Loading...
01-22-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 1-2019 Lance Hillman 1. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-54 Site Plan No. 4-2019 Tracy Taylor 4. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-13 Site Plan No. 2-2019 Stewart’s Shops Corp. 6. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25 Site Plan No. 64-2018 Damon Hartman/Prentiss Carlisle 17. Tax Map No. 300.-1-20.2; 300.-1-21; 300.-1-22 Site Plan No. 70-2018 MAC Industries 27. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.16-2-12 Site Plan No. 3-2019 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 36. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury nd Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, January 22, 2019. This is the second meeting for January and it’s also the second meeting for 2019. Please, if you have an electronic device either turn it off or turn the ringer off so we’re not interrupted by it. I’ve got to remember to do that myself now. Also you’ll note the illuminated exit signs. In case of emergency that is your exit and obviously of course there’s one where we enter the building and I believe there’s one over here as well. So if we have an unforeseen incident, that would be your route of escape. We have no administrative items on our agenda this evening so we can move immediately to Old Business and the first item is Lance Hillman, Site Plan 1-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II LANCE HILLMAN. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 48 HILLMAN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW BAY WINDOW FEATURE FACING THE SHORELINE. ALSO INCLUDED ARE AN ADDITION TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF 623 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES FRONT ENTRYWAY ADDITION, WEST ROADSIDE COVERED PORCH, WEST SHORELINE EXPANSION OF INTERIOR SPACE AND EAST SIDE SUNROOM WITH PATIO. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 739-2017 SEPTIC ALT., AV 1-2019; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .70 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-54. SECTION: 179-13-010. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This application was reviewed as a recommendation at our last meeting. The applicant proposes a new bay window feature facing the shoreline. This includes additions to the first floor of the 623 square feet. It includes a front entryway addition, a west roadside covered porch, west shoreline expansion of interior space and an east side sunroom with patio. At the Zoning Board meeting of last week they granted the variance request and that included a shoreline setback where 47 feet is proposed, 50 feet is required. It also granted the floor area relief from 22%. The proposed is 22.88%. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. Welcome back. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, here with Lance Hillman, the owner of this property at 48 Hillman Road, and that’s a property on the west shore of Cleverdale, the Harris Bay side. The Hillmans and proposing an expansion and renovation of an existing structure built in the early 60’s. It’s been in the Hillman family all that while and as you see from the architectural plans, as part of the package it’s trying to modernize or improve the looks of an A frame structure. It’s on a pretty good sized piece of property. So we’re in good shape as far as permeability and what not is concerned. We did, as Laura indicated, obtain the variances that we were seeking from the Zoning Board so thus we’re back here tonight for Site Plan. The improvements involve the expansion of the structure, of the residence. There’s a northern side of the existing structure, there’s a proposed sunroom type addition and a patio to the side, all beyond the setback area. Prior to this project being applied for the Hillmans had me design a new wastewater system that serves the property. That was permitted and constructed. So it’s in place already. They had also previously done a shoreline improvement project that involved basically more than enough in terms of shoreline buffering as per the Town standards. So in both those aspects we’re in real good shape as far as being compliant with any kind of standard that the Town has for development or re-development of the site. There is also stormwater management devices that are proposed as part of this new plan as well with the addition of more building area, reduce some of the pavement area that’s on the property, driveway type thing. So it does balance that out. So with that explanation I’d be glad to answer any questions you might have. MR. TRAVER-Sure. When your application was reviewed by the ZBA, did they recommend or require any changes to what we previously reviewed? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I’ll open it up for questions or comments from members of the Planning Board. MR. SHAFER-I just have a question. Will all three outbuildings remain, Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-We also have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. Laura, any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type II. So no SEQR resolution is required. If there are no other questions for the applicant or comments, I guess we’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 1-2019 LANCE HILLMAN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a new bay window feature facing the shoreline. Also included are an addition to the first floor of 623 sq. ft. which includes front entryway addition, west roadside covered porch, west shoreline expansion of interior space and east side sunroom with patio. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13- 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) 010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 01/22/2019, 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 01/22/2019; 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 1-2019 LANCE HILLMAN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plan and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2019 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any comments or questions on that motion? MS. WHITE-Just my same objections, expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-I still have an objection to that. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-Understood. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I just want to confirm. Are you having Mike Valentine sit for this meeting as an alternate? MR. DIXON-Mike Dixon. MR. TRAVER- It would seem that we are. Yes, I was not aware that we needed one, but yes. MRS. MOORE-I was not aware that Mr. Magowan wasn’t going to be here, and I apologize for not saying it beforehand. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’ll clarify that for the record. Thank you, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The next item on our agenda is Tracy Taylor, Site Plan 4-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TRACY TAYLOR. OWNER(S): WILLIAM J. ROURKE, SR. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 21 JAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 161.60 SQ. FT. PORCH AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 161.60 ENCLOSED PORCH WITH A 64 SQ. FT. COVERED BALCONY ABOVE. NO OTHER SITE WORK OR ALTERATIONS ARE TO OCCUR. THE NEW PORCH IS NO CLOSER THAN EXISTING PORCH. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 40-2017 & AV 38-2017 1,935 SF ADDITION; 93702-3453 SEPTIC ALT.; AV 3-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA LOT SIZE: .29 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-13. SECTION: 179-13-010. TRACY TAYLOR, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. Mr. Taylor proposes to remove an enclosed porch and construct a new porch of the same size. It would be 161.60 square feet with a 64 square foot covered balcony above. The Zoning Board did grant the relief. The proposed addition is to be located 31.6 feet from the shoreline where a 50 foot setback is required. This is the same distance as the existing porch. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Welcome back. MR. TAYLOR-Good evening. My name’s Tracy Taylor. As stated I’m requesting a zoning variance for removing essentially an old porch that’s in disrepair that’s 161.1 square feet. Closest to the lake is 31.1 feet I think. We’re going to remove the porch and essentially 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) build a four season porch in the exact same footprint, and we went to the ZBA last week and they approved it and that’s where we’re at, enhancing the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Yes. It is definitely going to be an improvement. No question about it, and the ZBA did not require any modifications to the original plans as we last reviewed them? MR. TAYLOR-They just suggested that I build a bigger porch. I was taken aback. MR. TRAVER-You’d have to start over again. MR. TAYLOR-I’m like, no, no, no. I’m going to stay where I’m at. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Questions from members of the Planning Board? I know it was fairly straightforward when we looked at it the first go around. We do also have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, were there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In that case we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type II so no SEQR action is required. If there are no questions or comments from members of the Board, we can proceed to the resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 4-2019 TRACY TAYLOR The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to remove a 161.60 sq. ft. enclosed porch and to construct a new 161.60 enclosed porch with a 64 sq. ft. covered balcony above. No other site work or alterations are to occur. The new porch is no closer than existing porch. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 01/22/2019, 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 01/22/2019; 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, 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 4-2019 TRACY TAYLOR. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. TAYLOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda also under Old Business is Stewart’s Shops Corporation, Site Plan 2-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 221 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD NEW CONVENIENCE STORE WITH ATTACHED 5,139 SQ. FT. BANK. EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE AND BANK, 4,711 SQ. FT., WILL REMAIN OPEN DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND GAS CANOPY WILL BE DEMOLISHED WHEN THE NEW BUILDING IS COMPLETE. THE NEW CANOPY IS TO BE 4,656 SQ. FT. AND TO BE CONSTRUCTED WHEN THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 5-2001 STEWART’S BLDG.; SP 45- 2012 BANK W/DRIVE THRUS; SP 20-2013 FREEZER ADDITION; MANY OTHERS; AV 2- 2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.87 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25. SECTION: 179-3- 040. CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to build a new convenience store with an attached bank to it. The existing convenience store is 4,711 square feet and the new building will be 5,139 square feet. The applicant did receive the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals where the location of the fuel canopy was to be 62 feet from Big Bay Road where a 75 foot setback is required. Relief was also requested for the building bank canopy. The proposed setback was 26 feet where a 75 foot setback is required. Board discussion items. I’ll highlight those. The Zoning Board requested a discussion for Site Plan regarding the traffic at the Corinth Road access, concern was expressed about a potential traffic conflict with those heading west and turning into the store and those leaving the site and heading north to Rhode Island. The Board also may request site drawings including the fuel delivery and store delivery routes to be noted on the plans. The delivery truck location and setup should be included to confirm vehicles accessibility to the bank drive thru. And in reference to the traffic issue the Board and Staff discussed maybe a right in/right out only. It’s something that the Board should discuss this evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks very much. Good evening. Welcome back. MRS. MOORE-I have one more item, and I don’t know, you’re going to bring this up probably. They’re proposing to add a storage shed to their project, and under storage