04-19-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING
FIRSTREGULAR MEETING
APRIL I91r,2022
INDEX
Site Plan No.6S-2021 Tidal Wave Auto Spa 1.
CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 303.15-1-12
Site Plan No.17-2022 Foothills Builders(Terre Majestic Holdings) 2.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.296.5-1-17
Site Plan No.55-2021 Antonio&Maria Civitella 2.
Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2021 Tax Map No.239.7-1-20
Site Plan No.71-2021 Hoffman Development Corp. 12.
Tax Map No.296.17-1-42;296.13-1-17.2
Site Plan No.23-2022 Queensbury Square,LLC 30.
Tax Map No.296.17-1-3S
Site Plan No.21-2022 James Stokes 33.
Freshwater Wetlands 4-2022 Tax Map No. 315.-1-1.2
Site Plan No.24-2022 Louis Carciobolo 35.
Tax Map No.296.9-1-12
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 04/19/2022)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19TK,2022
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY
JOHN MOLLOY
JACKSON LA SARSO
BRAD MAGOWAN
MEMBERS ABSENT
WARREN LONGACKER
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
meeting for Tuesday,April 19,2022. This is our first meeting for the month of April,meeting number eight
for 2022. Please note the illuminated exit signs. In the event we have an emergency those are the exits.
If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as
not to interrupt our proceedings,we would appreciate it. Also we ask that other than during the public
hearing if you wish to converse amongst yourselves in the audience if you could go out to the outer lobby
area to do that we'd appreciate it because it sometimes can interfere with the recording of the meeting
minutes and other issues. Before we start our regular agenda, I wanted to recognize a Planning Board
member,Michael Valentine,who has left the Board due to conflicts of scheduling. Mike was a member for
a number of years and a very valuable contributor to the efforts of this Board, and in his place we have
Jackson LaSarso who has served as an alternate for some months and as the Town Board has now bumped
him up to the full membership in the Planning Board. So welcome,Jackson,and thank you very much for
your help. Let's see. So next we have, move to our agenda, and the first item of business is approval of
minutes from the February 15 and February 22 meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 15,2022
February 22,2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 15TK,2022 AND FEBRUARY 22nO,2022,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its
adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
Duly adopted this 191h day of April,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy
MR. TRAVER-We have a couple of Administrative Items as well this evening. The first is Site Plan 6S-
2021,Tidal Wave Auto Spa.
SITE PLAN 68-2021 TIDAL WAVE AUTO SPA PLANNING BOARD CONSENTS TO BE LEAD
AGENCY
MR. TRAVER-The Planning Board is being asked to consent to the Town Board being Lead Agency on
that application, and I believe there's a resolution with that. Does anyone have any questions on that?
Okay. Laura,did you want to add anything to that?
MRS.MOORS Just to let you know that once they go through the Town Board process with the map plan
and report and they'll be back before the Planning Board.
MR. TRAVER-For Site Plan,right?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
RESOLUTION TO CONSENT TO TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENT SP 65-2021 TIDAL WAVE
Whereas the applicant has submitted a Map Plan Report for an updated sewer connection to the Town
Board and a site plan application for proposed renovations to an existing 6,SI5 sq. ft. car wash building
with a new facade and color scheme. The project includes site improvements,new parking and driveway
arrangement. Project includes a new 9,950 sq. ft. vacuum open canopy. There is to be new signs,
landscaping, and stormwater management. The existing self-car wash building of 3,114 sq ft is to remain.
Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance,modifications to an approved site
plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR
TIDAL WAVE AUTO SPA. Introduced by Dixon, who moved for its adoption; seconded by Brad
Magowan.
Duly adopted this 19`h day of April 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy
MR. TRAVER-And the last Administrative Item we have is Site Plan 17-2022 for Foothills Builders.
SITE PLAN 17-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS (TERRE MAJESTIC HOLDINGS)TABLE TO APRIL
26,2022
MR.TRAVER-This is a request to table to next week,April 26`h,because the applicant is unable to be here
this evening. Anything else,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft motion to that effect.
RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 17-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS (TERRE MAJESTIC HOLDINGS,
LLC)
The applicant owner of lot 9 of Highpoint Drive proposes to install a 3,527 sq. ft. driveway within the
deeded easement area on the parcel of 23 Highpoint Drive,lot 10.The driveway to be 100/o plus grade. There
will be two driveways located at 23 Highpoint Drive,lot 10,the proposed driveway to be adjacent to the
existing driveway. Lot 9 is currently under construction for a single family home. The project includes
stormwater management along the new driveway area. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-9-020, 179-6-
060,development of the driveway at a 100/o grade shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 17-2022 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS (TERRE MAJESTIC
HOLDINGS). Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jackson LaSarso.
Tabled until the April 26,2022 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 19`h day of April 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Now we move to our regular items on our agenda. The first section
of that agenda is tabled items, and the first item is Antonio &r Maria Civitella. This is Site Plan 55-2021
and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2021.
TABLED ITEMS:
SITE PLAN NO.55-2021 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II.
ANTONIO &z MARIA CIVITELLA. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 104 KNOX ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT
PROPOSES A TEAR-DOWN OF AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH
A FOOTPRINT OF 2,477 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 4,091 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY
AND PATIO, NEW STEPS TO FUTURE SUNDECK AND DOCK, RETAINING WALLS FOR
PATIO AND DRIVEWAY, NEW SEPTIC, NEW WELL, NEW SITE PLANTINGS AND NEW
SHORELINE PLANTINGS;PLANTING AND SHORELINE AREA WORK HAVE BEEN UPDATED.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-6-065, 147 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW
FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, SHORELINE
VEGETATION REMOVAL, STEEP SLOPES WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND WORK
WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER
2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-
20. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,147.
JON ZAPPER&r KIRSTEN CATELLIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a teardown of an existing home to construct a new home with
a footprint of 2,477 square feet and a floor area of 4,091 square feet. The project includes installation of
permeable pavers for a portion of the driveway and patio,new steps to the future sundeck and dock,new
septic and the water will be drawn from the lake, new site plantings as well as new shoreline plantings.
The applicant was tabled previously due to trying to update the planting plan. The applicant actually
added additional plantings as well as maintained the whole planting schedule.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier from Studio A.
So as Laura mentioned we've been here a few times. We went to the Zoning Board and we got our
variances. We compromised a little bit on both the house setback as well as the permeable pavers an
reduced the patio by the lake and reduced the driveway and in addition to the planting plan which we'll
go over in a minute, since we were here last we did get a signoff letter from Chazen LaBella. So we're all
set on stormwater. There were comments previously that we should try to keep a few of the existing trees
that didn't need to be removed for the construction of the house or the amenities. So in addition to the
extensive planting plan that Kirsten did,which she'll go over,since we were here Tony Civitella who's here
went up to the site,looked around,and said okay I think we can keep this tree,this tree at the lake and on
the Pensel property line to the north. So the Zoning Board, when they approved the variance, said that
they thought that it was an extensive planting plan that they really appreciated and it's better now.
MR. TRAVER-I know that was one of the concerns that we had last time as well, to try to keep some of
those trees.
MR. ZAPPER-And after, we couldn't commit to it the last meeting. Tony needed to go to the site,look
around,and that's what happened. So if you could put up the landscape plan.
MS. CATELLIER-So I'll just walk through and highlight a few of the changes since last meeting. If you'll
notice on the very top northern property line,just at the lakeshore, that one tree we are keeping now.
Originally we were proposing to remove it on the Pensel property line. That's staying. Another change
that we've made is the proposed stairs down to the boathouse and the dock. Those are existing. We are
proposing now to just reconstruct them and replace them in kind instead of removing them. So we've
shifted the landscaping plan to accommodate that, and in doing that we just traded one tree for one tree,
for the original location. Another improvement is that along and it doesn't show upon this. It's on your
demo plan. Along the southern property line where that little note is to the right,there is an existing row
of hemlock trees that were planted a while ago with the adjacent owner. We are trying to preserve all of
those and if not we're going to replace them at the final landscaping of the property,but we'd like to keep
that hemlock buffer.
MR. TRAVER-So those are on the neighbor's property?
MS. CATELLIER-They're actually on our property and they were planted when the neighbor built his
house adjacent.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MS. CATELLIER-So the plan is to keep them. We might have to remove them for the construction,but
they will be put back or at least the ones that don't make it will be replaced.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they're not reflected on this plan?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MS. CATELLIER-No. On the demo plan we have a tree protection fence proposed around the whole area,
but right now we're just reflecting it as lawn and they're going to go in and it's going to stay as is.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood.
MS. CATELLIER-So all those trees on the northern property line we're proposing to keep and we also
implemented that buffer along the northern property line which was the original proposal and added a few
more plants in. I think that pretty much sums up the planting plan, but basically back to the original
proposal with a few extras added in.
MR. ZAPPER-And you can see just by looking at the plan on the screen it's a very extensive planting plan.
It's going to be beautiful.
MR. TRAVER-Well I think one of the concerns that we had wasn't so much adding the plants as it was
trying to preserve what's already there,because it takes so long for these trees to grow, and I'm glad you
did your best to address that. Stormwater, I know there were some concerns about stormwater. It
appears that, as you said,the Town Engineer has looked at what you've proposed.,your revised plan, and
has given you a signoff in advance basically. Anything else at this point?
MR. ZAPPER-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DIXON-It's much improved. So thank you for doing that.
MR. DEEB-And nothing changed from the Zoning Board to now,right?
MR. ZAPPER-Except for the condition of keeping trees and adding trees.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like to say it's really an improvement in the planting. Really,I appreciate you doing
that extra step and keeping as much as you can and adding more. Overall I think it's going to look beautiful
at the end. My main concern is we're getting a lot of the pavers,and I want to make sure in our resolution,
if possible,that we put in there to come up with a maintenance plan. Because what happens with those
is people don't realize all that fine silt that comes off your cars and over the winter clogs up everything and
then after five,six years,if not sooner depending on how much you travel,they're not doing anything,and
I think that's something that Queensbury has to look at on every resolution now is that there is a
maintenance plan so that we can follow through with it. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? We do have a public hearing on this application again this evening.
I believe it's still open from the last time we heard it. Are there folks in the audience who want to address
the Planning Board on this application? Yes,ma'am.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
LISA ADAMSON
MS. ADAMSON-Lisa Adamson,Assembly Point, and,you know,you sometimes prepare your statement
before you hear what people have to say. So it is heartening to hear that the Board and the applicants are
concerned about the trees. I'm here to talk about the trees. I'm familiar with that piece of property
because know people that live in that part of the Point. Specifically about I think that there are four on
the southern, the southwestern corner of the property, and my understanding is that these trees have a
very deeply embedded and complex root system,and they're probably responsible for stabilizing the steep
slope there. The bank on this property on the west side is a very steep slope, and I'm afraid that if, it
sounded like the applicants are considering exchanging those trees for new plantings, and I don't know
that there's anything like the old trees that are there that have established their connections with the other
trees in the area and are doing their job to uptake the water and are doing their job with their huge canopies
to decarbonize from the atmosphere. Then I'm not sure what I heard about the shift in the plans for the
stair going to the dock, and again I think I heard that there was an exchange for one tree for a new tree.
Maybe I'm wrong about that,but I would fight to, I would ask that the applicants consider keeping the
already established very large tree that's there and mitigating the plans for the steps to the dock. Also this
is aspirational and theoretical but other choices could be made around the patio. I think on the front of
the house,if you call the front facing the lakeside there's going to be four trees that are going to be taken
down and I'm just wondering if other more modest choices could be made to preserve those trees. We're
in a situation around the lake where our trees, and notably hemlocks, are really critical to the ecosystem.
So to not take them for granted and to assume that new plantings can replace what's there, and I think
that's all I have to say, except that there's nothing like an established root system and we have a treasure
in these trees and can't take them for granted at this point.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes,ma'am?
ELLEN WETHERBEE
MRS. WETHERBEE-Ellen Wetherbee, also from Assembly Point, and I would just say from reading the
plans before and maybe it's changed, there were 20 trees targeted for removal, which is a lot for a small
piece of property that this house is going on. If there are going to be changes and exchanges made,that's
fine,but understanding that exchange of trees isn't really an exchange,a mature tree with a new tree is not
an exchange because it does have effects on other people's property, especially when the trees appear on
the border. Trees protect each other. They have root systems and canopies that act to work together to
maintain the health of all of the trees and then allow, any tree that is on somebody else's property can be
adversely affected,can fall over because there's an absence of the trees that have been there previously. So
I would just say that those kinds of things need to be taken into consideration. The thought of exchanging
trees I don't think is one that you can really say it's an even exchange at all. Historical districts preserve
the quality of their environments and require homeowners to maintain the historic configuration of homes.
So likewise I think it's essential that we ask both property owners and the Town in all property, in all
planning,to consider the degradation of the unique quality of the landscape of the lake when making the
request to cut down trees and also to think about that in terms of an exchange for new plantings and
smaller trees.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes,sir.
GEORGE PENSEL
MR. PENSEL-Good evening. I'm George Pensel. I'm the northern property owner. My wife and I are to
the north,and really at this point in time,politely,we'd like to say that it's a little bit larger than it should
be,but it is what it is. They've done a lot of planting here,but one major concern that we have is a pine
tree that they've decided not to remove, that was going to be removed. It's probably 150, 200 years old,
and pine trees are very brittle and it's really,really tall, and it's going to take my house or his out at some
point in time. That tree is on the northwest piece of the property.
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me,sir,is that on the applicant's property or yours?
MR. PENSEL-Yes, it is,it's on his property. It's really about like maybe the roots and the trunk partially
on my property,but,you know,it's really his tree, and all the roots are like exposed on the western bank.
The roots are coming out, and the predominant wind many times the real gusty wind that we get is a
northwest wind there and we're really afraid of that tree. It's been traded off for other trees, but to me
that tree is going to be a problem,and we'd love to see something done with that. Other than that.
MR. TRAVER-Could I ask,the tree that you're speaking about,is there evidence of disease? Does the tree
appear to be dead or dying,or is it a healthy tree and it's just very large and you're concerned?
MR.PENSEL-I'm not a tree expert,okay.
MR. TRAVER-I understand.
MR. PENSEL-A branch came down from that tree last night, a very large branch. I can't move it myself.
We did have a lot of branches coming down from the northern border line of the property. I do see bark,
like on the edge of the tree I see splits in the bark where it appears like the tree is flexing at the base and
that bark is cracking,but I don't know what that means. I'm not an expert on trees. That's all I have.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning
Board on this application? I'm not seeing any other hands.
MRS. MOORE-I do have one letter. So this is addressed to Mr. Traver. "I live on Assembly Point at 66
Bay Parkway, Lake George,NY. The proposed development will take place on a small lot(0.39 acres). It
is in a critical environmental area;it borders the lakefront and is within 100 feet of the wetlands. Given
the small size of this lot, S0010 of the site, if not 1000/o, will be disturbed by this project. Tis site
development plan,in itself,will have a negative impact on the environment and the neighborhood.
