ. FT. (TOTAL FLOOR AREA 1,820 SQ. FT.) AND HEIGHT TO BE 21 FT. 4 INCHES. EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: 2,172 SQ. FT. HOUSE AND 1,315 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,390 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 AND 179-6- 060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43-2002, AV 27-2002, AV 76-2002, ALL RE: GARAGE/GUEST COTTAGE; AV 8-2021; AV 29-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18- 1-48. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-060, CHAPTER 147. JON LAPPER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-I understand this application is to be tabled, Laura. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. The Zoning Board had some questions in regards to the second garage. So the applicant is going back and taking a look at what they can do on the site and so I’ve asked that the Board table it until the second meeting of June. nd MR. TRAVER-June 22. nd MRS. MOORE-The 22. So that they can attend at the Zoning Board’s first meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we will then be tabling this, and I’ll let folks know that we will be opening nd the public hearing tonight and this will be tabled and we’ll be taking public comment on June 22 for those who wish to offer it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And we have a resolution to table. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 9-2021 TREVOR FLYNN Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes interior alterations on the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to includes a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the upper level of 1,344 sq. ft. and the lower level of 786 sq. ft. Existing building footprints: 2,172 sq. ft. house and 1,315 sq. ft. detached garage. New floor area to be 6,582 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010 and 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and expansion of a non-conforming structure and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Request for further tabling to June 22, 2021 MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 9-2021 TREVOR FLYNN (D. GRASMEDER). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Tabled until the June 22, 2021 Planning Board meeting. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shafer ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next we move to the section on our agenda under Old Business, and the first item is John Graziano, Site Plan 30-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOHN GRAZIANO. AGENT(S): NICHOLAS ZEGLEN, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 195 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME OF 1,900 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT/3,137 S. FT. FLOOR AREA. THERE IS TO BE A TWO STORY ADDITION OF 886 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, A SINGLE STORY OF 124 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT MASTER BATHROOM ADDITION, AND A 344 +/- SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER THE EXISTING FRONT PORCH. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 4,699 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2011-003 DOCK, SEP-80-2-2021, AV 31-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .48 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19- 2-1. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065, 179-5-020. NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application includes an addition to an existing 1,900 square foot home which has a floor area of 3,137 square feet. It’s an addition of a two story addition of 886 square feet and a second story addition of 124 square feet and covering the existing front porch of 344 square feet. The Zoning Board of Appeals did grant the variance in reference to setbacks on the north side in reference to the two story addition as well as the covered porch. There’s no other comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. There is a public hearing on this application. So we’ll go ahead and open that up early to allow people to call in if they wish to comment on Graziano, Site Plan 30-2021. The phone number to call is 518-761-8225. Good evening. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership. Here on behalf of the applicant Mr. John Graziano. The applicant is proposing site improvements at their residence at 195 Assembly Point Road. The site improvements consist of an attached garage addition on the west side of the house, as well as a master bathroom bump out off the existing bedroom and a covered porch off the front of the house. As Laura said, this project was before the Zoning Board last night and received a variance for the side yard setback. Additional site improvements consist of a new wastewater system with a Clarus enhanced treatment unit, as well as on site stormwater management. There’ll be a drip edge 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) infiltration to treat some of the new garage roof as well as a raingarden to treat the remaining new roof as well as most of the existing roof. The applicant is also proposing to remove about 1600 square feet of their existing asphalt driveway and replace that with permeable block pavers to help improve imperviousness on the site and added stormwater management above what’s required. Lastly there was an existing shed that was on the southern property line that will be moved to be within all the setbacks on the site and alleviate any issues with that. With that I’d like to turn it back over to the Board for any comments. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In your review with the ZBA, were there any changes made to the plan that we reviewed previously? MR. ZEGLEN-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-One of the items that came up on Tuesday night was the floodlight, and we talked about making sure that that had a cutoff. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. We’ll make sure that the floodlight has a cutoff. It’s downward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board for this application, for the public hearing this evening? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. I have one from the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The Waterkeeper recommends to capture runoff from the existing driveway to improve water quality. Stormwater runoff onto and from Assembly Point is a community wide problem that impacts Lake George and the applicant could install a device to convey a portion of the driveway to the existing landscape areas for stormwater management, which could establish a standard along Assembly Point Road. The applicant should clarify whether sidewalks will be added to the front stairs for access and include these impervious surfaces in permeability calculations. New York State Department of Health Design Standards recommend dens and offices that could be converted to bedrooms in the future to be considered in the calculation of waste flow. The office should be considered as a bedroom for design calculations on sizing the onsite wastewater treatment system. It is the recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Queensbury Planning Board condition approval pending stormwater management for a portion of the driveway, clarification of impervious sidewalk location and consideration of all future bedrooms in wastewater flow calculations. “ And as I explained in the past, the septic system will be reviewed by our Building and Codes Department. MR. TRAVER-Right. So stormwater from the driveway. What’s the status of that? Can that be improved? MR. ZEGLEN-So we did look at that when we were putting in the permeable block pavers, and we didn’t put pavers in that section because it’s steep there. So the water would still just kind of sheet flow down the driveway and not really infiltrate through the pavers. Then we did look at stormwater down where the Waterkeeper is talking about, but if you look at the site now, it kind of sheet flows off that driveway and down through the grass, down to that low lying depression area where that landscaping is. So if we were to design, the best practice would be to put something like that in and put in some kind of shallow depression with some plantings which is what’s down there now and it just didn’t seem like it would make sense to go in there and tear up all that vegetated area and grass to put in a device that’s similar to what’s there now. MR. TRAVER-So there’s a device there now? MR. ZEGLEN-I wouldn’t, it’s a low lying grassy area which is what a lot of the stormwater that we do around the lake is, you know, shallow grass depression, and if were to overflow, it would overflow into a landscape area, which is mulched and has plantings and everything. MR. TRAVER-So your feeling is there should be no runoff going into the lake from the driveway. MR. ZEGLEN-That’s correct/ Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So there is another public comment. I’ll read that one now. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So it says, “I , Robert Carbognin am the owner of 197 Assembly Point Road. My property abuts John Graziano’s lot on the north side. This is the side of the proposed addition requiring a variance due to lake of side yard setback. I have no issue with the proposed addition. I wish him well on his construction project, and hope the Board will approve it. Sincerely, Robert Carbognin 197 Assembly Point Road, Lake George” MR. DEEB-So you feel that a vegetative area is enough to handle the runoff then? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. DEEB-With what’s there. MR. ZEGLEN-With what’s there. MR. DEEB-You don’t think you have to add anything more to it. MR. ZEGLEN-Right. We’re not adding anything pervious. Actually we’re using impervious. So all that driveway that’s up above that, that would normally sheet flow down, the flat area, is now all permeable pavers now. So that’s going to infiltrate right through and there’ll be even less runoff going down the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Well there is no additional public comment. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And if there are no other questions for the applicant representative, I guess we have a resolution. MR. DEEB-Do you want to put Code compliant lighting as an amendment? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 30-2021 JOHN GRAZIANO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes residential additions to an existing home of 1,900 sq. ft. footprint/3,137 sq. ft. floor area. There is to be a two story addition of 886 sq. ft. footprint, a single story of 124 sq. ft. footprint master bathroom addition, and a 344 +/- sq. ft. roof area over the existing front porch. The new floor area is to be 4,699 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 05/18/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 05/19/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 05/20/2021 and continued the public hearing to 05/20/2021, 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 05/20/2021; 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 30-2021 JOHN GRAZIANO; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers are reasonable as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 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) Lighting to be Code compliant. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next under Old Business we have San Souci, Site Plan 33-2021 and Special Use Permit 2- 2021. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2021 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING – TOM CENTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD & 337 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF OUTDOOR SEATING AREA TO INCLUDE EXISTING FOUR 6 PERSON PICNIC TABLES AND ONE TABLE FOR 4 PERSONS ON THE RESTAURANT PARCEL AND THE FIVE TOP TABLES FOR 4 PERSONS EACH ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-4-090 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOOD SERVICE IN A WR ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUP 45-2009, SUP 9- 2012, AV 28-2012, AV 28-2021, AV 32-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .27 ACRE & .15 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.12- 1-43, 226.12-1-44. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-090. th MR. TRAVER-The understanding is this item is to be tabled to July 27 meeting. Laura? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MRS. MOORE-This application was before the Zoning Board of Appeals last evening, and the Zoning Board requested it, or the applicant requested it be tabled to reconfigure and to evaluate that outdoor eating area and parking requests for relief, and so the application is being tabled to the second Planning st Board meeting so the Zoning Board can take a look at it on the on the 21. So this is a July meeting. th MR. TRAVER-All right. So we will be tabling this item to the July 27 meeting in anticipation of review I guess the night before by the ZBA. So we will open the public hearing on this application and leave it open for when it returns to us in July. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Any questions, comments from members of the Board? All right. I guess we have a resolution. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 33-2021 SUP 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating area to include existing four 6 person picnic tables and one table for 4 persons on the restaurant parcel and the five top tables for 4 persons each on the adjoining parcel. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-4-090 of the Zoning Ordinance, food service in a WR 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; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 33-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer. Tabled until the July 27, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by June 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Next under Old Business we have Town Fair Tire, Site Plan 32-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 32-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TOWN FAIR TIRE. OWNER(S): OMALL FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 863 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 2,740 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 7,269 SQ. FT. TIRE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PARKING AREA, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 170-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND BUILDING IN THE CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR BUILDING SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 21-1999, AV 16-1996, SP 20-1999, SP 39-2019, AV 30-2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.24 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-34. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & ROB OSTERHOUDT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The application is to remove the existing 2,740 square foot building to construct a new 7,269 square foot tire sales and service facility. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the setback relief for the front of the building to allow for a 57.4 feet setback to the front property line where a 75 foot setback is required. The one condition was additional sound attenuation be added to the west property side, and the Zoning Board was hoping that you would, the Planning Board, would come up with some sort of solution, and the Zoning Board at last night’s meeting suggested some fabric or some material be placed on the fence itself and they were hoping that the Planning Board could come up with something, whether that be something with an additional fence or additional plantings or whether that’s something to do with the building, and you can have further discussion and I understand the applicant may have some additional information on that. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you. Also I will alert the public that we do have a public hearing on this application, and if you wish to call in and make public comment, the number to call is 518-761-8225. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Again, for the record, Jon Lapper with Bob Osterhoudt, the project engineer from Bohler Engineer and John Wypychoski is here on behalf of the applicant. As we discussed Monday night when you made the recommendation, and the Zoning Board did unanimously approve the variance because it’s a little closer to the road than the Code requires. That moves it away from the neighbors to the rear. So as Laura mentioned, a number of neighbors were there last night and they were concerned about noise because it’s a tire business, but as I explained to you last time, and John can get into more detail, this is different than other tire distributers in the area for one reason. It’s air conditioned. So the doors will always be closed and they’re compressors that they use, everything is made to minimize sound and, John, again, can talk more on the record, but we were expecting to come and talk about the buffer in the back and adding some more to what’s on the proposal, but we’re coming in with the fence and vegetation proposed, and we’ll talk about what’s appropriate, but it’s a nice, clean new site that’s going to be a better use. MR. TRAVER-So really the outstanding item that we have to consider is the sound, the additional sound buffering that the ZBA and the public was concerned about. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we think the public’s concern was understandable but sort of misplaced because this type of operation with the doors closed is very different than doing repairs, and they don’t do repairs, as I mentioned, it’s just installing tires and wheels and alignments. MR. TRAVER-So with that concern and that condition, have you come up with a proposal for mitigating the sound? MR. OSTERHOUDT-Good evening. Rob Osterhoudt from Bohler Engineering. MR. TRAVER-Welcome. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes, thank you. Good to be back. So as far as the sound is concerned, we were looking at that as something that could probably be attenuated with plantings. There was a recommendation about putting something on the fence, but we had a concern with having something on the fence that might not be UV, or might be UV reactive, might breakdown and might cause more of an eyesore in the long term. So were looking at this from a natural perspective, maybe adding some additional plantings that would help with noise attenuation. We do have a six foot high wood stockade privacy fence proposed along the southerly boundary and along the westerly boundary. That’s six foot high and the grades of our site are much lower than the adjoining properties to the south and to the west, anywhere from, if you look at the plan on the screen here, on the southerly property line which is the bottom of the page, you see that little jog in the property line. Right there, the grade change from the property line down to the parking lot, is roughly two, two and a half feet, and then as you get over to the left side of that drawing, same, you know, lower section of the parking lot, there’s about an 11 foot grade change there, and then on the west side it’s even more. It’s up to 15, 17, 18 feet on the west side, depending on where you are. So there is quite a bit of grade change. The property and the building and everything will be much lower than that property to the south and to the west. So that coupled with the fence and plantings, we feel there’s a natural type of resource that we can use for sound attenuation. The fencing we’re proposing is six foot fence. There was some discussion about, I spoke with a couple of the neighbors after the meeting about maybe going to a larger fence. So we talked about an eight foot high fence. I think that’s a good option. We briefly talked about maybe something even larger like a 10 foot fence, and personally I’ve seen those installed and a 10 foot fence is really large, and, you know, my personal opinion is I would feel like I was in a prison if I had a 10 foot fence along my property, but I think maybe an eight foot fence with additional plantings might be a good solution here. MR. TRAVER-Do you have a specific proposal regarding plantings, location and type and numbers and so on? MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes. Right now what we’re showing on the plans is the six foot fence along the property line, and then just inside of that fence, the plans currently show arborvitaes. We’ve been discussing the planting selection with some of our landscape architects and because of the existing vegetation, it’s very high, you know, pine, you know, canopy here, we’ve got very large existing trees. So there is a canopy over top of where we’re going to have to put these new plantings, and we’re concerned that the arborvitaes might not be the best selection because they’re not going to get sun and they typically need sun. Deer is another issue with the arborvitae, although there are species of the arborvitae that are somewhat deer resistant. So we talked about some other options. White pine was another option, but there were some concerns at the Zoning Board about the White pines because as they grow their greenery is, again, high, and doesn’t keep down lo, but towards the top of the fence. The only other evergreen species that we came up with as a potential solution would be a hemlock, and right now all up and down the eastern seaboard there’s an infestation of bugs that are killing off hemlocks and we don’t even know if we 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) can get hemlocks out of a nursery at this point, and then there’s always deciduous trees that would be an option, too. So we’ve got several different options. We want to talk about those with the Board tonight, come up with some mutually agreeable solution here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Before we get into that, what are your hours of operation? MR. OSTERHOUDT-The hours of operation are, and just in general, this use is a lot different from the Pizza Hut use in that traffic isn’t going to be as much. The hours of operation are less. There’s no odors from cooking. There’s a lot of benefits her for this type of use. It’s a very low key use. The hours of operation are typically Monday from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., Tuesday through Friday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and then Saturday 8 to 4 p.m. and closed on Sundays. MR. HUNSINGER-Seems reasonable. MR. DEEB-Those are reasonable. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes, those hours are much less than what a restaurant would be. MR. TRAVER-So, other than having a discussion about the sound attenuation, were there any other changes to your project as a result of the ZBA? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. OSTERHOUDT-Mr. Chairman, I would like to note we did receive comments from Chazen regarding the stormwater review. So what we did was we burned some midnight oil. We got that letter a few days ago. We wound up revising our plans and our stormwater report to address those comments, and we just hand delivered those plans and the report and the response to comment letter to Laura this afternoon. MR. TRAVER-And an engineering signoff is required. So at this point after reviewing those comments and your response, you feel comfortable that you can accomplish all those? MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes. We feel comfortable that we’ve addressed those. I’m sure there’ll probably be some minor comments that might be spurred on from additional review, but we have no problem. We’ve worked with Chazen many, many times. MR. LAPPER-They were pretty benign comments. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes. There was nothing too crazy in the comments. MR. TRAVER-So, getting back to the sound issue, we’ll open it up to other members of the Board. I do like the idea of maybe bumping it up to eight feet. I agree with you that 10 is a bit excessive, especially with the height variance that’s there. So how do other Board members feel? MR. DEEB-I think it’s a great idea to go to eight, but I think we have to settle on what the plantings are going to be for the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-If I understood the fence itself. So along that back wall the fence will be set back X number of feet? MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes. I can show you right here on the plan. So here’s the edge of our parking lot on the south side, the edge of our parking lot on the west side, and you’ve got anywhere from 16 feet here to the property line and 25 feet here and 50 on the back. So the fence would be right along the property line. I think there’s a chain link fence there today. The plan is to remove that chain link fence and put up a new six foot high, now eight foot high, wood privacy fence in that same location, so we don’t have to clear trees to put the new fence in, and it would be a solid screen versus the chain link that’s there today. The chain link that’s there today does not have privacy slats in it. It’s just an old normal chain link fence. So the fencing would be here. The plantings would be just inside that and I think the grade change, like I said, is higher here and here than it is down here at the site. MR. DIXON-I guess then on the southern side you weren’t necessarily dismissing hemlocks, but those can get some size to them. Maybe you’d consider those on the southern side, and on the western side you go with other plantings of your choice that fit in there. I think it’s a great idea. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MR. TRAVER-The hemlock? MR. DIXON-The hemlocks and some other evergreens mixed in there, but I have a couple of questions. So on the site plan itself there’s really not a lot of trees or greenery near the building. Any thought, consideration to anything there to help knock the noise down before it even makes its way over there? MR. OSTERHOUDT-So the biggest thing with this type of facility is obviously the service bays and any noise that can come from that, but given that Town Fair Tire operates much differently than other tire centers and those doors will be closed. Now think about it. If they’re going to have air conditioning and heated space for their employees to work on the cars. They’re not going to have those doors open and waste, you know, all of that energy and run their mechanical systems to work with doors open. So they’ll be opening those doors to bring cars in and out. Other than that, they’ll be closed. So that really takes care of most of the noise. The compressors that are used here by Town Fair Tire are such that they operate at a very low noise level. So you can have conversations near the compressors. They’re not going to be walking away to try and have a conversation. So the operations of Town Fair Tire, which John can even speak to more if there’s other questions, goes a long way to reducing the noise here. As far as plantings around the building, that back area is set up so that we can move cars in and out of those service bays. To have any islands or additional plantings back there near the building would be difficult. We do have the interior green space provided around the site and towards the front of the building. We do have the green space there next to the building to help, you know, attenuate sound and to liven up the site. MR. DIXON-And on your site plan, not necessarily on the back of the property, because I do think that the fence is an improvement. I’d like to see maybe consideration for vinyl versus wood, only because wood, how long is it going to last for? Are you going to upkeep it? MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s usually treated, I think, those type of fences. MR. DIXON-And I don’t know if there’s any additional plantings down along Route 9. Not that it’s going to change the noise coming from your building, but you actually improve the neighborhood behind you by sheltering it from some of the noise on Route 9. Maybe it’s a compromise. MR. OSTERHOUDT- I’d just like to talk to my client for a moment because I have an idea that I’d just like to float by him. MR. SHAFER-Jon, the fence will be on the west side as well? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-What is the topography back there where those pine trees are? Is it fairly level? MR. LAPPER-This is where it’s 11 feet, 8 feet above. The houses are way up high. MR. TRAVER-It’s a steep bank back there. MR. LAPPER-So high that there’s a concrete retaining wall at the bottom of the parking lot. MR. SHAFER-So if it was pine trees it would take a long time for those pine trees that are setting lower to get up higher than an eight foot fence. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but eight feet is a good start. MR. OSTERHOUDT-So just in talking with my client and in response to your question about adding some additional plantings, what we can do is where we’ve got the plantings proposed along the fence, we’ve got a single row of plantings proposed. So we’ve got 50 trees that were proposed along the west and the south side. We can double up that row and have two rows of plantings off set, staggered, so that it blocks visibility and also provides a better screen. MR. TRAVER-So from 50 to 100 trees. Okay. MR. SHAFER-So the only question is what species. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes, that’s right. Your idea about mixing it up I think is a good idea. The availability of the hemlocks is really not something that we control. That’s going to be a market driven decision. I think that’s, if it’s something that’s available that we can intersperse some hemlocks in there. What are the Board’s feelings on white pine? Is it an option? And then the arborvitae that we’re showing right now, we do have a concern about the longevity of those plantings, just given that here’ not going to be a lot of sunlight there with the existing canopy. So they may not be a good choice in the long term. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MRS. MOORE-So there is an approved planting list in our Town Code. So in turn if the Board thought about doing, using the term evergreen and deciduous and some shrubbery. I think that would give you at least the opportunity to select from the DEC approved native planting species. So that’s up to the Board, but that does give some flexibility so that you’re not searching for hemlocks when they’re not available. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So for purposes of our conditioning this, we could say increase the number of plantings from 50 to 100, selecting species from the Town provided list. MR. LAPPER-A mix of deciduous and evergreen. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I like that mix. MR. TRAVER-People feel okay about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Requiring the applicant to put in 100 trees, 100 on this relatively small parcel, plus the canopy that’s already there, just seems, 100 trees, that’s a lot every three feet. I mean along that row, how are they going to grow and be healthy to have that many concentrated in that relatively small area? MR. TRAVER-Well, if some of them don’t survive and you start with 100. MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t disagree, but are we going to obligate them to 100, or are we going to obligate them to what survives? Because somebody could come back 10 years from now and say they don’t have 100 trees. They’ve got to make sure they have 100 trees. MR. TRAVER-Well if that happens I guess we’ll worry about it at the time. MRS. MOORE-So there’s a couple of things I’m not quite sure that I mentioned at the beginning. I did mention earlier in the Planning Board recommendation that there was a cutting that occurred without approvals. So there was an area in the back corner that was already cut. So in this case he’s replacing, he’s repairing something that was, rectifying a violation. MR. DEEB-And that’s included in the number of trees he put there. Okay. MRS. MOORE-And I know you use the word tree, but maybe that because we use the word mixed either tree or shrubbery, there’s a mix there. So it doesn’t always have to be a tree. MR. JACKOSKI-When you were describing what you were suggesting off the approved list, you mentioned shrubbery. That’s what made me think do we want 100 trees or is it going to be okay to have the shrubbery counted as plantings. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I’m just going to take a quick look at our landscaping buffering and just confirm that there’s a mix of, what the landscaping list is. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I will say, having looked at the property, that western side, that wall is immense already. That with an eight foot, I’m not overly concerned about the noise as much. I think limited plantings without being punitive in any way or feeling that way, and I’ll just throw out, as I said on Tuesday, I did have an opportunity to see one of the sites and as I was driving by, you wouldn’t even know that it was open. All the doors were closed. It was quiet. It was impressive, certainly an improvement to that lot, getting rid of a Pizza Hut and thank goodness the old Long John Silvers is no longer there. MR. DEEB-And the odors won’t be there. MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. We have at least one person in the audience that wants to make public comment. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) BRAD PATCH MR. PATCH-My name is Brad Patch. I live right in the middle of all this. Back in ’75 we were given a lifetime buffer, 50 feet. This project here is going to take away about 35, 40 feet of that buffer on the south side. Do you guys realize that? MR. TRAVER-We’re aware of the buffer that they’re proposing. Yes. MR. PATCH-Are you aware of the buffer that’s there right now? It’s clear cut and so half of it’s clear cut. MR. TRAVER-Yes. You started by saying something about in the seventies you were assured of a 50 foot. Where did that come from? MR. PATCH-I believe Mr. Eddy was the head of the Board at the time, the Planning Board. He gave us a lifetime buffer of 50 feet. MR. TRAVER-I don’t think we, as a body, can grant a lifetime buffer. MR. PATCH-A forever. MR. TRAVER-Right. Because applicants, the property can change hands and an applicant come in with a site plan application as this one has, and it is subject to review, but whatever buffer they propose is up to review in this case the Zoning Board. MR. PATCH-They want a 10 foot buffer. That’s what they propose. . You’re taking way about 35, 40 feet. Put up a fence, yes, okay. That’s nice, and plant behind it. You’ve got 10 feet or so where you can plant. You’re going to put in like a hedge. I’m not going to be able to see that. That’s not going to help me. MR. TRAVER-Well the plantings as I understand it are on the building’s, the project’s side of the fence, not on the other side. MR. PATCH-Yes. Why? MR. TRAVER-And they’re primarily for sound attenuation, not visibility. The reason the privacy fence is there is to reduce the visibility issue, because right now there’s just a chain link that you can see right through. So by putting up the eight foot privacy fence, you’re not going to be able to see. The visibility impact will be eliminated. MR. PATCH-Okay. If you say so. Have you guys gone there and looked at this property? MR. TRAVER-We have. MR. PATCH-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re talking about the southern border? MR. PATCH-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PATCH-I’m just not happy with losing 35, 40 feet of buffer, all because they’re putting in a building that’s three times what’s there, with a drive on that opposite side so that it pushes everything this way and it won’t work without them wrecking up the buffer, and it doesn’t seem they have to do that. Okay? MR. TRAVER-Well I appreciate your concern. Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir. BLAIR DAVIES MR. DAVIES-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. DAVIES-My name’s Blair Davies. I live at Number 15 Greenway Drive and I’m on the west. I’m glad you’re talking about an eight foot fence. Currently there’s a six foot chain link fence. Today I took an eight foot board and put it up against the fence and I went out. It’s true. It’s quite a drop off down there, but my house sits up high. So I can see Pizza Hut pretty good as well as Home Depot. An eight foot fence 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) definitely would be a lot better than a six foot fence. I understand they have the doors closed, but once they’re there, once the building’s there, if they decide after five years they’re leaving and Joe Smiley’s hot rod shop goes in there. MR. TRAVER-Well that would be subject to review. MR. DAVIES-We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it, then. Definitely the eight foot fence, I actually measured the fence next door behind the Harbor Freight and that’s about a nine foot fence that’s there. MR. TRAVER-And the bank is significantly larger there, too, I think. MR. DAVIES-Yes, I think they had to go for that because if I recall correctly the setback, they built 12 and a half feet from the property line. It’s about a nine foot fence and it almost blew down with all the windstorms we had. So an eight foot fence would definitely. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and privacy versus chain link. MR. DAVIS-And whatever they want to do, wood or vinyl, that’s great. We live in a noisy neighborhood. You’ve got Route 9 on one side. You’ve got Aviation Road on the other side. You’ve got 87, and the cherry on top is Walmart Supercenter. There’s a bubble right there so you kind of get used to it. I’m glad they’re actually putting in something, because right now I live next door to a vacant building and it’s not a good thing. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DAVIS-I appreciate your time. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak to the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. We haven’t received any phone calls. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments, but I believe Mr. Patch, I can read it into the record, but you’ve already spoken. MR. TRAVER-And again, Laura, if I could ask you to speak closer to the microphone. It is starting to get hard to hear you again. MRS. MOORE-So Mr. Patch, his daughter had written a letter on his behalf because he wasn’t certain he was going to be here tonight. So he did speak at the mic and he’s okay with this comment that he provided to you. MR. TRAVER-And the letter will also be entered into the record. Right? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. All right. Well then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We’ll go back to the Board for questions, comments for the applicant. MR. DEEB-The southern buffer is Code compliant obviously. MRS. MOORE-Right. So obviously landscaping is a discussion item, the requirement. If the Board wishes to have a buffer that contains a mix of evergreen, deciduous and shrub and you would like to make that a condition with a numerical value, that’s the most helpful for Code compliance to confirm that they’ve planted X amount of plantings on the site. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’re talking about 100 total. MRS. MOORE-The total could be a mix of all three elements. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-What’s the measurement that’s needed, I’m talking about the distance. MRS. MOORE-So you’re required to maintain a 50 foot buffer between a commercial use and a residential use. That goes on both sides. MR. DEEB-So there’s going to be a minimum of a 50 foot buffer. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MRS. MOORE-No, there’s not. So this is where the applicant is asking for a waiver in the sense that he would like to have, instead of a 50 foot buffer, they’re proposing an eight foot fence, as well as having 100 planting species, whether that be deciduous, evergreens or shrubs. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board for the applicant? Hearing none, I guess we’re ready for a resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with that southern border? I mean we’ve often used privacy fences as a way to mitigate distance. MR. TRAVER-In this case he had that plus plantings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess in my own thinking if you have an eight foot privacy fence at the property line, it’s not going to make much difference if it’s 16 foot or 50 foot because all you’re going to see is the privacy fence and the trees above it. MR. TRAVER-Which is going to be 30 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the minimum buffer on the southern boundary line? MRS. MOORE-It still against a residential use, so 50 would be required. So you’d also have to take into account, I mean the applicant would have to come up with this, in reference to the Zoning Board of Appeals asked for a sound attenuation. So going from a six foot fence to an eight foot fence would qualify. However I think the additional plantings are what we were looking for. The Board may consider doing, maybe making a percentage of those 100 be trees or something. I don’t know quite what would be better, but you might want to do a percentage so that it’s not just all shrubbery. MR. LAPPER-That’s absolutely fine, whatever the Board’s comfortable with. Specify the number of trees versus shrubs. MR. OSTERHOUDT-To answer your question, you asked what the minimum buffer would be. So right here on the southerly property line where we have that jog, so that’s the tightest point, and that’s 16 feet and change. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s what I thought you said. MR. OSTERHOUDT-And then it goes to 25 feet here, and I’d also like to point out that this is the existing retaining wall right here. So there’s less than 50 feet out there today. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. MR. OSTERHOUDT-We’re going to be matching that line. MR. LAPPER-And there’s going to be a planted island at the narrowest point, too. MR. OSTERHOUDT-That’s right. MR. DEEB-What was Pizza Hut’s? MR. LAPPER-The same. MR. DEEB-It was the same. MR. OSTERHOUDT-It’s the same in this area. This is where it’s changing right here. MR. LAPPER-That’s where the retaining wall is up front. MR. DIXON-As minor as it sounds, that one small planting bed that you have there, proposed interior planting island, on the southernmost right there in the middle. I don’t know if there’s any value even, can you make it bigger and still be Code compliant with the number of parking spots? Or shift it to my left, which would be to your right, to the west, to gain a little bit more and make sure that there’s at least a tree of some sort so over time there will be a little bit more maturity to it. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Yes, we do want to maintain the parking count that we have, but that’s a good idea if we shift that a little bit so it’s, you know, kind of right in line with that jog in the property line. MR. DIXON-As it is right now, it’s right next to that, I think is that Mr. B’s? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MR. OSTERHOUDT-Exactly. So we can shift it over nine feet, and then it’ll line up pretty lose to that jog in the property line and provide that better buffer right there. MR. DIXON-I’m not telling you that you should. I’m just throwing it out as a thought. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s fine. MR. DIXON-One of the questions that comes to mind as we’re talking about this, because it sounds like there’s concern about traffic, noise, how many customers are you expecting in there at any given time? MR. LAPPER-John, would you like to address that? MR. DIXON-I can’t imagine it being as many as Pizza Hut. JOHN WYPYCHOSKI MR. WYPYCHOSKI-John Wypychoski with Town Fair. We do get an influx, we do get several customers we call drop off cars, and everything’s by appointment. So we do tend to have to have parking spaces, and then of course when it snows all of a sudden people are scrambling to get tires. So we just try to accommodate them, plus we’ve got 10 to 15 employees that have to park there as well. MR. DEEB-But the traffic won’t be going in and out. They’ll be picking up their cars at different times. MR. WYPYCHOSKI-Yes, our inflow of traffic is very slow. We may get a rush at eight o’clock. People get there at 7:30. MR. DEEB-It’s not going to be like Pizza Hut. It used to be a real problem getting in and out of there. WYPYCHOSKI-We’re sort of against everyone’s hours. Our busy time is like April to May is busy, taking the snow tires off, and then September to October putting snow tires on. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the discussion that you had with Board member Dixon on adjusting the jog in, let me codify that. MR. LAPPER-Nine feet to the west. MR. OSTERHOUDT- We’d shift this landscape island nine feet to the west. MR. DEEB-I can’t see it. I’m sorry. MR. TRAVER-They’re talking about this. MR. DEEB-You’re going to move that. MR. TRAVER-They’re going to move it nine feet in this direction. MR. OSTERHOUDT-So it lines up better with that jog in the property line and provides a better buffer where that jog is. MR. TRAVER-So it’s the southern central landscape feature you’d move nine feet to the west. MR. DEEB-Now we’ve just got to get the percentage, or we include evergreens and deciduous chosen from our approved list, but I don’t have a number. I’m going to say from 50 to 100 plantings. It means trees and, but I don’t know if the Board’s comfortable with that or if they want percentages. MR. TRAVER-Well the thought was that we want to have a percentage that are specifically trees and not bushes. Right? MR. DEEB-If you’ve got 100 you could certainly put a number. You don’t need a percentage. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OSTERHOUDT-We could provide a minimum. We were going to do 50 trees. Maybe it is a minimum number. MR. DEEB-You’re going to do 50 trees. So why don’t we leave it 50 trees and then the balance would be done with the deciduous and evergreen and shrubs. Is that all right? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MR. TRAVER-That works. MR. DEEB-Now let’s see if I can get this wording down. MR. DIXON-I am impressed, though, that you want to be a good neighbor. MR. DEEB-It’s wonderful the way you’re cooperating. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Town Fair runs a very nice operation. I think you’ll be pleased with the operation once it gets going. MR. DEEB-I can’t wait for them to join the community. MR. TRAVER-So do we have a draft resolution? MR. DEEB-I’ll give it a shot. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 32-2021 TOWN FAIR TIRE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 2,740 sq. ft. building to construct a new 7,269 sq. ft. tire sales and service facility. The project includes new parking area, stormwater management, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use and building in the CI 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; 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 05/18/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 05/19/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 05/20/2021 and continued the public hearing to 05/20/2021, 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 05/20/2021; 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 NO. 32-2021 TOWN FAIR TIRE; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted- buffer requirement between commercial uses and residential uses see condition; 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. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) 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) Additional sound attenuation to be added to the west side of the property with an eight foot stockade fence along the southern and western border. m) 50 trees to be planted along the southern and western border with the balance of 50 additional plantings to be included with evergreens, deciduous and various shrubs according to the Town approved list. n) South central parking landscaping bump-out to be moved nine feet to the west. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. DEEB-Welcome to the neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is under Old Business, and this is Stephen A. Burnett, Trustee. This is also Unapproved Development, Site Plan 28-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 28-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEPHEN A. BURNETT, TRUSTEE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING – TOM HUTCHINS. OWNER(S): THE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 11 ANDREW DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE WORK ON AN EXISTING 1.5 STORY CABIN. THE EXISTING CABIN FOOTPRINT IS 1,365 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 1,312 SQ. FT.; THE CABIN FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 1,793 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,496 SQ. FT.; TOTAL SITE FLOOR AREA IS 4,641 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 4,985 SQ. FT. THE APPLICANT HAD STARTED WORK IN 2019 AND WAS ISSUED A TOP WORK ORDER. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING HOME WAS DAMAGED BY A TREE AND IS NOW BEING RECONSTRUCTED; THE EXISTING DECK HAS BEEN REMOVED AND A NEW SMALLER DECK IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE INTERIOR MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT AREA ARE TO BE RENOVATED; THIS INCLUDES THE FOUNDATION AND WALL SUPPORTS. EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A NEW ENTRY ROOF FEATURE, DOORS, AND SLIDER DOORS ON LOWER LEVEL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 14-2015, SUB 8-2015, AV 51-2015, PZ 21-2015, 2004-677 DOCKS, AV 27-2021. WARREN CO REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179-13- 010. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to complete work on the existing one and a half story cabin. The existing cabin’s footprint is 1,365 and it’s proposed at 1,312 square feet. As mentioned previously this is 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) under a Stop Work Order. There was a portion of the building that was damaged. This is why there is an existing footprint and a proposed footprint. It was existing however it was damaged, 132 square feet. So it was removed and now it’s proposed. The variance for this setback was granted at the Zoning Board of Appeals and the project was alterations to, obviously, alterations to the main floor, interior alterations to the basement area as usable living space, new slider doors to the basement area, installation of stepping stones, infiltration trench area to north side of building, new entry roof area and a new septic system, the deck area, and the new entry has been removed and now it’s to be replaced with a small deck. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins here on behalf of Stephen Burnett and the Burnett Family Trust. I won’t go through the whole story again. This site has wo residences from the early 1900’s, and one needs to be repaired, and some work was done on it. They are under a Stop Work Order and we’re here. We went to the Zoning Board last night and received a variance. We’re asking for two feet of relief from the 25 foot setback. We’re re-building on the same footprint, although the interior’s a little bit different. That’s why the numbers are a little bit different. We’ve taken out a good size chunk of asphalt, removed it from the site, gone permeable with it. We’ve got a net reduction in impervious and an increase in permeability. Small, although an increase and a new septic system. So what they’d like to do is move on and repair this building. So I’d look for your support. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-In your review with the ZBA, were there any changes to your project from what we reviewed? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Tom, you commented on the septic system for the other house the other night, but remind me what you said. MR. HUTCHINS-I said it’s the owner’s intention to replace the septic system at the other house. In fact I’ve been looking at it, but it’s not in this project. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Also I’d like to let folks know that we do have a public hearing on this application, and if you wish to call in by telephone, the number to call to reach us is 518-761-8225. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Yes. There is written comment from the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The Waterkeeper recognizes the slight reduction in impervious cover to make the site compliant as well as the replacement of the onsite wastewater treatment system. However, we would recommend further mitigation measures for this project located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George to address runoff from the existing impervious surface and additional shoreline planting to meet the intent of the Town Code for buffer reestablishment. Additionally, there are questions if the replacement septic system complies with the Town Code for fill systems. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Planning Board apply the Town’s regulations, specifically §179-6 and Chapter 136, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced Site Plan Modification application. The project should install stormwater controls to manage runoff from existing impervious surfaces, which is at the maximum allowable, to meet the intent of the recently adopted stormwater regulation amendments by the Lake George Park Commission. Lake George water quality cannot improve if runoff from existing surfaces is not managed and treated, which is the reason the Lake George Park Commission recently adopted this requirement that the Town of Queensbury has yet to adopt. The Planning Board should condition Site Plan Review Approval requiring management for runoff from existing impervious surfaces. The applicant should provide buffer planting on the northern shoreline in front of the proposed structure to meet the requirements of §179-8-040.B. The application does not comply with the requirements for fill systems under Chapter 136 of the Town Code. §136-10.B.1 requires 3 feet of separation to seasonal high groundwater but this is not indicated on the detail on Sheet 2 or is test pit information included on the plans. §136-10.B.2 states the maximum allowable natural grade for a fill system is 10% and the existing natural grade is 20%. It should be noted that these regulations do not specify replacement system are exempted from these requirements. The plans should indicate the pump station meets the required 10’ side yard setback. It is the recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Queensbury Planning Board table the application pending information for additional stormwater management for existing impervious surfaces and additional shoreline buffer planting as well as determine compliance on the onsite wastewater treatment fill system design.” MR. TRAVER-Is that it? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MRS. MOORE-That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. So I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So, concern about the existing impervious stormwater management. Is there stormwater management on this? MR. HUTCHINS-Well there is stormwater management. We have included it for the structure we’re renovating. We’ve done deep trenching. It’s an old site. It’s heavily vegetated and, yes, they have managed stormwater. Do I have documented stormwater practices out of the book shown in here? No, they’re not, but they don’t have an issue. The shoreline is very well buffered. I’ve shown you photos. With his mention, we could probably add a little buffering along that one area he indicates that there’s perennials there now which is, it’s a deep perennial bed. They’re not quite in full bloom yet, but, so if that would please the Board we could add a shrub line or something across there, but I showed you photos. I think if you look at them the shoreline is well buffered. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well buffering is increasingly a concern especially with recent concerns we’ve had with the lake and algae blooms. So, yes, if you could do some additional buffering in there, I think that would help, as you suggest. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, like, I’m thinking a shoreline across this area or so which is a direct line here. There’s a nice perennial bed here. We could get some shrubbery across there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s a nice, actually this area is more buffered than this area. So, yes, a little buffer line in there would certainly help, and we could do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. MR. DEEB-Where is that on the property? MR. HUTCHINS-That is in the northwesterly corner toward the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-That was my concern was that area, the shoreline buffer. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It never hurts to add a little buffer. MR. DEEB-It’s always good to have more. You can’t have too much. MR. SHAFER-Tom, did you consider removing more of the asphalt drive? MR. HUTCHINS-We felt we removed, well we removed a significant portion. Did we consider removing more? MR. SHAFER-There’s a lot of asphalt there. MR. HUTCHINS-I got the applicant to agree to remove this amount of asphalt. It is a steep drive. I don’t know if you went down there but I drove it today and steep. Very narrow. It’s about this much wider than your car tires on the straights, and it’s a little wider on the turns, and this area down below, it’s a place to park cars. So we’re agreeable to remove the 400 square feet of asphalt. He really doesn’t want to remove anymore. MR. SHAFER-Yes. Okay. MR. TRAVER-We haven’t received any phone calls. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board? We have a resolution. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 28-2021 STEPHEN A. BURNETT, TRUSTEE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to complete work on an existing 1.5 story cabin. The existing cabin footprint is 1,365 sq. ft. and proposed is 1,312 sq. ft.; the cabin floor area is to be 1,793 sq. ft. The site has an existing house on the property with a footprint of 1,496 sq. ft.; total site floor area is 4,641 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,985 sq. ft. The applicant had started work in 2019 and was issued a stop work order. A portion of the existing home was damaged by a tree and is now being reconstructed; the existing deck has been removed and a new smaller deck is to be constructed. The interior main floor and basement area are to be renovated; this includes the foundation and wall supports. Exterior improvements include a new entry roof feature, doors and slider doors on lower level. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 05/18/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 05/19/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 05/20/2021 and continued the public hearing to 05/20/2021, 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 05/20/2021; 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 28-2021 STEPHEN A. BURNETT, TRUSTEE; 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. The waivers are reasonable as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 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; 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) 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) Additional shrubs added to the existing shoreline shrub buffer in the northwest corner of the shoreline. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. DEEB-All right. Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we consider New Business, and the first item is Wayne & Michelle Williams, Site Plan 31-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 31-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WAYNE & MICHELE WILLIAMS. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 80 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW ENTRYWAY ADDITION OF 27 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ENTRYWAY OF THE HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,025 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 4,033 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW 20 SQ. FT. CONCRETE AREA – ALL CONSTRUCTION OCCURS OVER EXISTING HARD SURFACING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2001-352 RES. ADD., 92234-1276 RES. ADD. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .75 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-18. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a new entryway addition of 27 square feet, addition to an existing entryway of the home. The existing home is 2,025 square feet with a floor area of 4,033 square feet. Project includes a new 20 square foot concrete patio, not patio but deck. All construction occurs over existing hard surface, and this project is for the new enclosed entry area to the home. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, representing Wayne and Michele Williams for this site plan application at 80 Seelye Road. As Laura indicated, this is a fairly simple project, but it trips the requirement for site plan review as it adds, technically adds floor area so within the Critical Environmental Area it requires appearance. So the best way to describe is probably is if you look at the photo that’s included with the application, it’s a bump out of the foyer area. They’d like to put a new door on, while doing that they’d extend out to the three feet, roughly three feet, three and a half feet, the eight foot width, that’s the twenty-seven square feet of new floor area which really is just in the foyer. We’ve provided the application materials and hope that this seems like a workable project to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and this does trigger a public hearing, and I will let the public know that if you wish to comment on this application by telephone, you may call 518-761-8225. Questions, comments from members of the Board on the 27 foot expansion? Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application before the Board tonight? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-I’m not seeing anyone. I’m not getting any phone calls. Are there any written comments, Laura? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I just have, it’s probably just a minor technicality. On the agenda it lists it as 80 Seelye Road, and in our Town notes it’s 90 Seelye Road. MR. MAC ELROY-And the actual address is 80. MR. TRAVER-So it’s just a typo. MR. DIXON-Just so we don’t give approval for 90 Seelye Road. MR. DEEB-The resolution is 80 Seelye Road. So we’re okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Well if there’s no more questions or comments, and we haven’t received a response from the public hearing section of the meeting. So we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And ask if we’re ready for a motion? MR. DEEB-Yes, we are. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 31-2021 WAYNE & MICHELE WILLIAMS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes new entryway addition of 27 sq. ft. addition to an existing entryway of the home. The existing home is 2,025 sq. ft. footprint, with a floor area of 4,033 sq. ft. Project includes a new 20 sq. ft. concrete area – all construction occurs over existing hard surfacing. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 05/20/2021 and continued the public hearing to 05/20/2021, 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 05/20/2021; 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 31-2021 WAYNE & MICHELE WILLIAMS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers are reasonable as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 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 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) 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. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda also under New Business is Country Inn & Suites, David Menter, Site Plan Modification 29-2021. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 29-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. COUNTRY INN & SUITES/DAVID MENTER. OWNER(S): WAKITA PROPERTIES, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1130 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL AN 875 SQ. FT. CONCRETE PATIO THAT WILL CONTAIN TWO PERGOLA STRUCTURES AND AN OPEN PATIO AREA WITH A FIRE PIT. THE OUTDOOR AREA IS REPLACING AN EXISTING LAW AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 13-2004 W/MODIFICATIONS IN 04, 05, & 08. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-9. SECTION: 179-9-120. DAVE MENTER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This project is for installation of an 875 square foot concrete patio that contains two pergolas and an open patio area with a fire pit. This is part of the existing Country Inn & Suites. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. MENTER-Hi. Dave Menter, Country Inn & Suites. This project really is part of our, it’s a renovation that we’re doing that we have to do routinely, which generally consists of the inside. We’re adding this because this is kind of what people expect in a mid-scale hotel and the market has gotten very competitive as you may be aware, and we’re just adding this, which is a pretty routine thing for this type of motel. It’s simply going to be basically a patio/pergola. It’s going to allow us to give people extra space. We’re finding that people are spending more time on property, especially after last year. I think this year will be also more people with families. Groups are getting bigger and spending more time on the property. This will allow us to accommodate them. We have a real pressure with breakfast, serving them breakfast and more space is good. So that’s basically where we’re going with it. We’re just kind of tying to take advantage of the room that we have there just to give them some more options. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We also have a public hearing on this application. So I will remind people viewing our meeting on the YouTube channel that if they wish to comment by telephone, they may do so by calling 518-761-8225, and we’ll open that public hearing for people. Is there anyone in the audience? There is no audience. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll give people a few minutes to call in if they wish. In the meantime we’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. DIXON-I have a question. Under the pergola, is it going to be concrete? MR. MENTER-Yes. Uncovered, just open air construction. MR. DIXON-I see you’re removing some plantings. You’re planning on putting a few additional in? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) MR. MENTER-Yes, we’re going to, it’s going to be very similar in terms of the characteristics of the plantings there. That’s what we’re removing is that same type of burning bush in that area, and I was thinking about that as I was sitting back there that drawing it in, I just drew in a couple, that actually we may have a few more at that front section just to kind of, not hide it, but just to kind of create that front barrier so it’s not all up in front, but really that’s, everything that’s there up in front is burning bushes, and I’ll put some annuals in there each year, but that’s really the essence of it. So everything along the building obviously comes out. I don’t know if we’re going to end up keeping some of those or just replacing them. MR. TRAVER-But there won’t be any less than what is there now, possibly more. MR. MENTER-Not in the front section, no. Correct. Where there’ll be less is along the building. Obviously all those evergreens will go there. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MENTER-But that planting space in front of it is going to be full. MR. DIXON-And the only lighting being proposed is within the pergola? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Just the one? MR. MENTER-Actually there’s four lights, two in each pergola. MR. DEEB-Plus the fire. MR. MENTER-Plus the fire. That will be low. MR. DEEB-Can you see Martha’s from that? MR. MENTER-Not really because of the plantings in front of it. You’re certainly high enough, but I think if you’re on the sidewalk in front of it, yes, but if you’re going to be sitting down inside of it, probably not because of the plantings there. I mean the way we operate that is probably from 8:30 to 11:00 it’ll be on, and it’s a gas fire pit. We’ll just turn it off. MR. DEEB-Holiday Inn has one of those. MR. MENTER-Yes, everybody’s got them. MR. DEEB-They all have them. MR. DIXON-I would like to comment that the property looks like it’s very well maintained. . MR. MENTER-Thank you. My manager’s doing a good job, despite lack of help. MR. TRAVER-We have not received any phone calls or other comments. So we will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there other questions, comments from members of the Board? Are we ready to move forward? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was pretty straightforward. MR. TRAVER-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD. # 29-2021 COUNTRY INN & SUITES/DAVID MENTER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to install an 875 sq. ft. concrete patio that will contain two pergola structures and an open patio area with a fire pit. The outdoor area is replacing an existing lawn area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved 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; 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/20/2021) 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 05/20/2021 and continued the public hearing to 05/20/2021, 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 05/20/2021; 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 29-2021 COUNTRY INN & SUITES/DAVID MENTER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: h. signage, k. topography, n traffic, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers are reasonable as these items are for this specific project for the lodging facility with no significant site changes. 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 provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Jaime White. Duly adopted this 20 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. MENTER-Thank you very much. I don’t believe we have any other business before the Board this evening, unless someone says that we do. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 20, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 29