Loading...
10-15-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) Q UEENSBUR YPTANNING BOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING OCTOBER 15 ,2024 INDEX Site Plan No. 66-2023 Jeremy Eanes/Walmart 1. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXT. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25.1 Site Plan No.51-2021 Brett&Pamela West(Main House) 2. Freshwater Wetlands 10-2022 Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXT. Subdivision No. 1-2024 David Howard 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 30S.7-1-4S.1 FURTHER TABLING Site Plan PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings/Habitat for Humanity 3. REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXT. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-4S,49,54,55,60 Site Plan No. 69-2023 Foothills Builders/Mead's 4. Petition of Zone Change 1-2023 Tax Map No. 303.5-1-79 Freshwater Wetlands 12-2023 Site Plan No.59-2024 Lowe's Home Centers,LLC 14. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.20-1-50.1 Site Plan No. 63-2024 Tamara Sutphin/3S4 Ridge,LLC 17. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 297.17-1-47 Site Plan No. 64-2024 Jennifer&David Luce 19. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.13-2-37 Site Plan No. 60-2024 Bhomeshwarie Kemraj 21. Tax Map No. 252.-1-41 Site Plan No. 62-2024 Randy Gross 24. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33 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 10/15/2024) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15TK,2024 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB 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, October 15`h, 2024. This is our first meeting for the month of October and our 21" meeting thus far for the year. If you would please make note of the illuminated exit signs. in the event that we do have an emergency,those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer so as not to interfere with the recording of the meeting for our minutes, and we also ask that, during the meeting, if you want to have a conversation amongst yourselves,if you would go out to the outer lobby,again,so as not to interfere with the recording of the meeting minutes for us. Thank you. So we have a few Administrative Items this evening. The first being the approval of minutes for the July 17`h and July 23rd meetings. Do Board members have any additions or corrections to those minutes? I'm not hearing any. We have a draft resolution for that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 17`h,2024 July 23rd,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF TULY 17h AND TULY 23rd,2024,Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt: Duly adopted this 15h day of October,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Then we have a few more Administrative Items. The first being Site Plan 66-2023, for Jeremey Eanes. This is a Wal-Mart request for a one year extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 66-2023 JEREMY EANES/WALMART—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this project was approved in 2023. He's requesting a one year extension. They haven't started the actual project at Wal Mart,and once they do,it should be forthcoming soon. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions, discussion regarding that request for an extension? Okay. If not, we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#66-2023 JEREMY EANESAVAL MART Applicant proposed to construct an 5,202 sq. ft. single story addition to the northeast side of the existing 153,943 sq. ft.Walmart building. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 66-2023 on October 17,2023. The applicant is requesting a one-year extension,valid until October 17,2025. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 66-2023 TERMEY EANES/WALMART. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR.TRAVER-The next item is Site Plan 51-2021. This is Brett&Pamela West(Main House)request for a one year extension. SITE PLAN 51-2021 BRETT &z PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) — REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So they're still working with the building architect and that actual builder is working on the guest house next door. So they're in the middle of the process of finishing up the guest house so they can start on the main house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there a chance they're going to need a modification? Are they talking about changing the design possibly or no? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Any questions,comments on that request? RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#51-2021 BRETT&r PAMELA WEST Applicant proposed to demo existing home and shed to construct a new two story home with a 5,436 sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Project included installation of permeable pavers for patio,driveway areas and a covered walkway between the two properties. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 51-2021 on October 25,2022. The applicant was granted a one year extension on October 17,2024. Applicant is requesting another one year extension,valid until October 17,2025. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 51-2021 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 10-2022 BRETT &z PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-The next item is Subdivision 1-2024 for David Howard. They're asking to be tabled until next month,to the 19`h of November. SUBDIVISION(P) 1-2024 DAVID HOWARD —TABLE TO NOVEMBER 19,2024 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So they're in the middle of obtaining additional information. So they've asked to be tabled further. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they're going to be submitting additional information this month? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Questions,comments on that request? Okay. We have a resolution. RESOLUTION FURTHER TABLING SUB#1-2024 PRELIM. STAGE DAVID HOWARD (Revised) Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 25.7E acre parcel. The parcel would be divided into 23.62 acres and 2.16acres. The 23.62 acre parcel will remain vacant and the 2.16 acre parcel will be 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) developed for a single family home.The new residential lot will have a new home with associated site work. Pursuant to chapter IS3,a two-lot subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tabled until the November 19,2024 Planning Board meeting. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION (PRELIMINARY) 1-2024 DAVID HOWARD. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr.Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And the last Administrative Item we have is Site Plan PZ 230-2016. This is Legacy Land Holdings/Habitat for Humanity. They're submitting an additional request for another extension,although I understand we've been provided with some additional information clarifying that,Laura? SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS/HABITAT FOR HUMANITY — REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the applicant has hired Bohler Engineering, and they are in the process of reviewing the current plans and determining whether they're going to modify that and come back before the Board. I've had discussions with them and explained some of the details about the project that's been approved. So they're weighing those things that are supposed to be happening and then determining whether they're going to move forward with that projector come in with anew project. That's why they've asked for six months instead of a year because they know they're in the middle of their process right now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Six months,right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any questions,comments regarding that request? MR. STEFANZIK-So we're sticking with the one year extension? MR. TRAVER-Yes,because they can come in next month if they want. They're giving themselves some elbow room,and typically we grant,we don't typically grant less than one year. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP PZ#230-2016 LEGACY LANDHOLDINGS Applicant proposed a partial 3 story,27-unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and landscaping. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 230-2016 on November 15,216. One-year extensions were granted on October 17,2017,October 16,2015,September 24,2019,October 27,2020,October 26,2021,October 1S, 2022,and October 17,2023. The applicant is requesting an additional one-year extension,valid until October 17,2025. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS/HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And now we can move to our regular agenda. The first section of which is Tabled Items. The first item is Foothills Builders/Mead's. This is Site Plan 69-2023,Petition of Zone Change 1-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 12-2023,and Mr. Magowan will be recusing himself on this item. TABLED ITEMS: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) SITE PLAN NO. 69-2023 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I (NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3/19/2024) FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): MEAD'S NURSERY. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 361 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A ZONE CHANGE OF A 1099 ACRE PARCEL FROM COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE TO MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF 16 BUILDINGS WITH 4 UNITS EACH AS WELL AS COMMUNITY BUILDING AND PATHS. SITE PLAN REVIEW PENDING TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE REVIEW. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040, 179-10-040 AND CHAPTER 94, SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AND WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 26- 1990, DISC 8-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 1099 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-79. SECTION: 179-3-040,179- 10-040,CHAPTER 94. JEFF MEYER&MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is review and approval for construction of a new multi-family housing project. This is a 10.99 acre parcel and would include 16 buildings with four units in each, as well as one community building. The project occurs within 100 feet of wetlands. They've submitted a Freshwater Wetlands permit,a local one. They've received their Petition of Zone Change on 5/6/2024 from the Town Board, and so they're back before this Board. They had amended the original layout of the buildings and so they are back now with that layout with additional information with the plantings and stormwater and that information has been forwarded to the Town Engineer for review and comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. MEYER-Mr. Chairman, for the record, again, my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney with Meyer, Fuller&Stockwell in Queensbury and with me is Matt Huntington of Studio A. So,yes,this is the latest iteration of the residential development at Mead's. We took back the comments that we received from this Board and from the public and are hoping to kind of continue to respond. The reason for the delay is we've totally engineered the stormwater to make sure that our estimates and our best guesses were,in fact, accurate and backed up by science. So the stormwater is all being dealt with on site. It's going through pre-treatment. I'll defer actual technical questions to Matt. It's undergoing pre-treatment before it enters the pond so essentially the goal is to keep as much water out of the pond as humanly possible. What is naturally going to go in there is going to continue to naturally go in there,and what naturally flows out is going to continue. It's not necessarily changing the hydrology of the site or the way the stormwater system for Quaker or anything else was established,but we're essentially doing everything within our power to maintain stormwater on site, keep it clean, keep it within the regulations and we've accomplished those goals. We have added visual screening and a buffer along the residential areas, essentially on the corner where the single family houses are you can see all the plantings that are being proposed in that area. There is a row of plantings in the rear of the buildings to the north which is bordering the commercial size for the benefit of the residents that will hopefully be leasing the space. We added the community building which was requested by some of the public. So there is something for the residents to occupy their time on site. The exterior lighting was also addressed. There were concerns about spillover. The proposal came in,I believe it's slightly below what the Town wants to see as a range. MR. TRAVER-Yes,2.1 versus 2.5 I think. MR. MEYER-Right. So when it was designed,it was designed for