The environment: First, during the construction at least S0010 of this small lot will be disturbed. Given
the proximity to the wetlands and steep shoreline, there is the threat of erosion and degradation of
drinking water. Five trees along the shoreline (which has a 51-degree gradient), 4 more trees within 35
feet of the shoreline, and 11 trees greater than 35 ft. from the shoreline. If you approve this site plan,you
will allow the developer to cut down at least 9 mature trees within 35 feet of the shoreline which violates
town code and the low impact development principles. I would like to add that these trees are in good condition
and do not pose a safety threat as has been alleged by the developer. See attached photos. Please ask for proof that
they are diseased and pose a safety threat. These 20 mature trees will be replaced by new plantings which
will not have the absorptive capacity of mature trees no matter how generous the landscaping. It seems
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
that the majority of the new plantings are specifically those loved by our deer population. Thus,they will
further encourage tick borne illnesses such as Lyme disease. There will also be the possibility that
fertilizers and pesticides will be used to promote new growth posing a danger to drinking water during
periods of stormwater runoff. I leave it to the Waterkeeper to comment on the effectiveness of the
stormwater plan. The neighborhood: This site development plan is not in keeping with the
neighborhood;I refer you back to the letters from the Pensels and Ahlers. One can see from their lots,they
are of similar size and they built homes with smaller footprints and less site disturbance. The Civitella's
proposed house is out of character with the site dimensions and with the surrounding homes. Granted
this site development plan will remove an abandoned building but in toto it will not be a substantial
environmental improvement over what exists now nor will it leave the property in better shape as has been
alleged. Replacing a large stand of mature trees with a large year—round home an new landscaping will
not improve either the neighborhood or the environment. This site development plan is inadequate in
terms of stormwater runoff,soil absorptive capacities and tree root enhancement. These deficiencies will
affect drinking water, the wetlands and lake quality. Therefore, I ask the Planning Board members to
request once again that the developer for the Civitellas come back with a more robust site development
plan which will protect a site in this critical environmental area. Please ask them to take more effective
measures to minimize the negative impacts to the Lake and water quality. This site development plan
might be acceptable in an urban area where you don't need trees to control stormwater, but it is not
acceptable in an area that borders the lake and wetlands. Best regards, Lorraine Ruffing, Executive
Director,Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition"
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any others?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have a lot of concern about trees.
MR.ZAPPER-Isn't that interesting? All of the comments are about the planting plan. So Kirsten did this
design and I know she's very proud of it and I'll let her defend it.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MS. CATELLIER-The first thing,just to touch on the exchange comment. We're not exchanging the
mature trees for plantings. It just means that in our original proposal we were proposing to take one tree
down and because we've altered the proposed plan we're swapping it for another tree,mature tree. So it's
one for one. So I don't want anyone to be confused about,that we're taking trees down. We're keeping
them. And then in regards to the clearing of the trees, I've actually done a handful of studies after all of
our meetings so far with you guys and the Zoning Board, at the request of the applicants and Jon, in
comparison of the proposed development to the existing trees on the site, and what needs to be taken
down. The main criteria was not related to planting, wasn't related to other use areas. It was strictly
related to the grading required to put that residence in with the associated utilities that we need to put in.
So basically the trees that are X'd on this plan are related to the limits of disturbance that we need for
grading the site to put the house,to put the utilities in,the septic system,to reconstruct this set of stairs
going down to the water. So we really tried to keep it tight, as tight as we could, and then also to,you
know,you have to be really careful on how close you grade to a tree within a certain amount of feet. So
we thought, we explored how close we could actually get to those existing in, if it was possible to keep
some of them,and we just felt that it was impossible that we couldn't get any closer to a certain handful of
them. So that's why they still remain to be removed. So we did do some really detailed studies after all of
our meetings to really see if we can keep trees, and based on the grading and the proposed residence and
the septic system,we're really at the bare minimum.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. A couple of specifics. There was discussion about a tree related to the steps going
down to the dock. Can you comment on that?
MS. CATELLIER-Yes. So the existing tree is right on top. If you look, Laura, can you shift to the demo
plan? It's just at the top of the staircase. It's in close proximity to where those stairs are located. So if
you see the rectangle that leads down to the water,that's where the existing stairs are located. We just
want to replace those and just improve them,but that tree right to the top of the staircase,in the field it's
actually literally at the top of the staircase and kind of integrates into the steps.
MR. TRAVER-So the stairs that are there now, are they not negotiable because of that tree?
MS. CATELLIER-The tree definitely does interfere with the access to the staircase.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any way that you could modify the stairs to? Because I think the point is well
taken that not only a mature tree, but it is, as you well know, you know, supporting the soil and so on.
Can you shift,perhaps,that stair a few feet and spare the life of that existing tree?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MS. CATELLIER-Yes,we could definitely explore that if it's okay with the applicant. I think there's room
to shift it a little bit to the north and just squeeze it in there.
MR. TRAVER-That would be a huge help. Sir,could you state your name for the record?
ANTHONY CIVITELLA
MR. CIVITELLA-I'm Anthony Civitella. Or we could actually shift the stairs down,too,right,where the
other X is located. So we definitely have other options.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good.
MR. CIVITELLA-Literally there's other trees we're removing because of the septic,but there's ones right
next to the house. I think we have a lot of options here.
MR. ZAPPER-So we'll keep that tree.
MR. CIVITELLA-So we'll keep that one. Could we look at other trees? If we're going to swap trees from
one to another? How about if we keep this one down here? How about we do this down here? Can we
keep this one instead? I mean I think this is the one that I think the concern on where the shoreline. I
think this is the one that is,if you want to talk about keeping the shore intact,that's the one that's where
the roots are really.
MR. TRAVER-What I would say, and again, other Board members can comment,but particularly at our
last meeting,I don't know if you attended that meeting.
MR. CIVITELLA-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-But we have a lot of concern about the existing tree scape that's there. So if you're
suggesting that there might be additional trees that can be not cut down.
MR. CIVITELLA-I would say,if this X mean we're planning to take it down,I'm willing to say let's keep
this one. I think this would address a lot of concern that this is right on the shoreline. I think if you want
to talk about a tree that's going to keep the shore intact,this is more than that one. This is one sits in the
middle of the plateau. This is the one that's actually effecting the slope. You see the lines here?
MR. TRAVER-I want to be clear. Now are you saying that you would also preserve the one that's at the
top of the stairs?
MR.CIVITELLA-No. We're still planning on Xing that. I want to,would like your permission to remove
this,but I'm also,let's not remove this one. I think this X means it's planned to be removed. I think if you
went there,this is more reasonable to keep because is it keeping.
MR. TRAVER-Well,we appreciate that you will keep that one. Our concern is the other one, and there
was discussion about making a minor movement of the staircase so that that tree would no longer be a
factor in addressing that staircase. If you can keep them both,that would be terrific.
MR. CIVITELLA-I'd prefer to keep the stairs as we can. It is effecting it. I think this tree is very large.
This is the one that's most of concern tonight about the bank.
MR. TRAVER-We're not suggesting that you eliminate the stairs. We're just suggesting that you bump
them a little bit to the north which your representatives have already said they can do that.
MR.CIVITELLA-I understand,but I'm also,if we keep this,I'm asking if we can,if we keep this,I'm asking
for permission to take this one down.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a 30 inch there and the one behind it is another 30 inch. Correct?
MR. CIVITELLA-I'm not sure. They're very large.
MR. MAGOWAN-And then the one over,those three that we're talking,this one's a 30,a 30 and that one
to the bottom is a 24 inch.
MR. CIVITELLA-There are very large.
MR. MAGOWAN-Very large.
MR. CIVITELLA-But this is the one that's keeping the shoreline.
S
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a 14 inch,and I understand that.
MR. CIVITELLA-But that one is going to get big. This is going to get bigger.
MR.MAG OWAN-So what about,if you want to keep the steps there,what about the X behind the one in
question,that other 30 inch right in the,you know,on the corner of the,see,right there,yes. How about
that one? I mean they're both two 30 inchers, and the do absorb a lot of water that comes down from the
yard.
MR.CIVITELLA-And I think we've got,and,Kirsten,I think you could talk about what we've done in this
area to address that. I think we've done a lot to make sure that we capture the stormwater. Right? We've
created a garden to make sure all that is captured, and, listen, I think you can see the design of the
landscape. We want it to look nice. It's a place where we're going to be at. It's our home. So we wanted
to integrate something really nice.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, but, sir, if we might return to the topic of our immediate conversation, which is
specifically the tree near the top of the stairs. Now your representatives have stated that they can easily
adjust the location of those stairs so as to preserve that tree. Are you saying that you're unwilling to
approve that?
MR. CIVITELLA-I'm asking for us to swap,keep,remove this one and then keep this one.
MR. TRAVER-We're not talking about any other tree right now, sir. We're talking about the one at the
top of the stairs. You would like to keep that one?
MR. CIVITELLA-I would like to keep that. I would like to remove this one and keep this one. That's my
tradeoff. Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I just wanted to be sure that you're not willing to do that. Okay. Thank you very
much. Anything further?
MR. DEEB-What about that one tree that Mr.Pensel talked about. Can you address that?
MS.CATELLIER-Off the top of my head,I can't speak to the condition of that. I haven't seen it in months.
We could definitely take a look at it in the field.
MR. DEEB-To make sure,if it's not diseased.
MR. MAGOWAN-Not as much the condition, but since we're taking out all the other trees,you know,
like I said the canopy kind of goes together. Once you take that out,you're going to have more wind on
one tree and it doesn't happen to be that IS inch that's halfway up the property is it?
MS. CATELLIER-Which one? No,it's up in the top corner. It's 36 inch. Do you see where it says iron
pipe on the demo plan? Yes,that one.
MR. TRAVER-I should not,too,we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.TRAVER-Okay. So you'll check that tree. It's on the applicant's property,and with prevailing winds,
as one of the public speakers has pointed out,it's actually more of a threat to this one anyway.
MR. ZAPPER-If it turns out it's diseased,we'll talk to the Planning Department.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right.
MR. MAGOWAN Just to confirm,that 36 inch,that's the one all the way up near the lake?
MR. ZAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a big tree. It probably is 200 years old. Probably has some arrowheads in it.
MR. DEEB-So we're going to keep the tree at the top of the stairs,or are you going to get rid of that one?
MR. CIVITELLA-Could I bring up another point? In order to get to that tree,to that corner tree,there's
two that we are keeping, and I just want to bring this up to,you know, the logistics. In order to get to
that one, all the way up there,keeping this cluster for privacy,in order to get to that tree, it's going to be
very hard to get that,because we're keeping these two large trees also. So if you could see we're trying to
keep a privacy. If you notice the planting, we want to make sure that we're private and respect our
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
neighbors,because I think that's one of the concerns,the privacy. So if you notice,that tree and these two
in front of it.
MR. DEE&We're asking that you keep the tree.
MR. CIVITELLA-Okay. All right. I heard you say something different.
MR. TRAVER-Our concern is with the trees on the waterfront.
MR. DEEB-Yes,I'm more concerned about the trees on the staircase.
MR. CIVITELLA-Got it.
MR. DEEB-You want to get rid of the one in front of the stairs and keep that one down at the bottom?
MR. CIVITELLA-I'm good to get rid of,to keep this one and get rid of that one. That's right.
MR. DEEB-Even though your agent did say they could move the stairs a little and you would be able. The
more trees you keep the better.
MR. CIVITELLA-I know.
MR. DEEB-And if it's not a big thing to move those stairs and keep that tree, I'd feel more comfortable
keeping both those trees. Getting rid of the other one.
MR. CIVITELLA-You would say get rid of this one?
MR. DEEB-No,I'd say keep that one.
MR.CIVITELLA-Because that one I would say,if you need to keep that one,that one makes the most sense
to keep the bank together.
MR. DEEB-I don't think we're on the same page.
MR. TRAVER-Well,we'll see how we vote. Anything else?
MR. DIXON-Well, since we're spending so much time on the trees, the tree that the applicant has
identified to the south of the stairs,what I'm looking at,I didn't visit that part of the site,but it looks very
steep there. So I think maintaining that tree in that location would help preserve that bank.
MR. ZAPPER-And the applicant agrees with that.
MR. DEEB-Yes.
MR. DIXON-And I guess I'd be willing to forego the one at the top of the stairs.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well you've got two on top of the steps,two 30 inchers.
MR. DEEB-You're okay with keeping both of those,the two 30 inchers at the top above the stairs?
MR. TRAVER-That's what he's proposing.
MR. DEEB-No,I'm asking Mike if he's okay with it.
MR. DIXON-Well,I wasn't thinking both of the trees.
MR. DEEB-Both of them are slated to come down.
MR. MAGOWAN-All three of those.
MR. DEEB-The bottom one's going to stay.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.the three up on the yard.
MR. DIXON-What about the other tree that's marked for removal just to the south of those two.
MRS. MOORE-That's what Brad said. So there's a 24 inch,a 30 inch, a 30 inch to be removed there. I'm
just going to talk about the planting plan,so you can see what the replacement is.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR.TRAVER-Yes,so all those trees are gone. Thank you,Laura. All right. Anything else? Are we ready
to entertain a motion?
MRS. MOORE-Do you want to clarify,before you make the motion,that with that,those particular trees
that are identified.
MR.TRAVER-Yes. The applicant has identified a tree to the south of the staircase that is marked as being
removed. He's willing to retain.
MRS. MOORE-Okay, and that's a 14 inch,just for purposes of the reso.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,the 14 inch.
MR. DIXON-And then the other three trees that are marked for removal.
MR. TRAVER-They're still going to be removed, according to what he's proposing.
MRS. MOORE-So the plan stays as is,except for the one. Okay.
MR. DIXON-Since we're, we want to try to preserve as much as we can, that other southern one that's
maybe a hemlock, would that be a compromise to keep that one as well? So you've got the two
southernmost that would be retained. You've got a 14 inch and a 24 inch.
MR. DEEB-Those two and the other two go.
MR. ZAPPER-I'm sure that would be better for the applicant because of the stairs.
MR. DEEB-I'm fine with that.
MR.MAGOWAN-So I'm looking at,what print are we looking at,Laura? Because I have so many different
ones from the beginning.
MR. ZAPPER-Throw those out.
MR. MAGOWAN-I should have,but I didn't.
MRS. MOORE-So you have this one is.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm looking at an L-0.30.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-And an L-0.20.
MRS. MOORE-One's a planting plan and the other one's a removal plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-One's just, I think,the trees. You're right. So I'm looking at this one here, and I see
four,and then the fifth one is going to be on top of the steps that we've talked about moving. So I see four,
and where that square block is, or rectangular, there's a tree within there. I have an X on my sheet and
there's no X there either. On the one that says L-.030.
MR. ZAPPER-So that's staying,Brad. The rectangular box is staying.
MR. MAGOWAN-The rectangular box,but there's a tree within that. Right?
MS. CATELLIER-Yes,so that's a tree protection fence.
MR. ZAPPER-Yes,that's staying.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's staying. All right. So that one stays. That one stays and we're going to take
out the one on top of the steps and the one right behind it and then we're going to keep that 24 inch that's
up in the yard a little bit where the green X is?
MR. ZAPPER-Yes.
MR. CATELLIER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-I think that works well.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm happy with that compromise.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. DEEB-That works well.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is that better?
MRS. MOORE-I understand.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready now?
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#55-2021 FWW 1-2021 ANTONIO&r MARIA CIVITELLA
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: (Revised) Applicant proposes a tear-
down of an existing home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,477 sq.ft. and a floor area of 4,091
sq.ft. The project includes installation of permeable pavers for a portion of driveway and patio,new steps
to future sundeck and dock, retaining walls for patio and driveway, new septic, new site plantings and
new shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040&179-6-065,147 of the Zoning Ordinance,new
floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, shoreline vegetation removal, steep slopes
within 50 ft. and work within 100 ft.of wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 1/1S/2022; the ZBA
approved the variance requests on 1/19/2022-1
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/15/2022 and continued the
public hearing to 4/19/2022,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 4/19/2022;
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 55-2021 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021
ANTONIO&z MARIA CIVITELLA;Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,s.
snow removal as waivers requested are reasonable as these items are typically associated with
commercial projects; applicant has provided information on g. site lighting, j. stormwater, k.
topography,1.landscaping, ,p floor plans,q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal;
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;
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
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
1) Applicant to maintain permeability of all permeable paver areas identified on site plan and
provide that maintenance plan to the Planning Staff for approval.
m) Trees located to the south of the stairs leading to the dock marked to be removed will be
preserved. These are denoted as a 14 inch and 24 inch tree.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19`h day of April 2022 by the following vote:
MR. MAGOWAN-Question. On the maintenance,do you want to say that one again,Mike?
MR. DIXON-1 had worded it,Applicant to maintain permeability of all permeable paver areas identified
on site plans.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that would be,we have to draw up a maintenance.
MRS.MOORE-So the question is,does the Board want the applicant to provide a stormwater maintenance
plan for areas of the permeable pavers? And there's a draft in the,you see this in more of the driveway issue.
Their driveway is paved mostly.
MR. ZAPPER-Some of it's pavers.
MRS. MOORE-Some of it's pavers.
MR. DIXON-Laura,they should provide a maintenance plan to the Town for approval?
MR. ZAPPER-To the planning staff.
MR. MAGOWAN-A maintenance plan. So we have something that we can enforce.
MS. CATELLIER-Yes,we have one we can provide.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have an amended motion.
MR.DIXON-I'll amend Item L. Applicant to maintain permeability of all permeable paved areas identified
on site plan and provide that maintenance plan to the planning staff for approval.
MR. ZAPPER-Yes.
AYES: Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan
NOES: Mr. Traver
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set.
MR. DEEB-Good luck.
MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Tabled Items, is Hoffman Development
Corporation,Site Plan 71-2021.
SITE PLAN NO. 71-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
AGENT(S): FRANK PALUMBO, CT MALE. OWNER(S): 919 STATE ROUTE 9/925 STATE
ROUTE 9 (ACCESS). ZONING: Cl. LOCATION: 919 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 5,750 +/- SQ. FT. CAR WASH BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS DRIVES
AND QUEUING LANES, AND 18 SELF-SERVE VACUUM AREAS. THE APPLICANT HAS
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
INCLUDED A SIDEWALK TO BE COORDINATED WITH OTHERS ALONG THE PROPERTY
LINE ON WEEKS ROAD. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR ACCESS ONTO ROUTE 9
THROUGH EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT, THROUGH ADJOINING PARCEL AND ACCESS ON
WEEKS ROAD. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR LANDSCAPING,
LIGHTING, AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1990, SP 53-2011, SP 57-1995,
AV 42-1995, AV 74-1995, 99729-8147 ADDITION, DISC 5-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES. TAX
MAP NO.296.17-1-42,296.13-1-17.2. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-040.
FRANK PALUMBO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; TOM HOFFMAN,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a 5,750 square foot carwash building with associated access
drives and queuing lanes and an 1S self-serve vacuum area. The applicant has included a sidewalk to be
coordinated with others along the property line on Weeks Road. Project includes site work for access
onto Route 9 through an existing traffic light, through adjoining parcel and access on Weeks Road into
Route 9. Project includes associated site work for landscaping,lighting and stormwater.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thankyou. Welcomeback.
MR.PALUMBO-Thank you. Hello,Mr.Chairman and Board. Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male Associates,
Tom Hoffman,Jr.with Hoffman Carwash. We also have Marty Andrews here,a representative from VHP
if there are any further questions on traffic. We know that the public hearing is still open. It was opened
at the last one. So we're going to keep our presentation very short. We'll see if there's any further
comment. We did, as the Board suggested,we continued with our coordination with the Town Staff and
with the Town Engineer, TDE, LaBella, and we think we've addressed all their comments. Their last
comment letter which I believe you probably have,had two comments on the stormwater, each of which
we think are very simply resolved.
MR. TRAVER-I think one was just a typographic in the modeling.
MR.PALUMBO-Yes,and we've already looked at it and we know that we have the answers for them,and
the one that we could not do just yet is doing the deeper test pits. That's something that we can obviously
do and satisfy the conditions. We know that there's consistency out there of the sand to the greater
depths. So we're very confident that that's not going to cause a problem at all when we get to the final plan
re-submission of any comments which is usually a standard condition of your actions,and we also,the only
comment on Staff Notes that we found that we would look for direction from the Board on is that there is
a 10 foot buffer required on the property line that is shared with the apartment complex behind us. That
buffer would require,under the standards, one tree for every hundred feet. That's four trees. We feel as
though the existing vegetation in that area is full and should be maintained,but we will go with whatever
direction that the Board says that they think is the best thing to provide the buffer that was intended. We
know there have been comments. So actually if there are any questions from the Board first we'd gladly
answer those at your discretion of moving to the public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well I know that there was some interest in a corridor study that had been
conducted, and I understand that you've had a conversation with Town representatives regarding that
corridor study and what potential impact it might have on their application and it seems as though, if I
understand correctly, there was a conclusion that this plan could go forward as proposed with regard to
traffic.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And I see, too, that in the engineering comments there was an issue with local data not
being provided or something but they did seem to concur with the results of your traffic, the updated
traffic.
MR.PALUMBO-Right. So when we did a response to their comments,we provided information that was
put into the text and all they asked for was that we provide that the data that that was based on.
MR. TRAVER-And you've done that.
MR. PALUMBO-And we've done it,yes. So VHP has done it and we have the information that can be
provided. It's still,it's the same information that our response to those comments with Chazen was.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. PALUMBO-No. I think if there's any, we'll gladly be right back here at the table if there are any
public comments and answer your questions.
MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Planning Board?
MR. DEEB-The traffic patterns were discussed thoroughly at the last meeting. I thought I read in here
that peak hours are when you're going to have, are you going to change your traffic pattern so that the exit
from the tunnel is right to the traffic light at Route 9?
MR. PALUMBO-So when we, what I committed to do and I think Mr. Andrews had said at the last
meeting, we will have staff. They will, essentially it's predictable, based on the weather situation,
especially in those winter peak ones. So the commitment is to make, there will be staff that will be
directional out there. So as the flow is coming in, we let the operations happen as they are, but if the
impact is swaying one way or the other,they can provide traffic control on the site. It will not be needed
on a regular, day to day basis,but they're committed to making that controlling effort so that during any
of those peak times that it's not spilling out onto the road system.
MR.DEEB-That was my main concern. Did you give any consideration to temporary signs,including your
traffic control people?
MR. PALUMBO-Yes. So what can be done,you know, with signage such as a pylon sign or something,
exit right,yes. Whatever will make,because they would want to do, operational,is to make that job of
staff easiest to do the control. So if the sign,as you're suggesting,helps get the first level of people knowing
which direction they're going and then that person who's out there helping to direct,that will assist that
person. So they're willing to do what is going to best for the function on site,and out onto the road system..
MR. DEEB-Thank you.
MR.PALUMBO-Thankyou.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments?
MR. MAGOWAN-My question is,because I see it on Quaker Road,is,you know,we talked about a lot of
people leaving. Sometimes it's a little difficult to get in on these busy high peak days, and I actually was
shocked kind of at the numbers there over a Saturday on a weekday,you know,they're pretty like a peak
summer condition. During the week it's about the same as amid-day Saturday. Are you talking all week
long a total of 15S? It says weekday pm. That would just be one day. Right?
MR. PALUMBO-So the design values are done, and,Jon, if I say anything wrong, the design values are
always done for a p.m. peak during the week, and then a Saturday peak, but what we also did was the
analysis based on the fact that we have all the data on how an operation at Hoffman's occurs. They know
their peaks. So if we just analyze the peak of an evening,that may not be the peak of the day for Hoffman's.
The peak of the day might have been at lunchtime. So the report analyzed multiple conditions on that.
So I don't have it right in my hand in terms of which one's you're talking to,but I can say.
MR. MAGOWAN-Table One. I just happened to notice the numbers because I was staring at this thing.
MR.PALUMBO-And all of that was reviewed. So the purpose of having the TDE review it,they reviewed
it from that technical standpoint,and I think that we accurately provided the information and adequately
addressed the cases.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you.
MR.DEEB-And I see here you referred to your facility in the Town of Binghamton on Route 11. That Route
11 is a main highway,as is Route 9. So it would be as similar as possible.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes. Right. So it was not only a similar road condition, but it was also a similar
operation. It's one that was built in the last couple of years, that the latest model of what Hoffman has
been doing with the automated tellers and their system. It was a very comparable site.
MR. DEEB-That one in Binghamton,is that a single ingress and egress? Or does it have two?
MR. PALUMBO-It's a single tunnel.
MR. DEEB-One entrance,which would be different than this one. Actually this would be more efficient.
MR. PALUMBO-Right.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. DIXON-In the plans, and I can't put my fingers on it right now, I think you denoted that there was
going to be a fence on the east side of the property. Is that correct? Or I'm sorry the west side of the
property.
The apartment side?
MR. DIXON-The west side,the apartment side.
MR. PALUMBO-So I think the fence that we have is along the, I'm just pointing to it right there. So we
had the fence placed there, and the reason that we put the fence there was because it was closest to the
cars,closest to any sound to deflect it back,and we could put it in with the construction and not go further
into that treed area, and that was why we chose the fence there.
MR. DIXON-What were the specs on that? Was that an eight foot vinyl?
MR.PALUMBO-Yes,it would be a white vinyl fence,yes.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the
audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes,sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
HARRISON FREER
MR. FREER-Hi. Harrison Freer. I was at the Friday meeting with the folks from Hoffman. I just want
to have a clarification. Is Jon still here,Lapper? He made the point,I just want to be clear about something
that Mr. Lapper said at our Friday meeting. First of all, it was more for us to understand the original
corridor study would have Weeks Road come up and be at the light at Sweet Road. Jon made the assertion,
and I just want to make this clear,because there are a lot of people who are concerned about congestion
and traffic on Weeks Road who happen to be my constituents,but is it feasible for somebody who is going,
who wants to get to the light from Weeks to come up and go out that way.
MR.PALUMBO-Yes,I'll answer that for the Board however you want,when I'm on the mic. So the answer
to that is,yes,the operation is not going to block off the entrance and say hey are you coming into our site
for operations. If somebody was apprehensive of turning at Weeks Road„let's say there was a blockage
at Weeks,something had happened,the route is there and would be available.
MR.DEE&Well my initial reaction to that is a little nerve wracking. You're going to open up your private
property as a public road.
MR. PALUMBO-No, that's not what we're saying. I'll get you the answer on that if you want when we
come back for further comment.
MR. FREER-So I'll just point out that it's my understanding from talking to folks that because of the
current challenges with access from Weeks Road people are using the light at Wal-Mart.
MR.DEEB-You're saying that people coming out of the apartment complex are turning right into the Wal-
Mart complex going to the light.
MR. FREER-Yes. Which is similar to what I just suggested would be available here. I mean,but it's sort
of kind of where we are.
MR.PALUMBO-Mr. Deeb,I'll go further into that if you want to wait until all the comments are had.
MR. FREER-Thank you.
MR.TRAVER-Anything else? Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board
on this application? Yes,sir.
JOSEPH NICHOLS
MR. NICHOLS-Good evening. My name is Joseph Nichols. I represent Queensbury Holdings which is
the adjacent landowner to the project. I did submit a letter to the Board this morning outlining several of
my client's points in opposition to the project. I do not know whether this Board has had an opportunity
to review the letter as it is kind of hot off the presses.
MR. TRAVER-I have not seen the letter. You say you submitted it today?
MR. NICHOLS-Yes.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. TRAVER-We can have it read into the record if you like.
MR. NICHOLS-That would be fine,because I was simply going to reiterate much of the, sorry,it's a long
letter. It probably beats me just simply trying to paraphrase what's in it.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,that would be fine. It's your public comment.
MR. NICHOLS-I may have a couple of things to add to it,but perhaps I would wait until after it's been
read in and then I can jump in with any other comments I have. Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-You can actually read it into the record yourself if you wish.