function,you know,and make sure the residents had plenty of sight to safely see and navigate the facility, but, you know, going up to 2.5 and higher doesn't necessarily gain anything and it increases the likelihood of visibility from adjoining properties,potential for spillovers. So we thought it was a wise tradeoff. If that's an issue,we can certainly re-visit it, and I believe those are the big items that we hit upon, and certainly I'm happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS. MC DEVITT-I guess I'm still concerned about the pond, in terms of what's in that pond, and although I know it wasn't tested by the Town,there were some concerns brought up by a lab that did do some evaluations of it and I, and whether that could be an issue for people that live there because of the HAB's and that sort of thing. MR. MEYER-Right. So the Town's Engineer looked at the sample and said that it was essentially insufficient for them to properly adjudicate it. We haven't formally had it tested. One of the arguments by the neighbors was kind of drive around and look around,you never see a pond like this anywhere in the State. That's simply not true. It's no different than most of the farm ponds that you see as you drive 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) through some of the more rural areas of Warren and Washington Counties, and it's currently there. Everybody is living around it currently,and,you know,by re-purposing the site,removing,you know,some of the chemicals that may be lingering within the soils from its lifetime as a nursery,time is only going to clean the water, and, you know, by introducing new, clean water in and it'll allow the pond to heal naturally. There isn't a regulation that governs water quality for this pond. We have plantings around it. So there's no,there's nothing to really design to,and as a wetland we're prohibited from disturbing it. So, you know,I guess it places us in a position where we're trying to almost engineer a negative and it's,what is an end result besides the neighbors not wanting anything to be done on this site. They currently live next to the pond. Should we fence it in with like a giant metal fence? Is that going to? I don't understand the concern that we're trying to solve. People aren't going to be swimming in it. They're not going to be drinking it. It's not part of a feature that people are going to participate in. So we're struggling as to what the Board would like to see to ameliorate a concern that we're not even sure what it is. MR. TRAVER-Well I think one suggestion,because prior to this use there was a nursery there. So there were people coming there to go shopping or whatever. Now you're going to have a residential use with obviously children around. So one of the things might be to perhaps put up some kind of a fence to keep maybe children from playing in the pond or whatever until if and when as time goes by,since the nursery is not there anymore. They're not introducing these chemicals into the pond as you point out it will eventually clarify, but I think that would be the only concern is that now you're going to have children living there next to this pond. Granted there are children in the other neighborhood that are also living near the pond,but now you're going to have a number f families there. Was there any thought given to maybe putting up some kind of a fence or a signage or something to discourage people from getting near it or whatever? MR. HUNTINGTON-We can certainly put up some signs, you know, we can include it in the rental package for the tenants saying,you know,please note,the pond is not for swimming or bathing or fishing or eating. We can put a split rail fence around it. So, I mean, I'm not saying we're not gong to listen to the Board,we're not going to receive any comments. It was more just if you can provide us some sort of direction as to what's the actual concern. We can adjust accordingly. People know not to swim in Crandall Park. So we can certainly train them not to,encourage them not to swim in this pond. So we're not necessarily overly concerned. We just need to,we can address it as necessary. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-Can you spend a little bit of time going over,the buffering around the perimeter around of the property? Also I notice inhere you talk about distributing remaining nursery stock. Can you just spend a little bit more time on the buffering? And is that buffering going to buffer the view from the neighbors,you know,when they look at the lights and all of that? MR. HUNTINGTON-This is Matt Huntington with Studio A for the record. The buffering on the south side there is a blend of trees that eventually reach a pretty mature height of 20 plus feet, a blend of deciduous and evergreen trees as well as shrubbery. So that will establish a pretty dense buffer along that property line,and additionally there's a lot of leftover nursery stock there. That's what that note is in the middle. Rather than remove all that,we'd like to selectively use that to plant it. Now in order to quantify that,we don't have accurate accounts of everything that's out there,but it is relatively dense now. There's a lot of river birch and other trees like that out there that thrive well in that soil. So that'll be systematically planted to fill in any of the voids on top of what we're proposing right now along the property line. MR. STEFANZIK-And also on the north end. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,the north end,we weren't really planning on using a lot of nursery stock there, but it's a similar idea. That one's more you're kind of buffering this project from the commercial uses next to it. It's not so much the neighbors on the other side of it,because that strip on Quaker is all commercial. MR. STEFANZIK-Is there going to be a fence along there? MR.HUNTINGTON-We don't have one proposed. We're planning on trying to do that with the planting buffering there to try to delineate that edge. MR. STEFANZIK-And how about on the, I guess the east side, the Ridge Road side? I remember there was a concern by the neighbor across the street about,you know, the visuals of the complex. You have buffering,some of the landscaping. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes. They're lower growth. There's kind of like an entrance planting there. We're not going to have large trees blocking sight distance when you come in,but they're lower growth plantings at both entrances when you come in that provide, I guess it's not necessarily a buffer,but it's more of an aesthetic appeal as you pull in. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. STEFANZIK-I mean it looks very nice,to be honest with you. I mean the detail isn't there,based on what you're saying you don't know how many of the trees you can save and all that,but I think that's one of the bigger concerns from the neighbors was just the buffering, and I mean it looks like you guys have done a change there to improve that. MR. TRAVER-Do you have a timeframe for a hypothetical project development? MR. HUNTINGTON-As in like a construction start time and completion? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR.HUNTINGTON-I'm sure these guys would love to get going as soon as possible. I would think you're probably looking at two years or so once construction starts until the end. MRS. MC DEVITT-So the lighting,it's going to be all downcast obviously. This may sound picky,but I do have great empathy for the people living next to them. Can it be amber lights? Is that not enough illumination versus white light? MR. HUNTINGTON-Most of the stuff that you get now are LED fixtures. I mean we could look into it. I don't know off the top of my head right now what the difference in the photometics would be for the amber lighting. Typically you get variations of the LED,you know,clear to light. It doesn't spread as far and it's not quite as bright as the incandescent fixtures are. The incandescent ones are bright right under them and then they fade out quickly. The LED have a more consistent lighting pattern,and what we have proposed here are not the giant overhead tree lights. They're more light the 10,12 foot tall,like you can see at downtown state street lantern style lighting. MR. TRAVER-And the lumens,they're below the standard? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,the standard for the driveway,so there's two standards there for the driveways, the sidewalks and the roadways, and the driveway and sidewalks were like five foot candles I believe are what they were and the road was two or three,but we're so close to the road with these buildings,when you combine both the five foot candles for the sidewalks and walkways and driveways with the road,it seemed like it was going to be an excessive lot of lighting, especially when you factor in the ambient lighting that's already there from the commercial uses next to it. So that's the reason we're kind of proposing to go a little bit below that. It's going to adequately light the space,but I think it's going to over light it if we were to hit those numbers,combining the sidewalk and the street. MR. STEFANZIK-On the stormwater,you mentioned the improvements that you guys have made to the stormwater. Would you expect the flooding on Meadowbrook to continue? And I know that there's also flooding concerns from the neighbors along that road. MR. HUNTINGTON-That's a hard one. I think some of it may still exist because we're concerned with our property and what comes on our property and off our property now. That would be a much larger drainage study to look at all of Meadowbrook Road and what's contributing to those areas, which is beyond the scope of this project. So I can't really definitely say that would be eliminated. However,what will be happening on this site is right now the existing conditions,the runoff that comes down and enters the pond,go through a culvert and go off across Meadowbrook Road,those values,flow and volume values, of stormwater are reduced by the post construction condition on this property. So any volume of water that's currently leaving the site now will be less at the post construction condition. So I can say that confidently in our study the surrounding area is going to be a much larger drainage stage. MR. STEFANZIK-And where is most of the stormwater coming from, off of Ridge, coming down from Ridge? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, the site generally slopes from east to west. So it goes from Ridge down to Meadowbrook. MR. LONGACKER-You're doing a nice job with your ponds there,you know,elimination of one the one pond and you add the safety bench and the aquatic bench at the southern one. I thought that was great. The only thing,there's no foundations here,right? There's just slab on grades? MR. HUNTINGTON-Correct. MR.LONGACKER-Perfect. I thought the use of the bio retention area in the north was good. Just,where does that one drain to? MR. HUNTINGTON-That actually will drain under the road here with the catch basins, and ultimately everything goes to this pond because this is the only spot that actually leaves the site. So the existing pond has a culvert that goes under Meadowbrook Road. So right now what happens is systematically you 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) worked on the site with a couple of other bio retention practices up higher. They filter,retain the water, then it's released in a slower fashion than it currently is now. That bio retention practice that you're speaking of specifically will actually outlet into that pond and same thing with the micro pool extension, extended retention pond does the same thing,but obviously our flow and volume rates coming out of those are less than the existing conditions out there now. MR. STEFANZIK-That community center that you have,you refer to it as classroom training. What is that? MR. HUNTINGTON-I think right now it's just,I mean it's not fully designed out. It's just kind of a gym and lounge area. MR. DEEB-One observation. Even if there was no development on that property whatsoever, the pond would still be there,and that would change nothing,as far as the pond goes. So I just think that that has to be inserted. The other observation I have,and it's just personal. You put a sign around the pond with the warnings on it,people are going to come in to live there,I might be deterred from renting if I saw that sign. I mean I think it's necessary,or a fence or something of that nature,but it's kind of counterproductive it seems to me,but anyway,we have to solve the problem. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well if there's nothing further then we can go to public hearing. So we'll open the public hearing and we've received an awful lot of information from previous public hearings. So far we have,and Board members can correct me if I overlook something,but we talked about traffic,sidewalks, school impacts, the pond, DEC regards to pond and so on, stormwater and the wetlands. So if we have additional information that the public wishes to provide in a public hearing,other than these topics that we've already received,we'll open the public hearing and take additional public comment. I see we have a lady in the back. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JACKIE CORDELL MRS. CORDELL-I'm Jackie Cordell. I live on 349 Ridge Road. I have a statement from a neighbor that couldn't make it tonight. I'll read that first,if that's all right. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. CORDELL-So her concern is about the fencing. I realize that's already been discussed. However, there is no fencing. So just to reiterate the need for fencing on her behalf. She says the current metal chicken wire and makeshift fencing needs to be removed. She has privacy concerns, without a fence, residents form the new building might have an unobstructed view into my backyard or windows invading my personal privacy. A fence would provide a clear physical and visual boundary between the properties, allowing me to maintain a sense of seclusion. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. Can you elaborate where we're talking about the fence and where this lady live s? MRS. CORDELL-Yes, so actually her name is not correctly listed on this. She's brought that up before. Her name is Tanya Summers, and it would be the property, not the commercial property where the chiropractor is,but the property south,next property over. She's between my house and the chiropractor. MR. TRAVER-So she's not directly bordering this property. MRS. CORDELL-She is. She is directly bordering the property. Right there and a little bit on the side. So she's got a corner there,a little bit of one edge and then a full backyard. MR. TRAVER-So she hasn't seen the buffering that's been added to the plan. MRS. CORDELL-Yes, those are trees. She's talking fencing. Security, a fence acts as a security measure reducing the likelihood of trespassers or unintended visitors crossing on to property,walking to school or otherwise. Noise reduction. Apartments typically have a higher foot traffic and road traffic. A fence can help reduce noise from apartment's residents creating a buffer that improves my living environment. Aesthetic value. A well constructed fence can enhance visual appeal of both properties. It creates a neat separation between the different architectural styles and landscaping of the two properties,improving the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood,and pet and child safety. A fence provides a safe enclosed place for pets and kids to play without the risk of wandering on to the neighboring property or to the apartment complex where they may be unfamiliar with people. So that's her statement on fencing, which I agree with all of that. I had a question for my own education. It's on the 12`h slide and I don't know if that's something that can be pulled up that has the red lines on it. So that red line is labeled as calculation area S (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) full site. That red line is drawn over my property across the property line. I was just curious as to what that,can I just be educated as to what calculation area for the full site means? MR. TRAVER-Yes. We can ask the applicant. MRS. CORDELL-Okay, and then I am pleased with how the units have been pushed back away from my property. I do appreciate that. So I would like to express gratitude. I am disappointed that we did not reduce the number of units. That's still a lot of humans in m backyard, and also the fencing. A physical barrier. There's an old fence there. It's got wooden posts. The deer jump over it. It's made of chicken wire. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So where they currently show the tree buffering that's proposed,there's an old fence there now? MRS. CORDELL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. CORDELL-It's got chicken wire. It's all overgrown. It's the same fence that goes. It's not like something a previous owner had put on my property from my property. It's the same fence that goes at least you can see it along all of my neighboring residential properties. I don't know if it goes along Quaker Road or not. And that's all. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes,thank you. Is there someone else that has new information? Yes,sir. BRIAN STRAUB MR. STRAUB-My name is Brian Straub. I live in the neighborhood. I want to respond to two comments from tonight. First,Mr. Meyer is a talented attorney. He's not a scientist. He has stated here before that this pond is just like all the ponds in the Adirondacks. Vincent Moriarty who's a neighbor in the neighborhood,he's a professional water scientist. He previously testified that two studies of the ponds in the Adirondacks, hundreds, I think actually one of them is thousands of ponds, and this pond was, the aluminum and phosphorus in this,the levels were higher than almost all of the ponds in the Adirondacks. So it's not just like all the others. The second question is, they're wondering what to design for for the pond. The answer is one that has been disregarded constantly through this. They have purposely I think or have not at least tested the pond. You have not required them to test the pond. You couldn't use the sample that we got tested. So you're being asked to put people within a few hundred, actually in some cases 100 people with children and dogs next to a pond that's toxic in some ways and you don't know what's in it,and the only way to know what to do is to have somebody test this pond to know what's in it so you've got an understanding of what you need to do to protect the people who are going to be living on this site. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else with new information for the Planning Board on this project? Yes,sir. RICH ATKINSON MR. ATKINSON-Hi. My name is Rich Atkinson. I have a house on Meadow Lane, and my concern,it's not new information,a question I would like answered. It has to do with the pond. It's my understanding that it seems to have been covered here as well,is that the output of that pond goes under Meadowbrook into the other piece of property on the other side which is the wetland there, and it's further my understanding that that wetland drains under Quaker Road. I suppose the bottom line is,to what extent will that mitigation system work? I mean obviously with everyday I'm sure they have it well designed, but my concern is the big storm,you know,like the 100 year storm that you have maps for and all of that. That water is going to go under and presumably back under Quaker and that's where my concern comes in because our area floods constantly as it is, and I have great concerns about that potentially poisonous water,but one way or another it's the volume of water that is the potential that bothers me. How far as has that design gone? How much of stormwater will be mitigated in the event of a major storm,as opposed to what we normally see. If we had another hurricane come up here. Is it going to handle that without draining that pond under and potentially over to my side of the street. MR.TRAVER-Sure. Well what we do know is that the volume of stormwater leaving the site will be less than what is currently leaving the site. So what you're describing,much of what you're describing is not under the control of this piece of property and this project. There's other variety of sources of stormwater other than this piece of property. So our focus is on this particular application, and they are proposing stormwater mitigation that reduces the volume of stormwater from what it is now to substantially less. It is required,what they're proposing is reviewed and required to be approved by the Town Engineer. So it will be submitted to analysis by professional staff and not just this Board, but the Town Designated Engineer will review what they're proposing,look at their figures and their procedures and do an analysis, 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) actually typically these days it's done by computer to verify that what they're proposing actually works. In addition to that,during the construction phase of the project,should it be approved,there are site visits to ensure that what is being installed is what was designed and was approved. So that what's on paper becomes reality. MR.ATKINSON-Would they also be taking into account the fact that that property across Meadowbrook is now for sale and potentially yet another development site? MR. TRAVER-That's not something that we are looking at. We're looking at this piece of property and this project. What, hypothetically, might happen with some other piece of property in the surrounding area we don't know. I suppose we could hope that if there is some development there again it would improve the stormwater in the aera but we'll have to deal with that if and when it occurs. MR. ATKINSON-All I can say is we have very bitter experience with things that have been planned and promises that are made about how things are going to work. I don't know if you've ever been over on our side of Quaker Road and especially out by the Regency Apartments when there's a good storm. Obviously the mitigation plans that were put through previously didn't work too well. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes,you're welcome. Thank you.. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this project tonight? None more in the audience. Laura, do we have additional written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no additional written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well then thank you,then. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We'll ask the applicant to return to the table. Let's see. The first item that was brought up was about fencing, and I know this is in the area where you're proposing trees as opposed to fencing, but there is evidently some fencing,some old fencing that's there now. Would you consider replacing that in addition to the trees with a modern fence? MR. HUNT INGTON-We can certainly discuss that. I mean one thing I would add to that is the piece of property that was mentioned there is actually upgradient by a few feet from the actual site. So that piece of property is actually higher up than where these buildings are going to be proposed. So it's unlikely that they're going to be actually looking down into the property, especially once the plantings reach mature height there. MR. TRAVER-Well I think part of the concern was a security one,and I have my own feelings about how reasonable those concerns are,but nevertheless they're concerns in any case. There is a fence there now. So all that we would be proposing that you add to your plan would be to update,repair,replace where necessary the existing fence. It's not a new fence. It's evidently repairing,replacing the one that's there now. Is that something that you'd consider doing? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. I think that could be accomplished. I think what we're talking about is just mainly that east property line there,or whatever's there existing,not looking at fencing the whole site in. Correct? MR. TRAVER-Yes. The residential area where there was some concern expressed on the part of the neighbors that there may be people,foot traffic or whatever,and I know you have the trees that are going to be there. As they develop,they certainly would discourage that,but since there is a fence there now,it might actually help improve the quality of the project. It sounds like it was a pretty old,dilapidated fence. So if that could be removed and a nice, new fence put up I think that would go a long way to making it more accommodating. MR. HUNT INGTON-Yes,certainly. I think we could accomplish that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.TRAVER-The other question,sorry,Laura,could you bring up that Slide 12 again. The other question was about the red line that was used for the documentation of this,I guess the site sign. There was concern. Is there any implication of the red line evidently expanded into neighboring properties. Could you just clarify the purpose? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. That's simply just to show that we actually don't have spillover of lighting onto the property. You'll see as you zoom in there's a lot of zeros in that area. So as you run the calculations,it's just to show that there's not going to be excess. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. TRAVER-So the red line doesn't in fact reflect any construction or any impact on,any real impact on any property beyond what is proposed? MR. HUNTINGTON-No. That's simply just lighting. That's the photometics of lighting. It's no construction. It's just to show where light would spillover or it does not spillover. MR. TRAVER-Okay,and lastly we again heard the concern about the pond and the fact that there may be some,as even you have indicated,due to the prior use of the property,some chemical pollution in the pond. I think you responded that you don't plan on modifying the pond. In fact what you're proposing reduces the stormwater going into the pond, and therefore the amount of stormwater exiting the pond,and since you're not going to be introducing additional chemicals as the nursery would,I'm assuming that your point being made that the pond will clean itself over time if you will. There was a concern about the other side of the road, stormwater going under Quaker Road and the impacts on other properties, and I know that it's not part of this project,but would you say that the stormwater practices that you're proposing for this site would reduce stormwater impacts in total on the other side of Quaker Road, since less would be coming out of the pond? MR. HUNTINGTON-I mean I would say from this site specifically, again, it's hard to really take a hard stance. MR. TRAVER-No,I understand we're just talking about this site. MR. HUNTINGTON-But,yes,I mean from this site specifically there's certainly going to be reduction in stormwater volume and runoff that's leaving and to the gentleman's question earlier, this is actually designed up to the 100 year storm. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And that wouldn't necessarily accommodate a hurricane,but certainly a 100 year storm is a pretty significant event. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly. MR. TRAVER-And this, as all projects, does require signoff from the Town Designated Engineer as to stormwater and soon. Okay. I guess those are the only additional questions that I had. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. STARK-Yes, I just have a last minute comment here. Overall in the Town I'm concerned with the amount of development that's occurring. I think we're starting to lose our neighborhood feel a little bit with all the apartments going up. We're becoming more like a Clifton Park, Rotterdam, Malta kind of a Town. I also think that the neighboring residents' issues are very legitimate and I think 64 unit is a bit excessive. That's it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Would you have any objections to testing the pond? MR. HUNTINGTON-No,there's no objections to that. That could be done. MR. DEEB-I think it's a legitimate concern, to see what really is in that pond. Down the road it could cause some problems. I'd rather see ahead of time that we're mitigating anything that's going to happen. So I'd like to see that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess the follow up question, speaking hypothetically for the Town Engineer, would be what if they come back and the water is not perfect? What is the implication? MR. DEEB-No,I'm not saying whether it's perfect,but we can quantify,qualify what it is. MR. TRAVER-Right,but I'm saying, okay, suppose it comes back that there are leftover chemicals from the nursery use and so on,what then? MR. DEEB-I'd like to see what the danger of those are. You've got dogs that are going to be drinking out of there. You've got children playing around. I think for peace of mind,I think we ought to just be cautious about this. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You think that before we consider moving forward on the project that it should be tested and the results given to who,to us? MR.DEEB-Well,yes,to them and to us so we can see if there's any other circumstances out there that have to be looked at. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. How do other Board members feel about that? MRS. MC DEVITT-I would be on board with that. MR. STEFANZIK-I like this project. I wasn't a great fan of it originally, but I see that there's a lot of improvements that you guys have made,mainly to address a lot of the comments from the neighbors, and that's kind of where I'm parked now. I want to make sure that the neighbors are satisfied,and I think this testing of the pond could go a long way towards that. MR. HUNTINGTON Just one thing to note on the testing for the pond. We quantifiable value of whatever's in there. However,we don't really have anything to compare it to,because most water testing is either,you know,whether it's sanitary sewer going into a water body of effluent limitations on that. If you're using it for a drinking water source,you certainly have limitations on it. You have reporting limits. You have values that you can't exceed. However, for just an existing wetland, an existing pond, I don't know of any standards that you would compare whatever the results are that we sample this to to an actual value of what is a concern,because it's not for consumption. It's not for bathing. MR.TRAVER-Right,but I suspect that what it goes back to is what I initially started the first questioning in the meeting was that the people visiting this property in its prior use as a nursery,the pond was there. The pond is there obviously now,you know,you haven't contributed any pollution to it. What's there is there., and there's already a neighborhood with kids and dogs and so on around it. However, by introducing this residential use,you now have kids,I mean I grew up on Lake George,and my parents told me don't go near the lake. Don't go in it. I almost drowned I can't tell you how many times. So you can put up a sign or something and tell homeowners as part of the agreement that you're going to keep your kids away from it,but I can just imagine kids going and catching frogs and wanting to play in that pond, as David mentioned,and I had thought of,dogs and pets maybe drinking out of the pond. So the one,you know,not that there's really anything you can do that's going to remove any potential pollutants that are there,but I think what it may come down to is additional fencing or isolation of the pond from this new residential use. I think that's what I was kind of getting at in the beginning. Because,you know,kids are going to,you can put a sign out there,but before kids can read they're going to be in the water and catching salamanders and,you know,doing things,and I think that that's the concern. MR. HUNTINGTON-I think we'd be happy to propose a fence around the pond,if that was the issue. I don't know if you would look at the fence in lieu of testing? I mean there's no problem in getting it tested., Again,we don't really have anything to compare it to is the issue. MR. TRAVER-Well we don't have any, from a scientific standpoint,we don't have what I think we can consider valid testing, for example, by DEC or by a recognized body that we have a prior history of recognizing. So I think that the first step would be,for us,and it sounds like there's support on the Board to ask to see some testing results from a body that we can,we have some experience with DEC or someone else. I don't know,Warren,if you want to comment on that,but, so that we have some results that we can consider valid. Now it may come back that,you know,whatever's there is not a significant hazard to humans and pets or whatever,but in the meantime,while that testing is being done,if you could consider, and we have some indication that there may be some problems with the water in the pond,at least for now, but in the meantime, if you could consider perhaps, in the event that it does come out to be potentially dangerous to pets and children and so on, some kind of mitigation, fencing, or whatever, that could be proposed so that it really isn't feasible. I know that when people have swimming pools and soon they're required to put up various things. Just get into that kind of mindset,in the event that in fact it does turn out that this is a real hazard, because if you do put up some mitigation measures, it's not only going to protect the folks in this development,but even the people that are already in the neighborhood that maybe already have kids that are playing in the pond,if you understand. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly. MR.TRAVER-It's probably not a huge inconvenience when you consider the size of your project,but that's kind of what I was thinking when I started addressing that in the first part of the meeting tonight,because it seemed as though that would be a simple way to address it would just be to put up and keep kids like me from playing in the pond. MRS. MC DEVITT-I think it just informs people of the risk of exposure, what the risks might be of a certain kind of exposure. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and to eliminate the people that are not going to pay attention to the warning by putting up some kind of protection. MR. DEEB-I really do like the project. I really want to see this come to fruition. I think it's a good project, but this way we've got to be better safe than sorry,and if something does come up,there's go to be ways of isolating the pond,so that that's not going to interfere with the project whatsoever. But I just think this is a necessary step. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. HUNTINGTON-Certainly. I think the fence is certainly a reasonable approach and,you know,the applicant's willing to fence in the pond. I guess, not to belabor, but in terms of the testing, I think we probably need to work with the Town's Engineer to get some idea on what we're testing for. Because I mean there are hundreds of chemicals and they cost thousands of dollars to test for. MR. TRAVER-I think the health department,the Warren County Health Department,can help you with that,and perhaps through the edifices of the Town Engineer as well. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,I think that's what we would like to talk,because I mean we do a fair amount of water supply design as well. There's testing that there's certain chemicals, EOC's contaminants that you're testing for. Here we're just kind of testing. So, you know, how far, what are the extent of the potential contaminants that we're going to be testing for. MR.TRAVER-I think we can include in our draft resolution to specifically test for those things that would be harmful to humans and pets. MR. HUNTINGTON-That becomes a very extensive list. I just know that because we recently had a water supply development. It was like $7,000 in various chemicals. MR. TRAVER-I think the Health Department probably can narrow that down to a reasonable. MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. That's who we communicated with. So they're concerned about consumption of it. MR. DEEB-There was two specific mentioned. What was it,phosphorus? MRS. MC DEVITT-Aluminum I think was one. Wasn't it? MR. HUNT INGTON-Aluminum and phosphorus are the two. MR.DEEB-And then anything that could really be harmful. I know you can't catch everything,but at least some testing. MR. MEYER-No,I understand,but it kind of also goes back to what we're comparing it to. A member of the public mentioned there are hundreds and thousands of lakes in the Adirondacks. This isn't a brook trout issue. MR. DEEB-No,I'm not trying to compare it to anything. MR. TRAVER-But it is being turned from a nursery to a residential. MR. MEYER-I understand that, but the analogy isn't a pond in the middle of the Adirondacks. The analogy is. MR. TRAVER-It's just a body of water that people are going to be routinely exposed to. That's all. MR. DEEB-I'm not saying it's a fair analogy. MR. MEYER-The available information is looking at testing of water supplies,and I don't know if that's. MR. TRAVER-I think if you chat with the Town Engineer and you and he could reach out to the Health Department,I think you'd get what you need. I don't think we're testing for exotic things. I think we're testing for things that Town of Queensbury routinely tests water supply for. I think our concern, for example aluminum,you know,there may be,for example,a hypothetical amount of aluminum that might not be good to be bathing in or exposing yourself to for 100 years,but it may not be a problem for kids to play in the water or something. Do you know what I mean? There's different levels of exposure based upon the different levels of the existing potential contaminant, and we can't help you with that. That's the Health Department. That's their area of expertise. They can give you guidelines,and I'm sure that it's not going to be thousands of different things. It's going to be basically what. MR. DEEB-Like lead. MR.TRAVER-Yes,I mean,the water that we have in this building is tested probably once or twice a week. So,you know, that type of testing is sufficient,but I think it sounds as though,just based on the public comment that we've heard, there is a likelihood that the water is going to be something that we would benefit from keeping kids and dogs and cats and so on from drinking from,although wildlife is apparently drinking from it all the time,but nevertheless,we're changing the use to a residential use. I think it would be of comfort to everyone involved in the project to be assured that if there is a potential danger there that 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) we're going to do what we canto prevent people from being exposed to it. So how long do you think that would take? Probably to modify your plans wouldn't take long. Right? MR. HUNTINGTON-No. I mean showing a fence there is pretty simple. The testing is usually about a few weeks before you get the results back. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura,what's our agendas in the future looking like? MRS. MOORE-So December would be perfect. November,if we were to do it in November,I would say the second meeting in November which would be November 21", with information due by, I'll say November I". That gives us. MR.TRAVER-I suspect in the end that the actual testing is probably not going to be that much of an issue. I mean the information is going to be interesting to the Board,but I think what we're going to end up being more interested in looking at is the barrier, because it's likely going to come back that the water is not perfect and we're going to want to see. And it sounds like they can do that kind of modification of the pond area fairly quickly. So you think we could accommodate the second meeting in November? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do you think you could turn around that quickly? MR. HUNTINGTON-I know we could get the fence added to the plans that quickly. Again,the results of the testing I'm not sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Could you maybe reach out to Laura in the next few days after you find out about the testing and see? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It sounds like we could do it in December,but I know that you'd like to,we'd like to get this off our agenda and you want to,you know,get a move on,too. So if we could possibly do it the second meeting in November,just to follow up on the pond issue. If you could reach out to Laura as quickly as possible with that,then that would be great. So let's hypothetically maybe propose a table to the second meeting in November which would be,the 21",Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Two meetings in that week because of Thanksgiving. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is the Board comfortable with that? And I know we had a lot of discussion on a number of items. Is there any other information that Board members would like to see from the applicant in addition to what they've provided,other than the pond mitigation? MR. DEER-I think they've done a great job. MR. TRAVER-That and the fencing where they propose the trees. Okay. MR. DEEB-We appreciate your patience. MR. TRAVER-All right. Do we have a draft tabling resolution? To table to the 21" MR. STEFANZIK-With information due by? MRS. MOORE-November 15T RESOLUTION TABLING SP#69-2023 PZ 1-2023 &FWW 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S Applicant proposes a zone change of a 10.99 acre parcel from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density Residential. The project includes construction of 16 buildings with 4 units each as well as community building and paths. Site Plan review pending Town Board and Planning Board Petition of zone change review. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040 and chapter 94, site plan for construction of a new multifamily building and work within 100 ft of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tabled until the November 21,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 1,2024. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 69-2023, PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S, Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, To be included as part of the November 21" submittal, an updated plan for fencing along the eastern residential property line, as well as working with the Town Engineer or Health Department to develop a plan for testing of the pond water. Seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So your direction that you're going to give to the applicant on tabling is that you want the water tested and fencing information to be provided on the updated plans. I just want to clarify, you're having them test for hazards of any type,I would say determine a plan for testing the water. AYES: Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Thanks a lot. MR. HUNTINGTON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-See you next month. The next section of our agenda is recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals,and just so that you're aware,Mr. Magowan,the Foothills project has been tabled to the 21",to obtain testing and modifications to the fencing. They'll be back next month. MR. MAGOWAN-What are they testing? MR. TRAVER-The pond water. MR. MAGOWAN-And the soil in the pond? MR. TRAVER-Well the soil's already been tested by DEC but they didn't test the water in the pond. They're going to test that now. MR. MAGOWAN-Will we see the report? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-What about the buried tanks,was there signoff on that? MR.TRAVER-Yes. All right. The next section of our agenda is recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item is Lowe's Home Centers,LLC. This is Site Plan 59-2024. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 59-2024 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC. AGENT(S): PETRILLO ARCHITECTS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 251 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED PLAN AND REQUEST TO MAINTAIN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS. THE STORAGE AREA ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT NOTED AS PERMANENT STORAGE AND RUNS WEST TO EAST. THE THREE TRAILER PODS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND A RECYCLING TRAILER ON THE EAST SIDE WILL ALSO REMAIN. THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING CONTAINS PERMANENT STORAGE OF BAGGED GOODS IN THE EXISTING PARKING AND AN AREA FOR PERMANENT STORAGE OF SHEDS. THE BUILDING'S SOUTH SIDE PARKING AREA WILL USE 6 ROWS FOR SEASONAL STORAGE FROM MARCH 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1 AND A PERMANENT STORAGE ARA FOR UTILITY TRAILERS. THE PARKING AREA HAS SPACES FOR PRO- PARKING, VETERAN'S RESERVED SPACES AND CURBSIDE PICKUP. PARKING HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 623 SPACES TO 352 SPACES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040&z 179-9- 120, SITE PLAN MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PLAN FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE CONDITIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PARKING. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 29- 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) 1997; SP (M) 29-1997; SUB 11-1998; AV 52-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2024. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 24.13 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-50.1. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-120. PERRY PETRILLO,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is requesting approval of existing storage that has occurred on the Lowe's Home site for several years and we're able now to sort of quantify it. We have storage on the northern property line on the edge of the pavement known as permanent storage,runs west to east. There are three trailer pods on the north side of the building and recycling trailer on the east side will also remain. The west side of the building contains permanent storage of bagged goods and existing parking and an area for permanent storage of sheds. The building's southside parking area will use six rows for seasonal storage from March I"through September I",the permanent storage area for utility trailers. The parking area has spaces for pro parking,veterans and then parking has been reduced from 623 to 352 spaces,and I did note that there was discussion with the Fire Marshal. They had some comments that were shared with the Board, and the applicant has provided some updated information which I don't have shown at this time. So we can discuss that further as you explain the project to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PETRILLO-Good evening. Perry Petrillo,Perry M. Petrillo Architects,the architects for the project. With me is Mr. Scott Powell. He is the store manager. If you have any operational questions he can answer. So as outlined, and can we go back to the previous slide. I'm not sure why, but we had put together a color version of this that shows the areas of the parking. So the area in question is this area here that wraps around the back, along the back of the building here, and that would be for storage of bulk goods and some trailer storage at different times of the year for seasonal. This area here that's shaded,that was approved I believe it was back in'99 as part of the site plan approval. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. PETRILLO-Which is fenced. We're looking at basically using, so this area here we're proposing as being used for additional goods storage along with this right here, a couple of spaces for basically permanent shed display storage. These two rows here along with this piece will be used for seasonal, March through September,to lay their bulk goods out. This lane here would be used as a main drive for pickup of bulk goods,where associates would help the customers load going out there. We also captured a couple of spaces here for permanent trailer display and storage. When I say trailers, the small utility trailers. MR. TRAVER-I mean that's the way it's being used now. Correct? MR. PETRILLO-It is, yes. So we're basically trying to bring everything up to speed as it is now. The numbers of spaces that we've shown,the 352,that's what it would be reduced to during the seasonal usage of these spaces. So it would not be year round. Currently the spaces are back to normal parking spaces except for where the trailers are. We also counted in,which was not part of the original site plan,Laura, did I see in'99,maybe some of them came back somewhere along the way,I don't know,but we counted in the pick up spaces for the customer pick up area,the pro parking and then the pro parking trailers which that go here which are going to be there,too. So that's all been incorporated,along the count for the cart corrals that are on the site. There is a slight difference in parking spaces count. You've got a total of 605. We actually did an on-site count to come up with the number. So if you look at it and you're wondering why the numbers are a little difference from the previous site plan, and we did a real count. That's what we came up with. So that is accurate,and then basically we've outlined the areas along the building here where they'd like to use for display at different times of the year. In front of the garden center these areas for live goods,you know,along the building wall up here for lawnmowers or tractors or that sort of thing. MR. TRAVER-Snow blowers there now. MR. PETRILLO-And snow blowers,that season is coming,yes,pretty quick. So that's the parking piece of it. I know that there was also a comment about the landscaping. Lowe's has also solicited a proposal which they did a site assessment of the existing landscaping and what needs to be done, and I have that also I can pass out,and basically our plan on that would be to do that in the early spring. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I think that the concern was just that some of the vegetation had died. MR. PETRILLO-There is some, it definitely needs some love. There's some dead plantings and some additional plantings to be planned for that. MR. TRAVER-The main concern I had were the comments from the Fire Marshal. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. PETRILLO-And I did not see those. MR. TRAVER-Well, there's a fire department connection on the building which is there for your sake, because in the event that you have,especially a fire,in the building,the fire department can come up and quickly connect to that FDC,connect it to their engine and supply the sprinkler system with hydration of water. MR. PETRILLO-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-That access has been blocked and there's some photographs that you'll see shortly that show a bunch of debris that look like packing material and various things. That is a really,really critical issue because should there be an event,you might have a problem with your insurance company even if it's blocked. MR. PETRILLO-If it's blocked,yes. MR. TRAVER-If the Fire Marshal's comments are not addressed. MR. PETRILLO-No issue with that. We'll make sure that that's addressed. MR. TRAVER-I was sure that you would. Anything else? MR. PETRILLO-I think that's it on our part. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-When you come back for Site Plan Review, do you expect to have a formal response from the Fire Marshal to these comments? MR. PETRILLO-We'll definitely have a response,yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes,and he's just seeing them now. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. I'm good. MR. PETRILLO-In fact this first one,we actually were on site last week and verified the back here that we've got 26 foot clear of drive aisle between where goods are going to be stored and either building or actually pinch point is right here. There's a transformer and there's bollards behind that. So that we made sure we've got 26 feet from thereto our store. So they will be addressed,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Was there ever a time that that parking lot was full? MR. PETRILLO-Full,full? MR. DEEB-Full,full with all cars, 600 and some odd spaces? I live in that area there, and I've never seen 600 cars in there. MR. PETRILLO-So this aerial is a Google Earth aerial that I pulled down and it's from 5/23./23,which is right before Memorial Day,which is one of their biggest days of the year,okay. Now to Mr. Powell's credit the storage of goods on here looks a little haphazard. He's done a great job in cleaning that up. This was taken before Mr. Powell became manager. At this time there was no management,or no fixed manage at the store. So things may have been a little haphazard,but my point here is that if you look at this,there's still a large amount of open parking spaces within the parking held,and I did address that question to Mr. Powell,have you ever had a time where people couldn't find a parking space on site,and he said. SCOTT POWELL MR. POWELL-Yes, in the year and three months that I've been with the store, you know, I mean, obviously,it gets smaller,fuller during those peak months,but I've never seen a situation where somebody has to keep driving around to find a spot. MR. TRAVER-Right. I've been a customer there many times and unfortunately for me it's generally in some kind of a household emergency situation and it's usually for what, also it's just my luck it's usually the busiest time that you could imagine,and everybody in Town is at Lowe's and I've never had a problem parking. So I think the parking is adequate. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. MAGOWAN-Well I might go on the record and say that Lowe's is my favorite shop for my business. I love the store, and I've been there from opening day and I don't get upset when I can't park in the pro, right underneath the awning right in front of the door, but never seen a problem with parking there. I have noticed a difference in the clean up since you've been in. I always drive around in back and go up, and like I said I'm pretty much there if not every day,every other day. MR. POWELL-And I think, you know, to that point, I think times have changed a little bit now after COVID in that I think a lot more people order things on line and just come and pick them up,or they have them delivered, and that has changed their business,too,in the sense that those large stock items that he needs to stock at the rear are sort of staged for delivery, as they come in, they go out. So it is a little bit different business model than it was in'99 when they proposed the store. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this is a recommendation to the ZBA, as are some of the other applications that we're looking at. So there's no public comment tonight, although there probably will be when you come back to us for Site Plan Review. Do Board members have any concerns regarding the referral to the ZBA? Okay. We have a draft resolution for this. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#52-2024 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS,LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to modify an approved plan and request to maintain outdoor storage areas. The storage area along the Northern property line along the edge of the pavement noted as permanent storage and runs West to East. The three trailer pods on the North side of the building and a recycling trailer on the East side will also remain. The West side of the building contains permanent storage of bagged goods in the existing parking and an area for permanent storage of sheds. The building's South side parking area will use 6 rows for seasonal storage from March I through September 1 and a permanent storage area for utility trailers. The parking area has spaces for pro- parking,veteran's reserved spaces and curbside pickup. Parking has been reduced from 623 spaces to 352 spaces. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&179-9-120,site plan modification of an approved plan for outdoor storage conditions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for parking. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 52-2024 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS,LLC. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick 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 Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. POWELL-Thankyou. MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Tamara Sutphin/33S Ridge LLC. This is Site Plan 63-2024. SITE PLAN NO. 63-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TAMARA SUTPHIN/384 RIDGE, LLC. OWNER(S): 384 RIDGE,LLC. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 384 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A 941 SQ. FT. LEAKING FLAT ROOF WITH A PEAKED ROOF. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS ABOUT 12 FT. IN HEIGHT AND THE PEAK OIF THE NEW ROOF IS ABOUT 20 FT. THE EXISTING ROOF WILL BE REMOVED,THE NEW ROOF AND TRUSSES WILL BE PLACED ON TOP, AND THE SIDING WILL BE VINYL SHAKE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 83-1992;UV 77-1992;AV 8-2011; AV 59-2024. WARREN CO.PLANNING: OCTOBER 2024. LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 297.17-1-47. SECTION: 179-3-040. 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) TAMARA SUTPHIN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes replacement of a 941 square foot flat roof with a peaked roof. The existing building is about 12 feet in height. The new peaked roof is about 20. The existing roof will be removed. The new roof will include trusses and the siding will be a vinyl shake. Relief is sought for setbacks. Again,the building itself remains the same. It's being changed from a flat roof to a peaked roof. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. SUTPHIN-Hi,good evening. I'm Tammy,Tamara Sutphin. I own the building at 3S4 Ridge Road. I have with me my daughter, Bree Sutphin. She owns the hair salon business that occupies the building. I've owned the building for about 11 years,ongoing battle with a flat roof leaking. All attempts have not been successful. Soto preserve the integrity of the building we want to go through the expense of putting the peaked roof on to resolve the issue. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The request for the variance are because of the setback issues and the building is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. Right? So these are not new variances. They're just required because you're undergoing review for the change in the roof design. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-I think that's going to look nice. Anything like signage? MS. SUTPHIN-No change. She's got her sign on her awning now. MR.TRAVER-Will that provide you,is there going to be an attic? Will you have extra storage or anything that? MS. SUTPHIN-We probably won't access it,and she really doesn't need that for the business. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. SUTPHIN-They all go up and say it looks fine,but it leaks worse after we do more repairs. So enough is enough. MR. TRAVER-So, all right, so is the Board comfortable referring this on to the ZBA? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#59-2024 TAMARA SUTPHIN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to replace a 941 sq ft leaking flat roof with a peaked roof. The existing building is about 12 ft in height and the peak of the new roof is about 20 ft. The existing roof will be removed,the new roof and trusses will be placed on top, and the siding will be vinyl shake. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for new facade on an existing building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 59-2024 TAMARA SUTPHIN/384 RIDGE, LLC.Introduced by Frtiz Stefanzick 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 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MS. SUTPHIN-Thanks so much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Jennifer&David Luce. This is Site Plan 64-2024. SITE PLAN NO.64-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JENNIFER&z DAVID LUCE. AGENT(S): SD ATELIER ARCHITECTS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 91 ROCKHURST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME BY REMOVING CURRENT DECK,INSTALLING A LARGER ONE,AND USING A PORTION OF THE SPACE UNDERNEATH IT AS STORAGE. THE PROPOSED DECK WILL BE 339.19 SQ.FT.WITH 107 SQ. FT. FOR THE PORTION FOR STORAGE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES ADDING A NEW GABLE ROOFLINE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE HOME, WHICH WILL ALTER THE APPEARANCE FROM THE SHORELINE AND ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040, 179-6-065 &z 179-6-050, SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 41- 02, SP 14-2002, SP 72-2017, AV 60-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-37. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050. STEFANIE BITTER&SUE DAVIS,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes an alteration to an existing home by removing a current deck an installing a larger one,and using a portion of the space underneath as storage. The project includes some additional landscaping and some path work for the project. Relief is being sought for setbacks, permeability and floor area. They no longer request the fence location. They're going to move that to a compliant location. MRS. MC DEVITT-Could you repeat that. I'm sorry,we didn't hear that. No longer,what? MRS. MOORE-The fence location. MS. BITTER-Is no longer on the request. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening, Stefanie Bitter. I'm here with Sue Davis, the project architect. Our client wants to do this project for two purposes. One, to renovate the shoreline of the parcel so that they can make it more functional and accessible for all generations, as well as to improve the aesthetics from the shoreline. I know that what Laura is showing you is the site plan,but this is really a pre-existing,non- conforming site, and the renovations that are being proposed are already in the improved areas. There's not really an increase of the non-conformity. They're maintaining the areas that they're already occupying. Specifically they're looking to remove and replace the existing deck that is from the shoreline. They're also doing the roof modification that's noticed in that architectural rendering and then there is a storage area that's being proposed underneath the deck because it's only a one car garage. So there's not a lot of storage that's on the site. The new deck is 339.19 square feet. The storage area is 107 square feet, although,like I said,we're asking for relief from those setbacks,and the floor area. They're really already being maintained as is demonstrated on that site plan with the blue and the red lines. We're still within the same numbers. The floor area is being slightly increased by 107,which I demonstrated to you is that same number as that storage area,which will obviously not be someplace that will be utilized for living. It's just for purposes of storage. So overall we think since you're reviewing this as a Zoning Board recommendation,we feel like the balancing test is in favor of the applicant and not any detriment can be considered for the overall community. When you look at the aerial,I'm not sure if that's something that's present on the slides that Laura has,we're staying right within where we're already set back,and we really average out between our neighbors. It's not something more excessive than the others. No undesirable change. We're increasing the appearance from the shoreline, and like I said,we're staying within that buildable area that's already improved. Any deck modification due to its current location is going to require relief, and then this is really the only option to make the area more accessible to all generations of the family. Relief should be reviewed as minor because we're already in that improved area. No adverse impacts. In fact,we're going to be incorporating new stormwater devices as part of this plan,and it shouldn't necessarily be considered self-created because we're dealing with a site that already maintains pre-existing,non-conforming. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. TRAVER-The only question I had was about the shoreline buffering, and it seems that according to the Staff Comments the herbaceous plantings seem to be less than the guidelines? MS. BITTER-We're willing to work with you. We have Studio A that did the landscaping plan. It's just a matter of where we can fit then-L The area is already improved. We realize we'll return here next Tuesday for a Site Plan and we're willing to respond to any of the recommendations. MR. TRAVER-We just like to be compliant, especially with this less than the standard setback. The buffering is even more critical. So if you could beat least compliant with Code that would be great. MS. BITTER-Okay. We will follow up with Studio A. MS. DAVIS-If I could just say something, and I'm Sue Davis with SD Atelier Architecture. I wasn't the architect that worked on the building. I can't speak as much to the site,but I am in communication with Jeff Anthony and Matt Huntington at Studio A. When I asked them about that because I recognized that was a concern,they said it is nearly impossible to comply to your guidelines because there's already a patio there and stone terrace. So I can talk to them and see what they might be able to do to add,but there are some limitations based on the pre-existing conditions. So I just don't want to leave with the impression that when we return we're going to totally comply, because I was told it would be impossible to do so. Again,I'm relaying the message that I was told from them. MR. TRAVER-Well that's unfortunate because the buffering is one of the most critical things that we consider. So you might want to communicate that to that person,even if they need to modify the shoreline somewhat in order to come in to compliance because that is a critical issue,particularly with the setbacks that we're discussing. That makes it even more critical. I'm sure you can understand that. MS. BITTER-So what we have to do is inventory what's there,what's remaining and what's going to be added, so that we demonstrate whatever area of vegetation that exists can be improved with shoreline buffer. MR.TRAVER-Yes,I mean that's certainly something that we're going to want. Whatever you need to do, I mean this is not our project. MS. BITTER-We'll do our best to quantify it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-The area underneath for storage,is that going to be a concrete slab or is that going to be earth? MS. DAVIS-Honestly we're proposing just rubble rock. So,you know,it counts because it happens to be the way that the grade works,but we actually were just going to put like,for drainage purposes,just like coarse rock is what was going out of there. MR.TRAVER-Anything else from members of the Board that we want to pass along to the ZBA? All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#60-2024 JENNIFER&r DAVID LUCE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home by removing current deck, installing a larger one, and using a portion of the space underneath it as storage. The proposed deck will be 339.19 sq ft with 107 sq ft for the portion for storage. The project also includes adding a new gable roof fine near the center of the home, which will alter the appearance from the shoreline and road. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040,179-6-065&r 179-6-050,site plan for hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks,permeability, and floor area. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 60-2024 JENNIFER &z DAVID LUCE. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) 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 Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MS. DAVIS-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business,and the first item is Bhomeshwarie Kemraj. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 60-2024 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BHOMESHWARIE KEMRAJ. AGENT(S): ABD ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): BHOMESHWARIE KEMRAJ &z GUYADAT KEMRAJ. ZONING: LC-l0A&z RR-5A. LOCATION: 1747 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH A 2,379 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES 098 ACRE OF DISTURBANCE. THE NEW 425 FT.LONG DRIVEWAY WILL BE AT 10%SLOPES. THE NEW HOME WILL BE BUILT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, IS LOCATED IN THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA AND WILL INCLUDE SITE WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLAND (STREAM). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 147, 179-6-065 &z CHAPTER 94, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS AND 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, AND STORMWATER PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 8-1993. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,WETLANDS,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 6.22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.252.- 1-41. SECTION: 179-3-040,147,179-6-065,CHAPTER 94. LUIGI PALLESCHI,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes construction of a new single family home with a 2,379 square foot footprint. The project work includes almost an acre of disturbance,not quite,but the new 425 foot long driveway will be at a 100/o slope. The new home will be built within 50 feet of 150/o slopes. It's also located in a Critical Environmental Area. There is site work within 100 feet of the wetland area,which happens to be across the street, and this project is subject to review because it's within 50 feet of 150/o slopes,the CEA and a wetland. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PALLESCHI-Good evening. Luigi Palleschi with ABD Engineers and Surveyors, here representing the applicants,which are here tonight as well. So what they'd like to do is build a single family home. As Laura had mentioned the square footage. It's a two story home. The floor plans and architectural renderings were provided to the Board. It's a nice looking structure,and I worked with the applicant and what we did was we laid out the site in several ways. At one point we had the house further back up the hill,which,you know,required almost nearly like a 7 or 800 linear foot driveway,and as you can see with the curve slopes, there was a lot of zigzagging to get up there and maintaining the 100/o slope on the driveway. So another iteration was bringing it closer to the road to minimize the length of driveway,and the applicant didn't like the house that close to the road. They felt like they needed a little more privacy. So what you see here,after a few iterations,we're about 160 feet back from the right of way,and less curves on the driveway, still maintaining a 100/o slope on the driveway. You can see here the grades that are proposed. We've thought out the grading,the drainage. We have some stormwater areas that we'll collect the runoff from the driveway and the rooftop. We've provided the stormwater analysis so that the post- development discharge is less than the pre-development discharge. There is an existing stream along the westerly side and,you know,we're not disturbing that,but as Laura mentioned,this property does have a lot of constraints or setbacks to the stream. There's wetlands, DEC wetlands across the street, and we have some slopes to deal with,but we feel that with our proposal,you know,we're maintaining the proper slope on the driveway,the grading,and,you know, providing erosion control measures. We've provided a SWPPP so that the applicant and the constructor can maintain all the slopes and silt fencing and things to prevent erosion, and we'll have no further impact. This site does require a septic system. We've done the analysis,soil testing and perc tests. It's good fine sand. So it's a conventional septic system that we're proposing and in addition to the septic there will be an on-site well. We're providing all the separation 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) distances from septic to the wetlands, septic to the stream line as well as separation distances from the well to the septic. So,you know,although it's a site that needed a lot of attention to,we worked it through, worked with the Staff here and got to a point where we can discuss it with the Board. So if there's any questions I'd be happy to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. My question actually is for Staff. Laura, we haven't seen the engineering analysis on this yet. MRS. MOORE-You should have. I have a letter from September 30`h,and I can read it to you because it's not overly,it's only one comment. MR. TRAVER-I didn't see it in our packets. MRS.MOORE-Yes,so it's,the applicant should include a detail for the drywell of the site plans. Technical comments have generally been addressed to our satisfaction. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the only comment was. MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry,wrong location. 446 Dix. So you're correct,I don't have that. I thought I had. MR. TRAVER-Okay,yes,I mean,and it's certainly not the fault of the applicant,but I'm concerned about reviewing this without the comments from the Town Designated Engineer in view of the nature of the site and the wetlands and slopes and so on. I would really like to see that. I don't know how other Board members feel. MR. STEFANZIK-Exactly. MRS. MC DEVITT-I definitely. I have real concerns about the slope,proximity to the stream,yes. MR. TRAVER-And this is nothing,that's not your responsibility. It's the Town Designated Engineering, and,you know,we do run into this occasionally. Fortunately it's fairly rare,but this is,as you pointed out, a difficult site and we, this Board relies very heavily, although we have individual experience and some expertise,we really depend on the Town Designated Engineer to whom you sent your plans to, and they do an analysis and they send us a report,and it just happens that as of this date we have yet to receive that report. Sometimes it's not hugely significant, but a project of this nature, with so many issues, as you pointed out,to be dealt with,I think most of us feel that we need to see that analysis from our TDE so that we have the perspective in addition to your own. I hope you can understand. MR. PALLESCHI-I don't think I have a choice,unless this Board would conditionally grant approval. MR. TRAVER-I guess I feel badly because it's not your fault or the proposed homeowner's fault. It's just a scheduling matter, and this has happened very rarely,but I'm not sure what else we can do other than table until we get that analysis so that we have some time to review that and then we can more fairly adjudicate what it is that you're proposing. MR. PALLESCHI-So there's no other questions this Board has at this time that we can? MR. TRAVER-There may be. MRS. MC DEVITT-Would you just clarify maybe by tracing your light or something. I'm still not clear as to where the stream is. Like the track of the entire stream. MR. PALLESCHI-I don't have a light,I'm sorry. This right here. MRS. MOORE-Yes,it's along the side. MR. PALLESCHI-And this is the 50 foot buffer to the stream. MR. TRAVER-So that's the 100 foot buffer? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. So the house is outside of that stream. MRS. MC DEVITT-Okay. Somehow I thought that was like a culvert. Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-It sort of is a culvert. It's just for water. MR. PALLESCHI-So we're keeping all our disturbances away from that stream and by grading it out the way I have it actually separates it by berm with all the water coming, like staying on our side so that it doesn't run off to the stream 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. STEFANZIK-This lot is 1.OS acres? MR. PALLESCHI-The disturbance is. The parcel size is a little over six acres. MR. STEFANZIK-And the disturbance,is that all clearing? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes,that's basically what you see in the heavy dark line around the site. MR. TRAVER-That's the clearing limit as proposed. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-So that's all clearing. So all the trees,all the vegetation,that's all going to be removed? MR. PALLESCHI-It would have to be in that area to get the driveway in at 100/o. Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-Well clearly with those slopes that starts bringing up erosion and sediment control, stormwater. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes,and we provided a SWPPP,stormwater analysis. MR. TRAVER-And that's what we're waiting for. MR. STEFANZIK-That's what we're waiting for. MR. TRAVER-So any idea on timing of that,Laura,when we might get that? MRS. MOORE-I was,I would assume within the next few days. So I'm comfortable suggesting you table it until next week. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Is the Board comfortable with that,just bumping it until next week? MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Are you available to come a week from today? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. I'll make sure we can be here. We've waited so long to get to this point. MR.TRAVER-Yes,I understand,and again,our apologies. We,again,know this is an administrative issue and not yours. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So I apologize for that. If you can accommodate that, I would appreciate it. It actually would make things go faster because then we have time to look at this. So,okay. MR. MAGOWAN-You're going to be clearing all the way up, and then you're going to be making a level spot. Right? MR. PALLESCHI-That's right. MR. MAGOWAN-Because there's nothing level up there. MR. PALLESCHI-No. It varies from maybe 120/o to 150/o, but, you know,you can see from the grading maintaining that 100/o driveway and then,you know,we do have a wall in the back that,yes,we want to keep it as tight as possible as far as disturbance. Atone point,when you have the house closer to the road, you're less than an acre disturbance,right? That's always the goal,but the applicant felt that was too close to the road with cars driving by. So we pushed it back a little bit,got it close to an acre,and,you know,I think we're going to be just over an acre. I can't keep it to just under an acre. So,yes. MR. TRAVER-Well it'll be a nice project once it's done,no question about that. We just want to make sure that everything works as you propose and only the engineer can really tell us that. MRS. MC DEVITT-The Fire Marshal could make it up there' MR. PALLESCHI-Yes,10%I think they're allowed to go greater than 100/o. MR. TRAVER-I think they can go 150/o. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-What's the width of the driveway. MR. PALLESCHI-Twelve feet right now. MR. TRAVER-So any other questions before we ask the applicant to return next week? We'll hear them again after we get the analysis from our TDE. All right. So can we have a resolution? And before we vote on that, I will open the public hearing this evening. We will leave it open, and we'll leave it open until next week when we hear the applicant after the TDE response. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RESOLUTION TABLING SP#60-2024 FWW 3-2024 BHOMESHWARIE KEMRAJ Applicant proposes construction of a new single-family home with a 2,379 sq It footprint.The project work includes 0.95 acre of disturbance. The new 425 It long driveway will be at 100/o slopes.The new home will be built within 50 It of 150/o slopes,is located in the Critical Environment Area and will include site work within 100 feet of wetland (stream). Pursuant to Chapters 179-3-040, 147, 179-6-065 &r Chapter 94, site plan for new floor area in a CEA,work within 100 ft of wetlands and 50 It of 150/o slopes,and stormwater permit shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tabled until the October 22,2024 Planning Board meeting. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 60-2024 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2024 BHOMESHWARIE KEMRAT. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-See you next week. MR. PALLESCHI-Allright. Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your understanding. The next item on our agenda under New Business is Randy Gross. This is Site Plan 62-2024. SITE PLAN NO. 62-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. RANDY GROSS. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): NEW BEGINNINGS COMMUNITY CHURCH, INC. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 487 DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE PLACEMENT OF AN OUTDOOR WOODFIRE PIZZA OVEN COVERED BY AN 8 FT. X 8 FT. HIGH POST BEAM FRAME AND ADDING A 25 FT.X 45 FT.CUSTOM PATIO FRAME AWNING COVER. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES ERECTING A METAL FRAME FOR A 20 FT.X 45 FT. AWNING COVER FOR A SEASONAL OUTDOOR DINING ENCLOSURE AND INSTALLATION OF A 9 FT.BY 7 FT.WALK IN COOLER. THERE IS AN EXISTING 1,100 SQ.FT.HOME AND 408 SQ. FT. GARAGE THAT WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE SITE ALSO HAS A 9,.600 SQ. FT. BUILDING USED FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES WITH A 1,100 SQ. FT. PORTION CONTAINING AN EXISTING DINING OPERATION WITH A KITCHEN AND INDOOR SEATING. DURING THE SEASONAL SEATING THE OUTDOOR SEATING WOULD BE LIMITED TO 27 SEATS AND INDOOR SEATING TOTALING 18 AND THE MAXIMUM WOULD NOT EXCEED 45. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR SITE WORK, ADDING OUTDOOR SEATING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 19-2005;SP 10-08;SP 25-2009;SP 21-2010; SP 17-2011; SP 6-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2024. LOT SIZE: 15.29 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-33. SECTION: 179-3-040. RANDY GROSS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant requests approval for the placement of an outdoor woodfire pizza oven that is to be covered with an S by S by S by S high post beam frame and then adding a 25 by 45 foot custom patio framing awning cover to that area,and then following up with a similar framing,metal framing,that 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) is 20 by 45 that is on the east side,and installation of a walk-in cooler,and then the existing home,garage and church are to remain and the applicant had a similar project before this Board that has since expired and so now we're just adding an additional,where the wood pizza area is,that'll now be a custom patio as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. Good evening. PASTOR GROSS-Very simple. MR. DEEB-State your name,please. PASTOR GROSS-Randy Gross, and we'd like to be able to serve the community in the larger community in terms of outdoor dining and take out for pizza and other items that can be produced, and you know, we're staying within the set parameters of 45 seating. So it's not all bringing in a lot of seating. Three season. So,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Did you see the comments from the Fire Marshal? PASTOR GROSS-1 have a copy of Staff Notes,but. MR. TRAVER-I can read it to you if you don't have a hard copy of it. It says, Maintain 36 inches of clearance behind pizza oven for egress doors and egress from church. Is that an issue in your design, 36 inches? PASTOR GROSS-No. MR. TRAVER-Truss ID stickers need to be reapplied at old stickers. PASTOR GROSS-That's a separate issue. That's glass doors on the building. MR. TRAVER-Okay,and lastly,proof of clearance on pizza oven pipe through wood structure. PASTOR GROSS-Yes. You know how they have triple insulated pipe. So it's a zero clearance next to the new zip board that they use for grooves. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So what will happen is that,one of the things that we would include in an approval resolution for this project would be compliance with these items from the Fire Marshal, and you can anticipate the Fire Marshal visiting the site to verify these items as part of your project,but it sounds as though you have designed it in such a way that,and I'm not hearing you have any concerns about being in compliance with any of these. PASTOR GROSS-And, to a point that if it's deemed that the wood structure needs to be moved further from the egress doors,it's just a simple of re-drilling,four men picking up the frame and moving it. So it's not permanent,permanent. MR. TRAVER-They're only talking about 36 inches. PASTOR GROSS-Yes, the measurement is just under six, I think it's like six feet, eight inches from the actual glass doors. So it should meet all of that. MR. TRAVER-Yes,okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-I just hate to ask,but how exact is that septic system location on the plan? Because your concrete pad is actually over a portion of it. Do you know if that's exactly where it was installed? PASTOR GROSS-I installed it. So the distribution line that runs parallel is near the edge of the concrete. It does not interfere with the leach field. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. You're not going to put a post or anything through the pipe,no chance of that? PASTOR GROSS-No,I built it and did it myself. MR.TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. It doesn't appear that we have any public. So I'll just ask Laura if we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we'll then both open and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Do people feel comfortable moving forward with this project? MR. MAGOWAN-Let's go back to,Warren,you asked for the D Box,right? MR. LONGACKER Just the laterals itself,like the gentleman indicated,it looks like it is over that header pipe before the individual laterals themselves. I just want to make sure that some sort of column or post doesn't go and pierce the line. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're coming out along the parking lot,it's that first little square off the sidewalk, your D Box? PASTOR GROSS-Yes,sir. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you have access to that. PASTOR GROSS-Yes. It's outside of the cemented area. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions? We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#62-2024 RANDY GROSS Applicant requests approval of the placement of an outdoor woodfire pizza oven covered by an S ft x S ft x S ft high post beam frame and adding a 25 ft x 45 ft custom patio frame awning cover. The project also includes erecting a metal frame for a 20 It x 45 It awning cover for a seasonal outdoor dining enclosure and installation of a 9 ft by 7 ft walk in cooler. There is an existing 1,100 sq It home and 40S sq It garage that will remain unchanged. The site also has a 9,600 sq It building used for religious services with a 1,100 sq It portion containing an existing dining operation with a kitchen an indoor seating. During the seasonal seating the outdoor seating would be limited to 27 seats and indoor seating totaling IS and the maximum would not exceed 45. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for site work, adding outdoor seating and accessory structures 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 10/15/2024 and continued the public hearing to 10/15/2024 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 10/15/2024-1 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 62-2024 RANDY GROSS; Introduced by Frtiz Stefanzick 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, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as there is no change to the parking or site use as the church and restaurant have been operating together for some time, allowing patrons to have access to exterior sitting which is popular when available; 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 expiration date of 10/15/2025-1 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; 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) 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 1) Compliance with the items in the letter from the Fire Marshal dated 10/2/2024. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 15`h day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. PASTOR GROSS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Do you have anything for us, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I do not. MR. MAGOWAN-On those samples from the pond. MR. TRAVER-The water samples. MR. MAGOWAN-No. I thought we were also looking at sediment. MR. TRAVER-No,well,we don't know that. What we did was direct that through our engineer and to the Board of Health,to determine what testing needs to be done. So we didn't know necessarily specifically what would be tested. We deferred that to the people that do. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess my questions,because I kind of overheard a few things in there, and one of the things. MRS. MOORE-I'm going to suggest that you not have this conversation. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Whatever results they end up getting, we can have a discussion. I mean they're going to be coming back for that discussion,so although you'll have to recuse yourself,but rest assured we will be looking at that information. So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. STEFANZIK Just a quick question. Laura,just a quick question. We were trying to find a date for the West Mountain coming back. Do you have an update on that? MRS. MOORE-That's a good question. So I had, sent out information for the 12`h or the 13`h because the 14`h wasn't good for somebody. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2024) MR. TRAVER-Yes,I got an e-mail. I think Ellen and I responded. MR. STEFANZIK-I responded that I'm not available. MR. DEEB-Any time. I'll check my schedule. Any time. MRS. MOORE-Let me just find the e-mail that was sent out. MR. TRAVER-Maybe we can talk about it next Tuesday,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then nothing further tonight. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 15TK 2024,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Fritz Stefanzick: Duly adopted this 15`h day of October,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr.Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody. See you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 29