MR. NICHOLS-I'd be happy to. Okay. I'll read it in. All right. "Dear Chairman Traver and members of
the Town of Queensbury Planning Board: Please be advised this office represents Queensbury Holdings,
LLC which is the adjacent landowner to the property which is the subject of the above referenced Site
Plan. The property owned by my client is currently being leased to a restaurant operation known as 40
Oak Grill Classic American Grill. My client is adamantly opposed to the project being offered by the
applicant. As the Board has been made aware in prior public hearings, there is great concern that the
Hoffman Development Car Wash, as proposed, will greatly increase the traffic in the Route 9 corridor
which is chief among other concerns regarding noise , lighting, and pedestrian safety, particularly as it
relates to the students who board and disembark from school buses on Weeks Road. The issue of
increased traffic is of particular concern to my client as the applicant seeks to establish an"interconnect"
which the applicant appears to state must be established for its customers to gain access to and from State
Route 9. Queensbury Holdings, LLC is rightfully concerned that this project will overburden the access
point to Route 9, which is owned by my client, and which applicant appears to believe to possess an
unfettered right to share equally with my client. It is true that at the time the predecessor in title to my
client obtained subdivision approval, the Planning Board had insisted that here be an agreement to an
"interconnect"with the subject site plan parcel. However,there is no scope of use or other guidance which
establishes the terms of the interconnect. In fact, it is my understanding that the term "interconnect"
simply refers to the connection between the two(2)lots so as to avoid traffic exiting one parcel onto Route
9 to simply access the adjacent parcel's business. An interconnect is designed to avoid such actions and
to mitigate traffic on Route 9. The term itself is defined literally as "connect with each other". It is
respectfully urged that the applicant is deliberately expanding upon the definition of an interconnect in
its site plan. Moreover,the applicant already possess an easement which provides egress to State Route
9. The use of this easement would obviate any necessity to have an interconnect. Specifically, the
applicant's property benefits from an easement which is dated May 20,2005 and was recorded in the office
of the Warren County Clerk on May 26, 2005 as Document number 5556, a copy of which is being
submitted to the Planning Board herewith. A copy of a map dated December 2,2004 which contains a
description of the subject easement is also being submitted herewith." And by the way I did send those as
attachments when I sent the letter this morning. "The red dotted line (on the map) has been added to
same to outline the easement description. As the Board can see in reviewing the easement language and
the map, the easement only provides access to one half of the access point to Route 9. That portion is
what is now the egress portion off the access point. That portion is the applicant's only access to Route
9. The applicant has no legal authority to traverse the entrance point on the land owned by my client
which is not subject to its easement. My client does, however, maintain the right to use the easement
portion of the egress together with the rest of the entrance, which it owns. My client will not agree to
permit the applicant to use any portion of the access to Route 9 beyond what is specifically stated in the
easement. It is my client's position that applicant's possession of the easement renders the issue of the
interconnect moot as it relates to the site plan. Moreover, assuming that the applicant only has egress to
Route 9 on the land delineated in its easement,the proposed site plan is inconsistent with that usage as it
contemplates the use of the rest of the access to Route 9,including my client's property. The Board has
previously informed the applicant that it must work with my client on this issue. It is my understanding
that prior to my involvement in this matter the applicant refused to discuss these issues directly with my
client, and since my involvement,have only agreed to establish and maintain the interconnect, which as
stated is now a moot point. The applicant has been unwilling to engage in a meaningful discussion on
these issues with my client to date despite the indication to the Board that progress is being made in that
regard. The Board may recall that in an effort to resolve these issues.,my client had previously proposed
that the egress point be an"exit only"from the car wash onto Route 9 , with no left turn. That proposal
was rejected and,in light of the discovery of the easement which benefits applicant is hereby withdrawn
by my client. In addition, I understand that the Town of Queensbury has previously commissioned a
corridor study which was designed to discover methods to mitigate traffic congestion in the Town and
specifically,in the area of Route 9 near Weeks Road and Sweet Road. The study is known as the Warren
County Pathway Corridor Project which was completed in August,2019 and is also being submitted with
this letter. One of the mitigation measure improvements suggested was to realign the intersection
between Weeks Road and Sweet Road to provide a four (4) way signalized intersection. Any such
improvement would require the realignment to utilize the very lot upon which applicant's site plan is
situated. The Town has previously envisioned a scenario which mitigated traffic by using the subject
property to improve traffic flow. The applicant's project, if approved, will clearly increase traffic
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
dramatically in an already congested area of the Town. Essentially, it will create heavy traffic on a lot
which is substandard for its designed purpose. Lastly, as the Board may recall, at the last public hearing
the applicant stated that comparting the traffic problem at its other location on Quaker Road in
Queensbury to the instant project is not an apt comparison because the properties are dissimilar. The
applicant referred the Board to its Hoffman Car ash location in Delmar,NY as being similar to the proposed
site. An agent of my client, Hal Halliday, traveled to the Delmar Hoffman Car Wash to observe the site.
He reported to me that within 30 minutes of his arrival traffic was backed up onto the road upon which
the car wash is located. Mr. Halliday intends to produce photographs depicting the traffic congestion. I
intended to send same with this letter but am unable to receive them as he is currently experiencing a
power outage which is affecting the Town. The Delmar location is located in an area which is not as
congested with businesses as the proposed location. In fact,there are no businesses immediately adjacent
to the Delmar Hoffman's Car Wash facility. It is respectfully requested that the Planning Board deny the
project as currently proposed for the reasons stated herein. Thank you for your attention and
consideration of the within comments and for your deliberation in this matter. Sincerely, Joseph E.
Nichols"
MR. TRAVER-And you said you have some additional comments.
MR.NICHOLS-Well,observations generally. The applicant has indicated several times that they've taken
these things into consideration and there are measures that they can put in place. For instance they'll have
traffic monitors that are going to ensure that the traffic doesn't back up onto Route 9. Now they have
facilities all over the place. So I'm assuming that this isn't the first time a Board has questioned them about
the possibility that there might be traffic backing up onto a busy road. So it's still happening. It's
happening in Queensbury. It's happening in Delmar,as Mr.Halliday will indicate. The problem that my
client has is that they have a tenant who is a business,and the traffic isn't just a nuisance to them. If there's
traffic backed up in front of their restaurant, it is going to stop business, patrons from coming to their
business. So it isn't just,I shouldn't say just,but it's more than just a traffic congestion problem. It's the
lifeblood of their business.
MR. TRAVER-May I make a suggestion?
MR. NICHOLS-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-If you request of the Town to see the traffic study that the applicant submitted and the
engineering review of that traffic study, it might have some more complete information about the traffic
impact that you're concerned about.
MR. NICHOLS-Okay. A couple of other issues that I haven't heard mentioned, and perhaps it's in one of
the studies that I have not been privy to, but the applicant has not addressed breakdowns. How many
breakdowns do they have in a particular data location. How they address that.
MR. TRAVER-Are you talking about vehicle breakdowns?
MR. NICHOLS-Breakdowns of the actual carwash.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. NICHOLS-So that people are stuck in the queue and they can't make it through. How about people
that are stuck in the queue and decide for whatever reason it's taking too much time,how do I get out of
here. How do I get out of the queue, how do I move on, remove myself from the situation and exit the
property. Just reviewing my notes here for a moment.
HAL HALLIDAY
MR.HALLIDAY-Hi. My name is Hal Halliday,known as Hal Halliday. I am the National Project Manager
for Atlantic National Trust that owns Queensbury Holdings, LLC. Okay. I manage their properties
nationwide. I hate to be here tonight. This is my hometown. I know everybody and it's difficult for me
because I'm pro-business. All right. I have nothing against the Hoffman Car Wash company. They're a
great company. I did visit their company in Delmar because I wanted to convince myself that they knew
something I didn't know. Maybe there is a way to make this work. Okay. So my wife and I took a ride
and said maybe there's a Burger King on one side and McDonald's on the other and they've got a carwash
and it's working fine. We went down there. I drove there. We were there less than a half an hour. I got
my car washed. I've got a year pass. They did a great job. Within 20 minutes the traffic was backed up
on a two lane road, and it was not even a real busy day,and then I got on line and read a review and one of
the first reviews I read was from a customer that loves Hoffman Car Wash but they were sad that they
closed the vacuums because the traffic was backing into the road. It's like little things like this that just
get me and I've got to ask you to let me please getup and just refer to this plan. Because I think everyone
is missing the whole picture. This is not just going to affect the 40 Oak restaurant because the 40 Oak
restaurant property is not a property by itself. It is co-owned,the parking lot is co-owned with the Red
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
Roof Inn. I ran the Red Roof Inn. We own both properties, and we separated the properties with the
permission of the Town of Queensbury. By contract and by whatever we have to share both of those
parking lots. We each plow our own lot. We each maintain our own lot,but 40 Oak customers can park
at the Red Roof,the Red Roof customers can park at the 40 Oak. It's never been a problem. It even works
for Americade which is amazing. Okay. I'd like permission to getup and show you something.
MR. TRAVER-Can I ask you to summarize because you've been speaking for some time now.
MR. HALLIDAY-Well, I'll summarize, but I think it's really important to get all the facts out. I did not
know that we could come to you between these meetings and discuss things like I hear has been done. I
thought we had to do it at an open meeting, and I apologize. Okay. I didn't know that we could come in
in between the meetings and talk to the engineer or talk to you guys and I would have done that,okay. I'm
finding things out as they come and I'm waiting for the public meeting to bring them to you. Okay. So I
just want to show you a major fact,if I could.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go right ahead.
MR. HALLIDAY-This I believe is what they refer to as the 40 Oak restaurant. Right. What they're not
showing you is that if you bring this down further, there's another building just north of this called the
Red Roof Inn. The Red Roof Inn is located above the restaurant. So what I don't think anyone is realizing
is if they're proposing that this is the entrance to the car wash,what they're not showing everyone is there's
an entrance up here that you come into the Red Roof Inn or the restaurant,which would also mean that
anybody that doesn't want to wait here in line can come in this entrance and come around the back of the
Red Roof or around the back of the restaurant and also, the car wash. This whole property should be
considered in this development because this lot is one now basically and all I'm asking is just please
consider that. Okay. I'm really,really concerned about traffic backing up here when they enter and I don't
want to talk about Weeks Road because I don't understand what's going on there,but I know there's going
to be a problem. I've seen it live and we have to include that other property. Nothing's going to stop
anyone from coming in and queueing the line any place in front of this restaurant waiting to get into
Hoffman Car Wash through this area. Nothing,and it hasn't been considered.
MR. TRAVER-Anything else?
MR.HALLIDAY-No. Like I say,I respect Hoffman's. I just really think this property is just too small. If
you listen to all the data,I think we're hearing more negative than positive and it's not because they're bad
business people. It's just the property's too small. I'm going to ask the Planning Board to do your job and
hopefully everything will come out for everyone in a satisfactory manner,but I believe our attorney's going
to advise you that our company is going to do everything possible to protect our tenant's rights and
whatever we have to do to do so.
MR. NICHOLS-One last thing. I just want to re-visit the issue of the interconnect. The issue is simply
that Hoffman's has made a proposal regarding the interconnect and their interpretation of the
interconnect is basically an entrance to the Hoffman Car Wash from Route 9. I mean that really is what
their interpretation of an interconnect is.
MR. TRAVER-I think you're talking about a civil matter which is outside the purview.
MR. NICHOLS-Well,but I just wanted to shed some light on that issue.
MR. TRAVER-We've heard that before and we appreciate that.
MR. NICHOLS-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much.
MR. NICHOLS-Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-Hal,before you leave,there's a letter from Queensbury Holdings. Is that,have you?
MR.HALLIDAY-I would ask you to read that if you would,from Todd Colpitts.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR.HALLIDAY-Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-I'm going to summarize. There's a lot of stuff in it.
MR. NICHOLS-Shall we sit back down in the seats?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR.HALLIDAY-Mr. Colpitts apologizes. He's away on vacation.
MRS.MOORE-So this is prepared on March S`h. So this is,I'm not going to try to paraphrase it,but I will
read through it. Some of this information has already been vetted. So this is someone's interpretation of
that.
MR. TRAVER-Understood.
MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to "Dear Board Members: I attended the February 15, 2022 Planning
Board ("PB") meeting and am writing to put my concerns on the written record. Hoffman's Car Wash
("Hoffman's")is seeking PB approval to route massive amounts of traffic across Queensbury Holdings,LLC
("QH") private access road. QH's shared its concerns with the PB at the February 15 2022 PB meeting
and are specifically detailed as follows: 1. There are no"Possible Future Interconnects"on QH's site. All
Possible Future Site Interconnects were removed as part of the PB approved 2011 parcel split between the
Red Roof Inn and Outback Steakhouse Restaurant. There are significant and important reciprocal
easements as part of the 2011 parcel split. Future Site Interconnects were removed by PB approval so not
to impede nor over-burden the reciprocal easement agreements. Hoffman's is working off an obsolete plan
that is no longer functional nor accurate. The 2011 PB approved site plan is attached hereto. The same
2011 site plan was approved by the Zoning Board in 2010. 2. QH is concerned about traffic. Hoffman's
at its nearby 265 Quaker Road location in Queensbury creates significant traffic that backs up onto Quaker
Road. Simply stated, any traffic backups inflicted by Hoffman's in front of the Red Roof Inn and 40 Oak
Restaurant would be a death sentence for QH's restaurant tenant,40 Oak. 40 Oak restaurant customers
would not be able to easily access the restaurant and would go elsewhere for their meals. 3. Safety is
paramount to QH. QH has concerns that car wash customers would attempt to short cut traffic backups
by using the Red Roof Inn entrance on Lake George Road/Route 9. Cross cutting traffic would cause an
unsafe environment for the Red Roof Inn and 40 Oak customers in the peaceful, shared parking lot of 40
Oak and the Red Roof Inn. 4. Short cutting traffic, headed to Hoffman's Car Wash, would cause
significant wear and tear on the Red Roof Inn and QH's shared parking lot and access roads. QH would
be burdened by additional expense as a direct result of Hoffman's operation. 5. QH has little faith in
Hoffman's traffic study. VHB Engineers used stale,2019 traffic counts for Route 9 and very limited(only
two hours!) of Turning Movement Counts on a Wednesday, October 20, 2021 and another two hours of
Turning Movement Counts on a Saturday,October 23,2021. The VHB report identified"Bicyclists in the
study area share the roadway with vehicles" and the a same report was silent regarding the dangerous
Route 9 west bound lane drop bottleneck in front of 40 Oak. It should be noted that QH asked Hoffman's
for a copy of the VHB report in advance of the February 15,2022 PB meeting and that request was ignored.
One can see with their own eyes the disruption the nearby Hoffman's Car Wash has on Quaker Road and
its neighbors. Mixing bicyclists, backed up car wash traffic and a dangerous west bound lane drop
bottleneck is a lethal cocktail. No input from neighborhood businesses was part of the VHB report. 6.
The C.T. Male Associates Engineering Report dated January 13, 2022 (attached) submitted to the PB is
misleading at best and certainly inaccurate. Page six states "....The applicant is currently working with
adjoining property owner regarding this interconnect..." This is simply not true. Weeks before the
February 15, PB meeting, QH reached out to speak with Hoffman's to discuss QH's concerns. QH was
rebuffed and ignored by Hoffman's. To date,there have been no discussions with QH about use of QH's
private access road. 7. As noted in the Town of Queensbury Planning Board Community Development
Department Staff notes dated February 15,2022,".....The work to be completed on the adjoining lot for the
interconnect requires authorization from the property owner." There has never been any authorization
for this project by QH and there is no authorization pending by QH. QH has significant,unaddressed,
concerns with the proposed Hoffman's Car Wash and use of QH's private access road. Clearly there are
significant issues to be resolved before this project can proceed. QH remains hopeful that our concerns
will be addressed, and a mutually beneficial, non-burdensome plan will be refiled. Sincerely, Todd W.
Colpitts Executive Vice President,Queensbury Holdings,LLC"
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Are there other written comments,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-There are no other written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes,ma'am.
CLAUDIA BRAYMER
MS. BRAYMER-Thankyou,Chairman.
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MS.BRAYMER-Claudia Braymer of Braymer Law. Attorney representing Whispering Pines,and I'm here
with Mr. Valenti as well representing Whispering Pines. As you know, our client has property that's in
very close proximity to this project at the end of Weeks Road, and our client along with the other
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
apartment complex that is adjacent to this project and many other residences,we are here to protect 100's
of residents who live at the end of Weeks Road and it's their only way to and from their homes. That's
why we feel that this is so critically important for you to take these traffic concerns seriously as it relates
to Weeks Road. You've heard about the traffic concerns to the north of the project. We're here to talk
to you about the concerns to the south of the project on Weeks Road. I do want to note quickly that our
engineer, our traffic engineer, also attempted to be part of the communications between the engineers on
this project review of the applicant's engineer as well as the Town's and we were denied that opportunity
as well. We know that the traffic study by the applicants shows that there will be increased delays at the
intersection of Weeks Road and Route 9. The average level of service is going to decline from a Level B to
a Level C for eastbound traffic on Weeks Road and this average number doesn't account for the difficulty,
the practical difficulty that we all know exists when you're trying to turn left from Weeks Road onto Route
9 with that additional traffic signal so close to that particular location. It's definitely more difficult to turn
left than it is to turn right, and that's not accounted for specifically in their study. We also know from
commonsense and our own experiences here in Queensbury that if vehicles are allowed to enter this
carwash from Weeks Road,there are bound to be times,particularly after inclement weather,when cars
are waiting to get into the carwash and they are blocking the travel lane on Weeks Road. I want to point
you to the photos that we brought. This is the Hoffman's location on Quaker Road where you can see the
cars,well maybe you can't see it that well,but if you've been by there during the winter you know that cars
back up on to Quaker Road and there there is a shoulder. Here on Weeks Road there is no shoulder and
they are not proposing any additional lane to be provided as a turning lane or a deceleration lane for people
to queue on Weeks Road in order for people to get into the project site. Therefore anyone who queues up
outside of what they're claiming will be enough room on the project site, will be blocking the travel lane
westbound on Weeks Road. This is particularly concerning if you have an emergency at one of the
residences,hundreds of residences, again, on Weeks Road,if the ambulances or other emergency vehicles
cannot go westbound on Weeks Road because there is traffic blockage going into this site. Also I want to
offer the position to you that it is not appropriate or legal for this Board to consider that a traffic solution
is that the traffic needs to go through private property,including Hoffman's or Wal-Mart,to get to a light.
This is a serious problem and it needs to be solved and one of the recommendations that we have already
seen through a significant study was the Warren County Pathway Corridor Project Final Report
recommendation saying that you should have a connection to Sweet Road right through this site, so that
Weeks Road has an ability to go to a light and people can turn left or right at a signalized intersection.
This Board should not make a decision on this particular project without considering the report's
recommendation realigning Weeks Road to provide for a four way stop sign. Otherwise if this project
does go forward you are foreclosing forever the opportunity to have that recommendation implemented.
So we're asking that you take that into consideration,even though the businesses,we understand that this
is a project application for this particular project,you are still required to look at all the alternatives and
mitigate the traffic impacts here. I do want to note two more things and then I'll wrap up, and then I'd
like Mr. Valenti to have a quick opportunity to speak. Two of the recommendations from our traffic
engineers were never addressed. A crash analysis should be performed to examine the impacts on crash
rates at that intersection being Sweet Road and Weeks Road,both of those, and also a sight line analysis
for the proposed access drive should be prepared to make sure that people can actually see well enough.
So in conclusion this Board and the Warren County Pathway Corridor Project Final Report have already
recognized that traffic congestion and traffic problems area major concern at that location. For this reason
we urge the Board to find that there is a potential for a significant adverse impact relating to traffic when
you go and do your SEQR analysis,which I understand has not taken place yet. We ask that you issue a
positive declaration on that issue so that the mitigation can be fully examined. Ultimately we are asking
you to deny the Site Plan application as proposed because it does not meet the criteria in your Code 179-9-
070 that sets for the criteria for you to approve or deny a project like this. This project creates public
hazards from traffic and traffic congestion, the lack of adequate traffic circulation and traffic control.
They've talked about having people standing out there. Is that really adequate control? And the lack of
adequate protection for the pedestrian traffic. We've already heard and we know about the people, the
children who get on and off the bus there, not to mention all the parents who wait in the parking lot to
wait for their children to get off the bus. They're obviously not going to be able to do that anymore. Finally,
if this Board is inclined to approve the project, we urge the Board to remove the access point on Weeks
Road entirely, no in or out, and add a condition, if you do allow access on Weeks Road, that it will be
closed permanently if there are any traffic delays that cause backups onto Weeks Road. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you.
JAMES VALENTI
MR. VALENTI-Hi. James Valenti. I'm one of the owners here with my brothers. I want to talk about,
like Mr. Magowan had talked about,entering this site. Okay. I feel is a big safety issue on Weeks Road
not having a shoulder for these cars to back up on. A traffic study can't see, after inclement weather,the
traffic that this carwash gets, and as you see what happens on Quaker Road and other locations of
Hoffman's in Latham,Schenectady,Troy-Schenectady Road. I had a friend of mine tell me how they back
up on the resident's road there,but on Weeks Road, once a queue backs up on Weeks Road,which I feel
it's going to,they're in the eastbound lane. There's about 400 apartments beyond that and also another 50
townhouses at Queens Way. These people want to get home and what they're going to do is they're going
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
to go around that queue. They're going to go into oncoming traffic, but it'll be clear, but in IS seconds
there's another car exiting onto Weeks Road. They can't see that car that's going to come around, okay,
becau7se they're going to go past that queue. They're not going to wait in line to get by, and it's a safety
issue with a collision issue going on on Weeks Road. I can see it happening. It's going to happen. They're
not going to wait in that queue line. They're going to go around it and also you have that Wal-Mart traffic.
Wal-Mart traffic goes down Weeks Road,it enters through that side access all the time. There should be
no ingress or egress going into that site, that busy site, off of Weeks Road and that's just a safety issue I
wanted to mention, and also exiting as far as the 1S seconds a car leaves the carwash and 15 to 1S seconds
of delay time at Weeks Road to exit,there's a lot of vehicles,400 apartments that are also exiting that. So
that is going to build up there. Pretty much what I've got to say about the safety at Weeks Road. Thanks
a lot. I appreciate your help.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this
application? Yes,sir.
JIM CAMPIONE
MR.CAMPIONE-Hi. My name is Jim Campione. I own 40 Oak. So I'm probably on the front row of this
whole thing. I came to Queensbury out of Lake George and I came here because it's a year round area.
Lake George closes all winter and in Queensbury I can stay open all year round. If you take my parking lot
and you take the northbound entrance for Red Roof and you make that an entrance for cars to come in and
out of,you make my entrance an entrance and an exit, and you have no shoulders on Route 9 at all like
there are on Quaker,I'm going to be dead. I'm going to be what was 40 Oak, and I didn't go to 40 Oak to
say what was. I went to 40 Oak to make a business for myself. I'm not against Hoffman's Car Wash,but
that space between Sweet, Route 9, Route 9 going north,okay,for two lanes going down to one which is
a racetrack all summer long,southbound one lane with a turning lane. People aren't going to wait. They're
going to try to pass each other. They're going to try to get in and out. The entrance to my place will be
backed up. You'll wait 40 minutes for a carwash. You won't wait 40 minutes to come and have dinner
at my restaurant. You won't. You're making this a death sentence for 925 State Route 9.
MR. TRAVER-Certainly we're aware the traffic is a major issue.
MR. CAMPIONE-There are 75 square miles in the Town of Queensbury. Exit IS there's tons of property.
North on Miller Hill there's tons of property. There are so many places to put a carwash with adequate
space and less traffic problems than there is here. Your own Town Supervisor said this is the busiest part
of the Town. He said that a couple of days ago when they went to find out about making UNO's a
Popeye's. That is one of the busiest corridors in this Town and you want to make it busier. Hoffman's
knows what they're doing. They're a multi-million dollar company with 20 plus carwashes. They're an
intelligent people that know what they're doing. They're going to bring in thousands of cars,of which are
going to choke me out,and you don't have the availability on Route 9 to house these cars. You don't have
it on Weeks Road which is a two lane road. You're going to have cars going northbound trying to get into
Weeks that's going to block it out,and you have cars going on the north on my exit off of Weeks trying to
go through,go back up onto Sweet. My parking lot's going to be a used car lot. It's going to be chaos. I
just don't see this property being their golden egg. They have the opportunity of going anywhere else in
this 75 square miles of Queensbury. The location isn't the one,but if you put this through,you really are
going to be putting me out of business. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this
application? Laura,you said there were no further written comments?
MRS. MOORE-No further written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing then on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.TRAVER-We'll ask the applicant to return to the table. As you can hear a lot of concern about traffic
still. We've had two traffic studies, an analysis by our engineer seem to indicate that it was, they
concluded,they concur with the analysis of your traffic study in the two instances that were referred to in
the traffic comments of the engineer. There was concern that we did not look at the corridor study, and
in fact we did. We started our meeting this evening with discussing that. So we did consider that.
Somebody brought up an issue about the concern about people directing traffic flow. I think that was
only within the site,not on Weeks Road or Route 9. Correct?
MR. PALUMBO-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well,I'll leave it to you. You heard a good deal of public comment again about the traffic.
I'm not sure if the commenters had access to the most recent traffic information, but would you like to
respond to any of the comments?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. PALUMBO-Yes I would. What I'd like to do, Laura, if you could do what you did when Hal was
talking and go to that aerial view just for a moment. So Mr. Halliday was saying that was not focused on
or addressed. That's not exactly correct. Not only did our analysis and the traffic study address the major
intersections,but it did show what was happening in the main flow,but the more important thing is what
Queensbury has done and what the Planning Board in Queensbury did in 2005. You know,you use it all
the time,access management and at that time,there's an entrance there and the entrance here. Whatever
was done after that fact,that site plan was approved with fully the concept, and I think the Board knows
that that as what was approved. Laura, can I ask you to go to now, do you have the site plan that was
approved with the interconnect? It was from the.
MRS. MOORE-I don't know if I have access to that on this computer.
MR. PALUMBO-All right. So what I'll do, I'll just use this. If you go to our site plan,then I'll make the
points without that. It's on the record. The Staff knows about it. I have a copy of the plan here,but at
our point,that it's the matter of contention about the interconnect,because as you recall,what I said when
we first introduced this,and you asked me about could do it without an access to Weeks Road. Could we
do it if we only had Weeks Road, all those things, and what I said at that time, what the traffic study
proved,was that having the joint,the two accesses, one on Weeks and one at the signalized intersection,
was the best way to handle traffic,not just as part of what we are doing,but for the overall system,for the
corner lot development. Right at this point,and I'm sorry that Laura doesn't have it,only because I have
to tell you what is there and you can't see it.
MR. TRAVER-That's all right. That's fine.
MR. PALUMBO-There is a note right here on the plan that developed, when it was developed as the
Outback Steakhouse. The only way that site plan was going to get approved in the manner that it was
was to have the access out and the signalized intersection with Weeks Road lined up with Weeks Road,
Sweet Road. Sorry,Sweet Road. That was the only way that Site Plan got approved. It's on the approved
Site Plan that the Planning Board gave the approval on and went through everything at that time. Just as
you do now today. On that here, right there, is an arrow leading saying potential future connection or
future connection to potential development I think is the words, and there's a note that says"G" and the
note on the plan,now I'll go and read it exactly, since there was a discussion by Mr. Nichols about we're
just making up the term interconnect or using it that way. So possible future site connection, possible
future site interconnect, pointing to that point that I said, Note G. Owner shall construct vehicle
interconnections to the adjoining properties as shown at the time of re-development of those properties.
That is on the approved site plans. The contention that they're making is that when they subdivided the
land that went away. It does not go away. It did not go away, and I think the Staff concurs with us on
that. It was never addressed at that point because they didn't put it on their plan,but this plan still holds
as that connection there because the Town knows that the interconnection and access management is the
way to do things,and that's why that was set up that way. So that is there. Then Mr.Nichols goes,Laura,
I'll ask, do you have the survey that we provided that shows the easement? If you don't I'll just talk to it.
If you don't have, go to the deed interconnect. What I'm going to describe is that there was an easement
done at the time between the developer of the Outback Steakhouse and the previous owner of what is now
the Hoffman site, and in that, in order to do that what we said was the road, their whole driveway out
there. They didn't have enough space to get that road in there. So they had to do a land swap and that
land swap included land that went from what is the Hoffman property to the mid line of the road. It
wasn't designed to go to the mid line of the road. That was the land that was necessary to transfer between
the two agents basically. So it wasn't like we were only getting the access out,but the deed says subject
to an easement for ingress and egress over the lands conveyed herein for the benefit of the grantor, their
successors and/or assigns and said easement shall run with the land. It's a deed. It didn't matter whether
somebody else tried to,it's a deed, and yes it does say ingress and egress. So now, Laura, that's on there
and that's what I read I think Laura can tell you I wasn't making anything up there. So that easement was
here, all right. You can see that the road never could have been aligned, the driveway could never have
been aligned with the road,with Sweet Road and the intersection had they not acquired this land, and in
doing so they actually transferred some land from back here,and there was an agreement between the two
parties at the time that that said plan was approved, and that's where a Board at that time decided that
access out to the light was key to the development and any future development in this area, and what I'm
asking this Board is to consider that and say,would we want something that we're doing now overturned
by some Board in the future because somebody just says we don't think it exists. It was exactly what was
planned here, and it's still there and it's still valid, and I would go as far,and I talked with the Staff,that if
there's a denial of that by the owner, then they're in violation of their site plan, and a building permit is
based on the site plan. All right. So the suggestion is while they don't have to,we have that easement for
ingress and egress. So how would that logically happen when you already have an entrance drive here, an
exit drive here. What would we do? Put an entrance drive here on the other side of it? It would not
happen,because it was never conceived that way. It was conceived and approved by a Planning Board in
that manner. So I'm going to leave it at that and see if you have further questions about that.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. TRAVER-I think,in response,I think you're potentially talking about a civil matter,which is kind of
outside of our purview.
MR.PALUMBO-Well,and that's,actually it's a very good point,because what we are asking the Board to
do, and have been providing all the information for and your engineers have reviewed it, is that do you
believe this is the right project in the manner that we're doing it and move forward with an approval?
Obviously that's what we're seeking. And they have the right to take an action after that,but I believe the
Town knows that that was what was intended. All right.
MR. TRAVER-We're making our analysis, and we're not an adjudicative body, but we're making our
analysis based on the application that we have in front of us. So we're assuming that this information as
presented is accurate. If that changes subject to any decision this Board makes,then that's another matter.
That would be subject to re-review at some point in the future.
MR.PALUMBO-Another point that was made about,and,Mr.Deeb,I believe I said I would get back to it.
What the Councilman brought up and then what was discussed in terms of requiring public access across
private lands. That's not what we were saying at all. What we were saying is, first, the traffic study
shows that there is not a substantial degradation of service at that intersection and it is not a serious
intersection problem right now. I know it's hard for people to see it that way,because as I also said at a
previous meeting, wherever you are, wherever you're driving, that is the worst situation because it's the
one you're doing. They asked about a crash analysis. In the report they keep referring to,when that study
was done,first off that report did not go to Weeks Road. Sweet Road was the bottom of that report. So
they didn't even analyze Weeks Road, but they did analyze the Sweet intersection and of all the
intersections that they did there,which was all the way up to the Million Dollar mile,this was the second
lowest,over a three year period, six accidents identified. All right. Many in the corridor were up in the
range of 41, okay. So the report that they asked us to look at actually has data in there and I think that
your engineers knew that that information existed. Okay. So the portrayal that there's something out
there that we haven't looked at is just not accurate. So I'm sorry I was at that point about we are not
saying that that's how people will have to go. What we said,and what was asked of us by the Councilman,
was what if,all right,what if somebody, and what was brought up about people going through Wal-Mart
now, that's a choice that they have made to go to a light. We didn't have any part of that. That's
something that's already happening as they've attested to. If people make a choice to try to go to a light
rather than the intersection, that's on their sense of safety, okay, but the information in the accident
analysis and the level of service at the intersection does not support that this is a dangerous intersection,
with or without the Hoffman project. So what we said about we would have people directing, no, the
answer on people directing things was specifically to your comment at the last meeting that on those peak
days which we already established happen in the winter and they are not a daily occurrence type of event
and we also talked about the Queensbury,I'm sorry, Quaker Road that when the Tidal Wave,which was
brought up earlier tonight, when that closed, we saw a significant jump in the number of days that that
was happening because another car wash was no longer in service. We have said that the second
Hoffman's car wash is going to divide some of that usage. We also know that we are developing,Hoffman's
is developing, in South Glens Falls another car wash. This is distributing the flow of when people,
whether they're on their way to work, and the one in South Glens Falls is easier for them,they're going to
go to. If they're on this side of Town and they used to go over to the Hoffman's over there,they no longer
have to. They can go here. So there will be some distribution of already existing customer base, but I
keep going back. What we said was we would provide service at the time of those peak events to do
everything to keep people from stacking up on the lanes,and the comment was could we direct people out
to the signal rather than having cross traffic backed,you know,happening here which could slow things
down. So we talked, and I think,Mr. Deeb,you had said that,you know,if there was a sign here to say go
out that way, stay off of Weeks Road, on those very few days that this is actually happening, all right.
We're talking about possibly two a month I think that we have during our first quarter which is the time
when we expect the worst traffic. So as people said, Hoffman does know what they're doing and they've
proven it and, yes, they still have steep days, all right, but haven't hidden from that, we've actually
addressed it and we've answered those questions. So it was talked about buses. We have installed, as a
part of the plan,this sidewalk. It was brought up to us by Staff that as much as they would like it to be
differently,the school bus drops off right here. So we put,as part of our plan,that sidewalk so that nobody
would have to walk along the side of the road. Now it is also true that right now what is happening is this
is an empty lot. Nothing is happening there. So many of those parents are coming down and driving
down here and parking on the lot to collect their kids. I can't say that,we can't replicate that,but it's also
not the owner of the land's problem from the standpoint of what happens from the school district and
what parents do,but we did as much as we could to provide a safe sidewalk. We adjusted where our light
poles were so that sidewalk would be lit. So we've addressed all, I think, of the factors that have been
brought forward. We've certainly addressed all of the factors that you Staff and TDE have brought
forward, and we think the plan is absolutely worthy of your action and approval on. So I guess you can't
parcel this,and I'll also say one other thing about this. The connector of Weeks Road, albeit it might be a
nicety to do it that way,it was,I could not find the data in here that really supported,because they didn't
do the analysis at Weeks Road. It was very much, I'm just giving you my perception from reading that
report was that,yes, wouldn't this be great if we could do this,but I will tell you what was done wrong
with it. In that they had a price tag on that of$410,000. So if we're talking about how great this access
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
management was, there's no way that the road that they're talking about would be built for that and it
can't include the price of the land. All right. So when you value a report,when we have reports that have
been submitted and said what was counted,what was done,what our counts are,and,you know,this was
a massive study of the whole corridor area,but we're supposed to say that that was the right decision there.
We've used the access management. The access management was developed by the Town,that's the right
way to do the site. Tom, do you want to add anything on some of the site? That one connection about
using the Delmar store.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,I understand that's a bit of apples and oranges.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes. Very much so. Very much so.
MR. TRAVER-You can understand what the concern is,though.
MR. PALUMBO-We do, and I think you asked it. We addressed it. We gave you all the information.
Your Town Engineer reviewed it. That's the process that we go through.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Other questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DEEB-One of the comments was the buses let the students off on Route 9/Weeks Road.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes.
MR.DEEB-Maybe some consideration should be given to addressing that problem with the school district
and asking them is there a possibility that they can enter Weeks Road and go around and pick up at the
end.
MR. PALUMBO-My understanding was, from an early discussion with Staff, was that that was been
brought up to the school district. They sought not to do that. I don't know whether it's that they just
like using public or private lands. To go down Weeks Road with a bus,you're going to have to do quite
the turnaround there. An option would be to go in and go through the apartment complex,but then you're
doing exactly what Claudia had said like using private land to solve a problem. So the school district has
made the decision. It has been addressed before as far as we know. So there are some things that we are
not in the position to change and I also don't see that that merits the level of impact that would say,wait,
we can't do this. There's just things that are out of our control.
MR. DEEB-I'm just thinking,I'm trying to find a solution to your problem.
MR.PALUMBO-I know.
MR. DEEB-And I really think the school should be addressed again.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well I was going to bring that up,and I believe I brought it up on a previous meeting.
Has anybody contacted the school? There's 400 apartments down there and there's quite a few kids that
get on that bus and that is a main intersection,and I think it's more of a backup issue. They don't like the
busses to back up,but I really would like to see either one of the parties or both parties get together. This
has been a factor with the kids for many years,ever since Wal-Mart. I've been dealing with the Valenti's
and standing behind them on it because it is a concern. My other thought was really to help Weeks Road,
you have a light right there at Sweet and you've got one right there at Wal-Mart,and is it possible to put a
light there at Weeks that drives and connects where it would alleviate a little bit more.
MR. PALUMBO-It's a good question. First you have the proximity of the light,the closeness. That's the
difficult signaling,the signalization system. The second is the warrant analysis for it,that that would be
what the State DOT would say,yes,that meets it,because you know that their primary concern is the flow
of the overall artery,the arterial there. So there has been no indication that,from our analysis,reviewed
by your TDE,that would support having a traffic signal there. It's just not something that is likely to occur
with the State,given all those other factors,and the other factor is that,not to undermine this,those lights,
as they function now,do provide some of the gap analysis at Weeks Road, and that's why it functions as it
does. So you don't want to make it worse. We'd have to get it approved by DOT. There's no suggestion
that any of our data supports that,and the two lights actually help Weeks Road right now.
MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry, a follow up on that. On the corridor report,I did bring it up years ago because
I started sitting on that, following it because of our concerns between 149, and one of the things I said,
why don't you at least bring it to Wal-Mart,you know,why are you ending it at Sweet,but that's where
the road shrinks down, and to me why they couldn't even bring it down to Quaker as the development
goes. It's not like it's that far. I did question.
MR. PALUMBO-The only thing is, I'm not sure, Laura might know, but I thought there was actually a
Quaker Road intersection study done at one point that might have gone up that far. I'm not positive about
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
that, but they make a selection. I'm going to posit that the study, this study, as I read it, it's only my
opinion of what I read,was that the main emphasis of that corridor study was north,and they had to pick
a point to finish that,and that was that Sweet Road intersection.
MR. MAGOWAN-My main concern is the easement, that that is correct. Unfortunately we can't tell
everybody where to go. I mean they designed Exit 17 to bring it to Vermont when they did that back in
the 50's when they were designing it and it was built in the 60's, and it was way before the Garmin came
out and said, hey, the best way to go up is 149 straight through. Everybody's going to take the quickest
route,and I understand the fact that,you're right. With Tidal Wave or Smart Wash closing,that did,that
peaked you guys. That was a benefit,but you're right,this is going to help the flow. So I feel comfortable
but I understand all the concerns. So I'm still on the fence here.
MR. DEEB-I have a question for you. Your peak times, do they happen between four and six? They're
really your off times,right?
MR.HOFFMAN-Right,and especially when we're busier in the winter because of salty cars,it's dark out.
As soon as the sun goes down,we drop off dramatically.
MR. DEEB-I'm concerned about the restaurant owner and his comments. I was thinking that if your off
times are that way,I don't how they would conflict and affect the restaurant. They'd still be busy and cars
can get in and out.
MR. TRAVER-Well,and the traffic study.
MR.DEEB-But I do have a concern,as a business,that's his business,too,but also the,if you have a backup
on Quaker Road or any of your carwashes,I personally,if I saw a line,I'd wait. I'd leave. I wouldn't go in.
So I'm wondering that how much of an impact that would have adding to the backup. That's just a
personal opinion. I just thought I'd throw it out there.
MR. PALUMBO-It's a very good personal observation. And what we know is that think about any use,
you know,people will only tolerate so much before they decide that they're going elsewhere. At Christmas
peak, are you going to go into certain stores at certain times? If you can avoid it you're going to. If you
can't you're going to go, all right,which is why we have such big parking lots at some places. I wish they
were smaller, and think about a noticeable difference. Not only do we know that the Quaker Road site
has been dramatically increased since the closing of the other carwash, temporary closing of the other
carwash,but you do have a very wide shoulder there. People can get into and sit in a lane,in the shoulder,
and feel comfortable. It's not what we're saying that that should be accepted on a daily basis or anything,
but,because it's not a daily basis. So the comfort level of sitting there is certainly going to be better than
the comfort level of sitting on Route 9 at that point. It's just, your observation I think is actually the
accurate one that people will say I'm coming back at another time.
MR. DEEB-My concern is Route 9. I do not want to see cars backed up on Route 9 whatsoever. I mean
that scares me.
MR. PALUMBO-And that's why at the last meeting we showed you how many cars could fit beyond the
entrance to the Grill, the American Grill, all right. We weren't saying look at this stacking here. We
showed you the numbers and that was included in the report to your engineers. We showed the numbers
of how many cars could fit there. So we know,well,will somebody block at some time? Yes. It's just so
small of a time, and as you already noted,not at the peak time of the Restaurant.
MR. DEEB-Definitely I think I agree with your feeling that once this Tidal Wave opens up and if this
project gets approved, the business is going to be divided between the three of those carwashes in
Queensbury. So hopefully the traffic buildup wouldn't be as much if the businesses are divided.
MR. PALUMBO-And I agree with you. I think you're right, but I want to make sure that nobody
misinterprets what was said, because the analysis that we did supports that this is not going to have a
significant traffic impact. That's what your engineer found.
MR. DEEB-Yes. I'm not saying it's going to change that number. Again,I'm making an observation.
MR.PALUMBO-No, and I think we all do.
MR. HOFFMAN-I was going to mention, too, remember that this was an approved carwash and the
property owner was going to re-model and open it,you know, as is before he was approached by a realtor
that said,private equity firm from Alabama wanted to buy it,and then he approached us and we were able
to put it under contract to develop it. So again it's always been a carwash. It's always had a curb cut to
Weeks Road,you know, all these decades, and I think we're probably the most qualified at operating it
safely and,you know, the way we operate our business, our experience, I really don't have any fear that
we're going to cause any kind of catastrophic problems.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. DEEB-I think you have a very good business model. You've proven that,but that whole situation is
very complicated and involve.
MR. DIXON-And if I can comment as well. First of all the project I think it's laid out nicely. I think
you've done an excellent job there at explaining the interconnect. Where I'm struggling as my fellow
Board members are, is traffic has the potential of getting backed up, though, as evidenced by what has
happened on Quaker Road. I can't disregard what I've seen there. So I have to take that into account,
what could happen on Route 9,what could happen on Weeks Road,and as we get into this SEQR and the
site plan,I have a significant safety issue. I want to really like this plan. I want to make it work,but deep
down I'm having difficulty with the safety issues.
MR. TRAVER-So, Mr. Dixon, what I would point out also is,bear in mind what the capacity of the road
system is. We've already established and this report establishes it as well. The peak out on this road is
during the summer. So the volumes that occur, without us, with us,without us on Quaker Road, when
we've already,I think if you accept the fact that our summer traffic is absolutely lower than our winter and
spring,okay. It's not insignificant,but we did our peak analysis for the winter when we came up with all
of those. The capacity, so when you're talking about backups on Route 9,the backups on Route 9 in the
summer do occur. So I would say,and then I'd point out that accident analysis wasn't done by us and was
factored in for the summer traffic. So if you look at it from our numbers,from counts during,you know,
closer to the peak time, adjusted for the peak time, adjusted for our winter, provided and reviewed and
found to be credible. So I guess I would just ask you, is ours less safe than what is the common, what
everyone knows happens on Route 9 that a crash analysis study was done and found that this area was not
a significant concern.
MR.DIXON-Right,and I know where you're going with that,but even with the crash analysis,that's with
the business at hand. You're going to add quite a bit more business to that,and I want you to be successful,
but I also don't want to see anyone get hurt, and I've seen on Quaker Road, so again I'm going to say as
evidenced by what I've seen on Quaker Road cars out along the major road. So there along the road almost
to where Della's is, they're waiting to pull in, and if you were to count the number of cars, because
Hoffman's sits quite a ways back, so I think I can accommodate quite a few, and yes there may be some
people that will go up and say,no,I'm not going to wait there. However, as evidenced by Quaker Road,
people like Hoffman's. They are going to wait at Hoffman's.
MR.PALUMBO-And also realize that that site does not just include the carwash but also includes the Jiffy
Lube.
MR. DIXON-1 understand that as well.
MARTY ANDREWS
MR. ANDREWS-And it's one of the busiest Jiffy Lubes in the country. Marty Andrews, Hoffman's
Development. It's also one of the busiest Jiffy Lubes in the country. It's in the top 10. So that Jiffy Lube
is very busy. We have six bays of self-serve bays, three bays of in bay automatics. So you have three
different levels of service there,actually four and the carwash. This carwash that we're proposing has one
level of service.
MR. TRAVER-Do you have any idea what percentage of the business on the Quaker Road site is for the
Jiffy Lube versus the carwash? Maybe a third?
MR. DEEB-I don't think it's that much.
MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, I would say it's probably a little less than a third of it, but we don't really have a
count for the self-serve bays. The self-serve bays are also busy in the wintertime. A lot of people you'll
see them always there,busy, and in bay automatics. We don't have that service here. So that's a whole
different level of service over there than we're proposing here. Again, we gave you guys a really good
example of the Binghamton store and that is what we, we know that's what the store's going to do. It's
going to do that level of service.
MR. PALUMBO-And if I can, because we asked for a comparison, the Quaker Road comes in and, we
haven't talked about this,but that sits on the backside of the Jiffy Lube before going into the tunnel. So
you have along driveway and then you have that storage. So our driveway,if this were Quaker Road,we're
coming all the way in here first,all right. It is not as long,but it's not short either,and then we get to here
where we can divide these into three lanes,all right. So there really is a lot of storage on site.
MR. DIXON-And what would your projected growth be each year? We expect the Town to grow each
year. I would expect your business to grow each year as well.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. ANDREWS-Well, it actually doesn't because the control the volume with pricing. So if we were
lined down the street and,you know, for miles because we're giving away for free,you know,you would
say,you know if you guys charged a dollar you'd have less traffic. So just like any business, as they get
busier and they can't handle the demand,it's a supply and demand thing,that they would control it with
pricing literally,and it's just like Dunkin Donuts and Chik Fila and all these busy vehicle type of businesses.
This one has visibility from the road. So the Quaker Road location has it all hidden. So when people are
pulling in they may not realize there's a long line and that we're really busy. Where this, people are going
to see a line and like Frank had said earlier,they're probably going to make a decision I don't want to wait
in that long line and they're going to go by, and in the summer months when Route 9 is busiest, our
production and sales drops off between 20 and 300/o compared to when everybody's car is salty and
corroding at once in the winter months.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? We
have a couple of resolutions to consider, going forward. The first one being under SEQR. We'd have to
look at a SEQR resolution. We talked about that a little bit. Do people,based on the application,based
on the information we received on the traffic, comments from the Town Engineer regarding stormwater
and the rest,do members feel comfortable moving forward with the SEQR resolution on this application?
MR. DEEB-That's a tough one.
MRS.MOORE-So if the Board wishes,I can go through the Part II. Typically we have a resolution as draft.
There are times when you have read through the Part II directly,the questions one through eleven.
MR. TRAVER-Sure,go right ahead.
MR. DEEB-I would feel comfortable going through it.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I'll read through these. The responses can be no or small. No or small impact
may occur. That's one box, and the other is moderate to large impact may occur. So the first question is
"Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations?
MR. TRAVER-No. Does anybody disagree?
MRS. MOORE-Number Two,Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of
land?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Intensity,but it was a carwash.
MR. DEEB-It's not a change in use.
MR. MAGOWAN-And it did have multiple bays, a tunnel and self-wash.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Three, Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the
existing community?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Four, Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental
characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?
MR. TRAVER-No. I hope not.
MRS. MOORE-Number Five,Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of
traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway?
MR. TRAVER-I would say small to moderate based on the traffic study and engineer comment.
MR. DEEB-I agree with that.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean that's what we have to go by is the study.
MR. TRAVER-And the engineer's review.
MR. MAGOWAN-And the engineer's review.
2S
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Six, Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and
it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MRS. MOORE-Will the proposed action impact existing: a. public/private water supplies? b.
public/private wastewater treatment utilities?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. DEEB-No.
MRS. MOORE-Eight, Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,
archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MRS. MOORE-Number Nine, Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources
(e.g.,wetlands,waterbodies,groundwater, air quality,flora and fauna)?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. DEEB-No.
MRS. MOORE-Number Ten, Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,
flooding or drainage problems?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Number Eleven, Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or
human health?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me,Laura,can you go back to the sewer one?
MRS. MOORE-So the question is, Will the proposed action impact existing: a. public/private water
supplies? b. public/private wastewater treatment utilities? And so they're on public water and they're
on public wastewater.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. So my question would be, if it's all right, Mr. Chairman. The wastewater, I
know you recycle a certain amount and I'm sure you try to keep as much as you can going,but I just, did
you have to buy in? I know eventually it all goes into Glens Falls, and Glens Falls is only going to be able
to take so much. I just want to make sure.
MR.PALUMBO-So first you did accurately say we do recycle as much as possible,or as much as practical,
and it's substantial,but more to the point of like the people who make those decisions, we met with the
Water and Sewer Departments and there was no question on anything that we were providing in terms of
that the flow was going to be excessive and impactful.
MR. MAGOWAN-I just didn't see a letter and I was just wondering.
MR. TRAVER-We discussed that at length in an earlier meeting.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I was just confirming on the SEQR.
MR. PALUMBO-You've heard a lot,so if something is lost in the mix.
MR. TRAVER-So we can re-confirm no on that one,Laura?
MRS.MOORE-Okay. There is a,for every question in Part II that was answered Moderate to Large impact
may occur,you may need to explain it further. At this point you have not identified any of those.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MRS. MOORE-So you can proceed with your draft resolution if you wish to.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. All right. We have a draft motion.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT
The applicant proposes a 5,750+/-sq.ft.car wash building with associated access drives and queuing lanes,
and 1S self-serve vacuum area. The applicant has included a sidewalk to be coordinated with others along
the property line on Weeks Road. Project includes site work for access onto Route 9 through existing
traffic light and through adjoining parcel access on Weeks Road.Project also includes associated site work
for landscaping, lighting and stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new
commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to
review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the
environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this
negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 71-2021 HOFFMAN
DEVELOPMENT CORP. ,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 19`h day of April2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Molloy
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have a Site Plan resolution.
MRS. MOORE-So, Mr. Chairman, in the previous applications, other applications, you have the
opportunity to end the discussion but you have 30 days to prepare a resolution to this application. You
may wish to proceed that way or if you feel that you have a resolution in front of you that addresses those
items you could proceed.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,thank you for pointing that out,Laura. We do have a couple of conditions,I believe,
but I'm not seeing anything,do you feel comfortable moving on?
MR.DIXON-I believe so. Mr.Deeb had asked the applicant to provide directional signs during busy peak
times.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. DIXON-And applicant states that they will not prohibit on traffic on drive with Weeks Road to
access traffic lights located on Route 9 to Sweet Road. And I did have one on here that we didn't discuss
and I apologize. Some sort of signage by 40 Oak as far as that entrance. So something alluding to the fact,
do not walk.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MRS.MOORE-Mr.Chairman,I'm going to suggest again that you may wish to have either Staff work with
the Town Attorney to draft a resolution.
MR. DEEB-I think we should have Town Counsel.
MR. TRAVER-We could do that. So Staff is recommending that we table this application this evening in
order to draft a specific resolution,site plan resolution. How soon can we have that,Laura,do you think?
MR. DEEB-Tomorrow?
MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I know I can't have it tomorrow. At this time I'm going to say our first May
meeting.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So then we'd be looking at May 17`h. Can you come back on May 17`h for
consideration of that resolution?
MR. PALUMBO-Yes.
MRS. MOO RE-I'd just point out you don't have to table it for a motion. That was a discussion last week.
That's up to the Board how you want to proceed with that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,let's do a tabling resolution.
MR.PALUMBO-And just to be clear,we did close the public hearing.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,we did.
MR. DIXON-Do you need any verbiage just saying to give time to prepare a resolution?
MRS. MOORE-You can do that. You don't have to.
MR. TRAVER-Why don't you give that as the reason.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Applicant proposes a 5,750 +/- sq. ft. car wash building with associated access drives and queuing lanes,
and 1S self-serve vacuum area. The applicant has included a sidewalk to be coordinated with others along
the property line on Weeks Road. Project includes site work for access onto Route 9 through existing
traffic light through adjoining parcel and access on Weeks Road.Project also includes associated site work
for landscaping, lighting and stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new
commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. Introduced by
Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan.
Tabled until the May 17, 2022 Planning Board meeting to allow the Planning Board time to prepare the
resolution.
Duly adopted this 19`h day of April 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. We'll see you next month.
MR.PALUMBO-Thank you very much.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is under Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning
Board of Appeals,and that application is Queensbury Square,LLC, Site Plan 23-2022. Laura?
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SITE PLAN NO.23-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. QUEENSBURY SQUARE,LLC. AGENT(S):
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING(LUCAS DOBIE). OWNER((S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
CI. LOCATION: 909 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 9,220 SQ.FT.ADDITION TO
AN EXISTING 7,000 SQ.FT.LIQUOR STORE WHERE A 5,460 SQ.FT.FOUNDATION HAS BEEN
CONSTRUCTED. THE TOTAL BUILDING WILL BE 16,220 SQ. FT. THE FACADE HAS BEEN
UPDATED TO REFLECT ON BUILDING ENTRANCE FOR THE ADDITION. THE MAIN
BUILDING IS TO REMAIN THE SAME. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR LIGHTING,
LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-9-120, SITE
PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF
IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND
PARKING. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 76-2017, AV 78-2017, SP 1-2020, AV 1-2020, AV 13-2022.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2022. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT
SIZE: 1.41 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.296.17-1-38. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-120.
LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; MONTY LIU,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-So this application is reference to a proposal for a 9,220 square foot addition to an existing
7,000 sq. ft. liquor store. In the past this Board has approved a 5,460 square foot building separate from
the liquor store currently is installed the foundation. The total building will now be 16,220 sq. ft. The
facade would be updated to reflect one building entrance for the addition. The project includes site work
for lighting,landscaping and stormwater. The variance that's being requested at this time is in reference
to building setbacks. The building is to be 27 feet to covered entrance areas on Weeks Road where a 75
foot setback is required;front setback relief from Route 9 to the stairs is 72.5 feet to the stairs and 73 feet
from the porch post where 75 feet is required. In addition,relief for parking is requested where 62 spaces
is required and 55 are proposed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. Good evening.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering,representing Queensbury Square LLC. With me is Monty Liu who is the managing member
of the LLC. Just a brief project history. In 2019 we were before the Board and got a six unit building
which was 42 feet by 130 approved. We started construction in the fall of 2019 and we found that we had
an error on our, once we did the professional architecturals to include covered entrances on the Weeks
Roadside. So we were in violation of our approved site plan,variance. So we shut the project down,came
back to the Boards in January 2020 and got it re-approved and shut down because of the winter and then
never began again the project. So we've put a couple of years of thought into this and what Monty proposes
now is to make one comprehensive building. So the foundation that's in the back and add that to the
liquor store in the front along the same plans. So it's the same north/south setback and to create on big
liquor store for his own business,and we will re-shape the parking during construction,re-pave the entire
site. It's in a little bit of rough shape now so it'll clean the plaza up real nice and significantly we had a
previous service access road,north of the building on the Weeks Road side,but that's no longer proposed,
and also significantly on the Route 9 side is to take out the parking that's in front of the building, make
that green space. So we'll be compliant with our permeability. It's right on the maximum. We put quite
a bit of thought into the project and again to reiterate we're here to get your recommendation to the Zoning
Board for the expansion of the nonconforming structure at Weeks Road and the front setback there and
the parking variance, as well as we're re-working the entrance to where it is today with a new canopy. So
that needs setback relief on the Route 9 side as well. We're comfortable with the project. We'll update
our stormwater which we have the report, add a little more infrastructure and very comfortable with the
parking number of 55 proposed. We think it's more than adequate and with the geometry of the project
as well. We're here to ask for your recommendation and we'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank
you for your time tonight.
MR. TRAVER-Well it's going to be good to see something happen with that nasty foundation that's out
there all by itself in the back. Every time I look at this,though,I keep wishing that the Chinese restaurant
would come back. That was a great restaurant.
MR. MAGOWAN-The Flower Drum Song.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. This evening we're looking at the variance,but a couple of comments for when you
comeback for Site Plan review. One is elevations. If you can look at the proposed elevation views,lighting,
signage and the plantings that you have in mind for that Site Plan. As far as the setbacks and so on are
concerned, I mean the parking, to go from 62 to 55 I don't think is an extreme variance request, and it's
really,as far as the setback,it's kind of a pre-existing,nonconforming structure. So I don't personally have
any issues with it,but I'll open it up for members of the Board for questions and comment.
MR. DEEB-Are you going to use the whole space for the liquor store? You're not going to lease any of the
building out?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. LIU-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's the barrel delivery that just picks it all up. How many more square feet? There's
quite a bit of space it looks like between the buildings. So how many more square feet of nasty foundation?
MR. DOBIE Just over 3700,3760 to fill in that gap between the two buildings.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I really like the concept and I'm pleased. Like you said it will just close that in
and it will give,I like the fact that you won't be using anything on Weeks Road. Before you were going to
use it for trucks,but now we're not doing anything over there. Right?
MR. DOBIE-They'll still have its deliveries. We propose to keep the loading dock where it is.
MR. MAGOWAN-We're not going to be bringing in tractor trailers, are we,Monty?
MR. LIU-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Any concerns with the variance requests?
MR. DEEB-No.
MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments? All right. Well we have a draft referral resolution for the ZBA.
You're going to be visiting with them tomorrow night?
MR. DOBIE-Yes,we are.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#13-2022 QUEENSBURY SQUARE LLC
The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes a 9,220 sq. ft. addition
to an existing 7, 000 sq. ft. liquor store where a 5,460 sq. ft. foundation has been constructed. The total
building will be 16,220 sq.ft.The facade has been updated to reflect one building entrance for the addition.
The main building is to remain the same. Project includes site work for lighting, landscaping and
stormwater. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-9-120, site plan for commercial construction in the
Commercial Intensive zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is
sought for setbacks,expansion of a non-conforming structure,and parking.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 13-2022 QUEENSBURY SQUARE,LLC.
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19`h day of April 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much for your time.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and it's also unapproved development.
The first application is James Stokes, Site Plan 21-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands 4-2022.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
NEW BUSINESS—UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT:
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JAMES STOKES. OWNER(S): SAME AS
APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 45 ALESSIA DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
COMPLETE A 60 FT.LENGTH RECREATIONAL PATH THAT IS TO BE 8 FT.WIDE FROM THE
HOUSE TO THE WETLAND AREA LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
PROPERTY. THE PROJECT INVOLVES BANK STABILIZATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
179-3-040, 179-6-050, CHAPTER 94, A SITE PLAN FOR SHORELINE DISTURBANCE AND A
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR DOING WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS IS
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 31-
2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2022. LOT SIZE: 5.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 315.-1-
1.2. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-050,CHAPTER 94.
JIM STOKES,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this application proposes to complete a 60 foot length recreational path that is to be 8
feet wide from the house to the wetland area located at the northeast corner of the property. The project
involves bank stabilization. It's in front of us for shoreline disturbance and freshwater wetlands permit.
The applicant has been working with the DEC as well as the Army Corps for a little bit here. Due to
COVID it got put off and the applicant again wasn't aware that this sort of process required review by the
Planning Board.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR.STOKES-My name's Jim Stokes and my wife Donna and I own the property at 45 Alessia. Regardless
of the outcome tonight, I want to thank you all for your time and attention. We knew it was important
what you guys do to protect our investment for the Town of Queensbury,and earlier tonight I also learned
it's a very difficult job. So I appreciate you all. I had more help along the way,too, with Mr. Brown and
Mr. Frank. They came out and explained things to me,told me what the process was,got me connected
with the Corp of Engineers and DEC. So that all went real nice, and another star is Laura who helped me
put all this, you know, I had tons of information and she helped me put this all together and guided me
through that process.
MR. MAGOWAN-This is quite the package here. You must be an engineer or something, or a really
awesome teacher. I mean this is like numbered and colored. You did a nice job.
MR. STOKES-It's a little embarrassing. For 45 years I've been a process developer and used the best
business practices and made sure they got implemented and in step one I didn't even look to see if there
was a process I was supposed to follow. And that was going to be my first point tonight, too, starting
there. Apology doesn't make up for it,but I've learned something. Mr. Brown and Mr. Frank who I was
talking to about this, I said well how does an individual know the regulations. They said pick up the
phone and call us,send us an e-mail,we serve you.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. STOKES-And it wasn't two weeks later I'm sitting there having a cup of coffee and we're having a
thunderstorm and I'm looking out back,right about where this work starts,and lightning struck a 100 foot
pine tree and just exploded the thing all over the area. So I've been told not to put any equipment on the
ground down there and now I've got this big mess. So I sent him an e-mail and got a response back and
got a truck in there and excavated it and cleaned it up. Out of that I know now what to do. Before I start
anything,give them an e-mail,give them a call. They're more than happy to help you out.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, and I do see that since this whole effort started you have been working with
the Army Corps and DEC and they are helping you with your plan. In addition to the process that you
mention,in terms of checking with the Town for permits and so on,we are very proud of our environment
in the Town of Queensbury. So anything that impacts the wetlands is especially alarming to us, and it
causes us to scrutinize those plans very carefully,but we do appreciate the homework that you've done,
even if it is after the fact and hopefully this will go quickly. Questions, comments from members of the
Board?
MR. DEEB-You are right. Laura is a rock star.
MR. DIXON-I appreciate you being humble about the whole situation and it is hard for homeowners to
know everything. Hopefully you can be one of our best advocates out therewith any neighbors and friends.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. STOKES-Well, I know one of the suggestions Mr. Brown had,he said why don't you socialize what
you're trying to do with your neighbors,you know, get them wired in with what you're doing and every
vacuum seeks to be filled. So if I'm not telling them what I'm doing,they're imagining the worst things in
the world,you know. So what I did is I went out and I got 12 neighbors,individuals,on site,not all at the
same time, of course, to explain to them what was going on, what Laura said I had to do, what DEC's
position was, and I had to get, come to see you guys. I don't know what your decision is going to be,but
I explained it to them, and 12 were on site. One more,Jason Walker, who you all approved the SO foot
pole barn last year which he's built and put up,he said I can see from my property what you're doing over
there and I don't have any problem with it. So I've actually talked to 13 people,12 of them on site,but that
was good. That paves the way to making things happen.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that
wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any takers. How about written
comments,Laura? She's checking for us. So what is the current status of the project? It's not completed
I take it?
MR. STOKES-It's not completed, no. The pathway, we were on a rough grade with it at that time, and
put a finished grade on it when Mr. Frank told us to get that equipment out of there and stopped. What
he did tell me,though,is put down a healthy layer of chips on all,well he said in this area. Well,I did,I
put 30 yards down. Hand raked it. My wife knew where I was.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-I do have some public comment. So this is, "I would like to address the proposed plan
James Stokes of 45 Alessia Drive has for an upcoming project, as I am a property owner in the immediate
vicinity. Mr.Stokes has spoken to me personally about his plans and I have no opposition. I am confident
in Mr. Stokes' ability to follow any and all specifications that will be implemented. Respectfully,Aaron
ad Heather Sulkey 25 Alessia Drive" And then,"Just reaching out about the project out back at Jim Stoke's
place at 45 Alessia Drive. I have walked that land and am familiar with the plan out back. Will be
beautiful. Great people doing a nice thing back there. Just wanted to reach out and say this project has
our blessings and best wishes. Joseph Beaty 42 Alessia Dr.,Queensbury,NY 12SO4" And that's it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Are there remaining
questions,comments from members of the Board? Does anyone have a problem going forward with this?
Okay. We have a resolution
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#21-2022 JAMES STOKES
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to complete a 60 ft.
length recreational path that is to be S ft.wide from the house to the wetland area located at the Northeast
corner of the property. The project involves bank stabilization. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-050,
chapter 94,a site plan for Shoreline disturbance and a Freshwater Wetlands Permit for doing work within
100 ft.of wetlands is subject to Planning Board Review and Approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 4/19/2022 and continued the
public hearing to 4/19/2022,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 4/19/2022;
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 21-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2022 TAMES
STOKES;Introduced by Michael Dixon 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,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping,
n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r.
construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as waivers requested are reasonable to request
as these items are typically associated with building projects; applicant has provided specific site
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
details to the path work for stabilization and access to the wetland area in accordance with the
Army Corp Permit;
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;
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
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
Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 19`h day of April2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck with your project. Next on the agenda is Louis Carciobolo, Site
Plan 24-2022. This is also unapproved development.
SITE PLAN NO. 24-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LOUIS CARCIOBOLO. OWNER(S): 1048
NORTH LLC. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 1048 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT REQUESTS
TO MAINTAIN A 9,503 SQ. FT. CLEARING OF TREES AND COMPLETED INSTALLATION OF
5,248 SQ.FT.PARKING AREA TO THE BACK OF AN EXISTING BUILDING. THE PLANS SHOW
THE LOCATION OF THE CLEARING AND THE NEW PARKING AREA. THERE ARE NO
CHANGES TO THE EXISTING 3,568 SQ. FT. TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-9-020,SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT REQUIRING
TREE CLEARING IN A COMMERCIAL MODERATE ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 5-2006, SV 52-2010, SV 18-2011.
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2022. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT
SIZE: 1.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.2969-1-12. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-020.
LOUIS CARCIOBOLO,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to maintain a 9,503 square foot clearing of trees and completed
installation of a 5,24Ss square foot parking area to the back of the existing building. The plan shows the
location of the clearing and the new parking area. There are no changes to the existing 3,56E square foot
two story commercial building. Again,the applicant wasn't aware the clearing and grubbing and removing
of the remaining stumps out of the property. The applicant wasn't the original individual that started
clearing the property. It was a previous property owner. This property owner now came in and cleaned
it up so that,and installed some parking area,or proposes to install some parking area for those tenants in
the commercial building.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thanks. Good evening.
MR. CARCIOBOLO-Good evening.
MR. TRAVER-So you own this property and the previous owner had cut down a bunch of trees and
basically left a mess behind. Is that it?
MR. CARCIOBOLO-That's correct,sir. Yes.
MR. TRAVER-So what you have done, and you've given us some photographs as well,is you went ahead,
in the process of clearing this,and you discovered that you needed to explain to us and get permission for
what you were doing. Correct?
MR. CARCIOBOLO-That's correct. Yes.
MR. DEEB-Can you identify yourself for the record?
MR. CARCIOBOLO-Yes. My name is Louis Carciobolo.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this is 9503 square feet and this is, a little more than half of this is going to be a
parking area?
MR.CARCIOBOLO-Actually there's going to be,I'm looking to add an additional 13 parking spaces behind
the building and that is where the Adirondack Audio business is located. Once the lot next door has been
sold,the Luxury Box,Adirondack Audio used that area for all their parking, and once it was closed on the
guys had nowhere to park. So they started parking on my property, Louis Jeweler's. I let them use that
area there. So this additional parking area would help, allow them to park there.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board?
MR. DIXON-Did I see the lighting,there's new light posts that were added?
MR. CARCIOBOLO-Yes,sir,three of them.
MR. DIXON-Are they all downcast?
MR. CARCIOBOLO-Yes,they would be. They'd be similar to Luxury Box.
MR. DEEB-Normally we come down pretty hard when stuff happens.
MR. CARCIOBOLO-I understand that, and I was misinformed as to what I could do by a couple of
different firms. Like I said, the area was basically full of debris, and if you look at, on some of the
photographs here, you can kind of see the pictures of before I bought the property, down at the bottom
here,it shows this all clear and also the back area. So additional trees were taken down by my landscape
guys,but I guess I wasn't allowed to do that.
MR. DEEB-Do you think you could replace a couple of those?
MR. CARCIOBOLO-The trees? I could,sure. I mean there's a lot of trees still around the building. I also
own an additional 42 feet behind that. So there's quite a few trees there.
MR. MOLLOY-Do you have a general idea maybe of how many trees your landscapers took down?
MR.CARCIOBOLO-The major trees were taken down ahead of time. My guys did kind did like a saplings,
more like weeds and just debris,branches down. There were some stumps in the ground and I couldn't
install a proper,you know,I wanted to put nice grass down,topsoil and stuff.
MR. TRAVER-Did you want to suggest to the applicant a certain number and type of trees and location?
MR. DEEB-If the Board doesn't feel it's necessary. I'm just.
MR. DIXON-Well I think it would be a nice offset. How many,you have three light posts that went in?
MR. CARCIOBOLO-No,I haven't done anything,yet.
MR. DIXON-But you're proposing three light posts.
MR. CARCIOBOLO-Yes,sir.
3S
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. TRAVER-They need to be no higher than 20 feet,and downcast.
MR. CARCIOBOLO-Yes.
MR. DIXON-On the back side of the light posts, would you be willing to put in a hardwood tree behind
the light posts? As they grow up they'll get more mature. Maybe it'll help the neighborhood on the back
side.
MR. CARCIOBOLO-Sure.
MR. DIXON-Mr. Deeb,what do you think of that?
MR. MAGOWAN-How many trees?
MR. DIXON-I thought three,three hardwoods.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean it does look nice back there. I did see the grass,you know, coming back
in.
MR. DEEB-I think the trees would be nice.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. The trees in the parking lot would help.
MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that
wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes,ma'am.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LINDA MC NULTY
MRS. MC NULTY-Hi. I'm Linda McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane. I also own 16 Twicwood Lane,
the vacant lot. I'm directly behind Louis' new property that has been cleared. First question is, what is
the legal time for notification for public hearings?
MR. TRAVER-That's a Staff question. Laura? Public hearing notice?
MRS. MOORE-So public hearing notice,five days ahead of the meeting.
MRS. MC NULTY-Seriously?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MRS. MC NULTY-This comes at a very inopportune time for the Twicwood area because it's vacation
week for a lot of the families. I was going to ask that this be postponed. I'm sure that there are several of
the neighbors who would be interested in weighing in on this. I don't know whether it's possible for the
Planning Board to work with the Town. For probably 25 years the Town has been collecting tax money
from us for a lighting district which none of us really wanted and it's been put on a table not to be done.
We would be interested in seeing that money invested in a cement barrier wall the length of the properties
that backup to Twicwood. We don't feel safe with these flimsy fences that they're putting up. The south
wall has already comedown in the area on the Luxury Box property. It's not adequate. We need more
protection.
MR. TRAVER-That's something you could certainly reach out to the Planning Department to discuss,
perhaps put a site plan proposal together with yourself and your neighbors to do something like that.
That's really beyond the purview of this particular application.
MRS. MC NULTY-Well, before the Board approves whatever they want to approve tonight for this
application I would like to see that work done.
MR.TRAVER-Ma'am,that's not part of this application. You're talking about an issue that's unrelated to
this specific application. I understand your concern.
MRS. MC NULTY-You're not willing to protect the neighborhood.
MR.DEEB-This is a different agency that you have to talk to. This isn't the Board that you talk to for that.
MRS.MC NULTY-You did require the Luxury Box to install a wooden fence which was really inadequate.
It's not what I requested at the time.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MR. TRAVER-What I would suggest is that you reach out to the Town Planning Department and inquire
as to how you can proceed,but that really is unrelated to this specific application this evening.
MR. MAGOWAN-But if the fence is already down,we have a Code Enforcement Officer that can go out.
MRS. MOORE-I apologize,but that fence issue is being resolved. It's already been addressed.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you.
MRS. MC NULTY-Yes,when I spoke with Bruce he said the people can be cited for the fence collapsing.
It's really not adequate,and there does need to be a privacy fence and I would really like to request a cement
barrier that works for repelling noise and it works for, it's sturdier for keeping people from trespassing
into the Twicwood area.
MR. TRAVER-I understand what you're saying, but please understand what we're saying in that this
application that we're reviewing at this point this evening doesn't relate to what you're speaking about.
That's not to say that your concerns can't be addressed in some other forum, and you can certainly reach
out to the Planning Department and find out what opportunities there may be to pursue something like
that,but this public comment that you're making is not relevant to this application.
MRS. MC NULTY-Okay. How about some arborvitaes? Can they be planted?
MR. DEEB-Ma'am,this is nothing we can do. You have to go to a different department to do this. This
isn't for us to say arbitrarily.
MRS. MC NULTY-Okay,but if you give him permission to do what he wants to do, there's no reversing
that.
MR.DIXON-Are you asking for some additional buffer between your property or the property to the north
and the business?
MRS. MC NULTY-Actually the Furniture Barn property is what runs behind me,but it's still inadequate.
We get so much light through the back of our home that I can walk around before dawn and see the
furniture.
MR. DIXON-So specific to this applicant here. We're looking at this application right now.
MR. TRAVER-It's unrelated to this application. That's the issue.
MRS. MC NULTY-So you can't require additional shrubbery? The arborvitaes.
MR. TRAVER-Not where you're speaking about having it placed,ma'am.
MRS. MC NULTY-I'm sorry?
MR. TRAVER-Not where you're asking to have it planted.
MRS. MC NULTY-Along their rear property line?
MR. TRAVER-There's already a large natural buffer there.
MRS. MC NULTY-It's an inadequate buffer.
It's 40 something feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you talking about Louis Jewelers?
MRS. MC NULTY-I'd like to see that whole stretch with a cement barrier.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,that we can't do.
MRS. MC NULTY-I don't see why something can't be done to better buffer us.
MR. TRAVER-And perhaps there is something that can be done, but it won't be done related to this
application tonight. What you need to do is reach out to the Town via the Planning Office. You might
want to put something perhaps in writing maybe with the help of your neighbors that you spoke about
explaining what the issue is and asking that you receive some help in trying to resolve it,maybe something
can happen that way.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
MRS. MC NULTY-They're going to say there's nothing to resolve because it's already been established.
MR.MAGOWAN-No,I'm familiar with the lighting district. I know when we,my parents I grew up and
we always said we're getting charged for a lighting district and we don't have any lights in the
neighborhood and we really didn't want them. I do remember that.
MR. TRAVER-But does that relate to this application?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, but I think what she's trying to say is in lieu of that. So that would be more
something that has to be directed to the Town Supervisor and the Town Board of what you've done with
all that money and we haven't got the lights. That's what I think you're trying to say. This particular
application,we can only address Louis Jewelers and what was previously cut down and what he cleaned
up.
MRS. MC NULTY-Okay, but there really is no need for additional parking there. His jewelry store and
the audio store do not have that big a turnover of vehicles.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well due to the square footage he is able to apply for added parking. In our Code
there's so many square feet of building. There's parking spaces that he feels there needs to be, and that's
what we have to look at.
MRS. MC NULTY-I wish the Town would protect the residents.
MR. MAGOWAN-I understand. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Are there any written comments,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I have no written comments.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TRAVER-And we'll ask the applicant to return.
MR.CARCIOBOLO Just to address the parking situation. So with the Adirondack Audio building there's
actually only around seven spaces in the front of the building, and if you take into account all of the
company trucks and stuff like that,they're already parking where I propose to put this pavement. They're
already parking there. There's really nowhere else for them to go. So it's not like we're increasing traffic
or more business. We just need it for the employees and to make it look more functional as a property.
MR. TRAVER-Understood.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's right. Because people will drive by if they can't find a parking spot.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Do you feel
comfortable going forward on this? Yes,I think we're ready.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#24-2022 LOUIS CARCIOBOLO
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant requests to maintain a 9,503
sq. ft. clearing of trees and completed installation of 5,24E sq. ft. parking area to the back of an existing
building. The plans show the location of the clearing and the new parking area. There are no changes to
the existing 3,56E sq. ft. two story commercial building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-9-020, site
plan for development requiring tree clearing in a commercial moderate zone shall be subject to Planning
Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 4/19/2022 and continued the
public hearing to 4/19/2022 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 4/19/2022;
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
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 24-2022 LOUIS CARCIOBOLO, Introduced by Michael Dixon
who moved for its adoption;
Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions:
1) Waivers request granted:g.site lighting,h.signage,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping,n
traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r.
construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as waivers requested are reasonable to request
for these items as the project is specific to after the fact clearing and the installation of parking and
future 3 light poles;
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.
h) Planting of three hardwood trees 15 feet to the east of the proposed light poles shown on the
plans (behind light poles).
Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 19`h day of April 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Longacker
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. CARCIOBOLO-Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-So you'll get an e-mail shortly,probably tomorrow morning, that talks about final plans.
So you're submitting those plans again, not the application just the plans themselves, then there's the
resolution on the sheet,but I'll explain that to you.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? Hearing none we'll
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 19TH
2022,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jackson LaSarso:
Duly adopted this 19`h day of April,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Molloy,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned everybody. Thank you very much. We'll see you next week.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2022)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver,Chairman
43