sheds it’s reviewable as a Site Plan, all commercial properties, and since it wasn’t advertised with a storage shed, this application may be tabled this evening, but I just wanted to let you know. MR. TRAVER-Tabled pending a modification? MRS. MOORE-To the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood. All right. Well welcome back anyway. MR. POTTER-Thank you. Chris Potter from Stewart’s. Like Laura said, we did receive our variances from the ZBA and there was talk about the access onto Corinth Road. Our feeling with the right in/right out, with the restrictions, it would prohibit our fuel tanker being able to enter from the Corinth Road or exit. When you add the right in/right out restriction with the curbed island to prevent those movements, the fuel tanker can’t use that driveway. As well as you’re forcing everybody that would make that left movement to go to the signal, which I understand but potentially could cause some issues with congestion within the lot. Now you’re forcing everybody to use that one exit and then there were concerned if there is a backup on the exit onto Big Bay are you then going to impact people exiting the Bank drive thru to where you could have a backup there potentially. I didn’t really see the issue at the site. I don’t believe they have any issues currently with access, I think. There are small wait times during peak times, but I don’t think it’s significant. MR. TRAVER-Right, and part of your plan is to increase the fuel availability and hopefully planned to reduce the volume. MR. POTTER-Yes. Right now there’s some long wait times with the three dispensers, you know, the six fueling points, and we’re doubling that. That should help alleviate that problem that we have there. MR. TRAVER-Well the right in right out strategy is something that we have used not infrequently when there’s been high traffic areas or congestion areas and when applied appropriately it’s a big help. It definitely is. Okay, and then they’re also suggesting the fuel delivery and store delivery routes be noted on the plans. Since you’re modifying your plan anyway maybe you can accomplish that at the same time. MR. POTTER-We had one plan that showed the fuel delivery. I think maybe the concern. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MRS. MOORE-Would that be on the Aviation one? I didn’t see it in this one. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that was probably the first, even before I read the comments, the first thing I looked at in the site plan was that the movement, the internal movement for truck deliveries should be shown here. You already stated that you’ve got a primary point that you’re going to use, that you intend to use the entrance off of the County road rather than Big Bay. So that should be shown on here. Where the trucks are going to park to fuel up should be shown, where it’s going to stop, because that’s blocking traffic flow through the site, where it’s going to stop, and then the other thing that’s not shown, there are no arrows showing the movement of traffic anywhere on the site, and I had to look to see, first of all, has this Bank got drive thru on it, and no arrows are shown for that. So you don’t get a picture of internal traffic movement on this site plan at all, and I think the circulation of those, right there, that should be shown on the site plan. MRS. MOORE-The delivery trucks to the rear. MR. POTTER-Right. Yes, typically we show the movement for the largest vehicle that would enter the site which would be the fueling truck. Our delivery trucks that would deliver to the store are much smaller than that. We have increased the amount of blacktop behind the store from what’s currently there, because we do have issues today depending on where the driver sits, impacting the Bank drive thru. So we did account for a delivery truck being positioned behind the store doing a delivery and people still being able to get by. MR. VALENTINE-How does your car movement to the gas pumps work with a fuel delivery truck stationed right by the tanks? Is that an encumbrance to the drivers going around? MR. POTTER-No. They’re going to pull right up close to that right side tank. So essentially those lines for that movement, they would pull straight up. They’d be parallel with the tank and then drop off. So you would be able to get by. The front of the cab would still be able to access the main drive thru as well as get around in between the store and the gas canopy. MR. VALENTINE-Fuel deliveries, daytime or nighttime? MR. POTTER-They’re, at this point, at any time. We don’t have set times. MR. VALENTINE-The Big Bay Road, the driveway that’s been moved 43 feet, is that going to impact? I don’t know the traffic. I don’t know what’s on Big Bay. Does that lend itself to any problem with vehicles stacked heading south going into the site? MR. POTTER-I wouldn’t imagine so. It’s still quite a distance from the intersection. I think the majority of the traffic’s on Corinth. MR. TRAVER-What do other Board members think about the traffic issue? MR. SHAFER-I have a couple of questions. On Page S-9 where you show the trucks coming in, it’s taking the left off of Corinth Road into the site. MR. POTTER-Correct. MR. SHAFER-So right in, right out would be a problem from that standpoint. MR. POTTER-Correct. Right. MR. SHAFER-Is this an ASHTO design vehicle that you’ve used for turning movements and so on do you know? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. POTTER-Yes, it’s, the fuel tanker itself is up on the right hand side. That’s the actual vehicle that was used. MR. SHAFER-Do you know, is that the ASHTO 18 wheel design vehicle? MR. POTTER-It’s, yes. MR. SHAFER-American Association of State Transportation Officials? MR. POTTER-Yes, we use a program called AutoTURN that has all the different vehicles in it. MR. SHAFER-Where would the truck that’s delivering gas for the 12 pumps, where are the tanks that he would put the fuel into the tanks? MR. POTTER-They’re right on the left hand side there. MR. TRAVER-See where Laura’s mouse is? MR. SHAFER-Yes, I do. I thought that was where the diesel would get their diesel fuel. MR. POTTER-No. We don’t have a high flow diesel island proposed. We just have what we call a three plus one. So it’s the three gas products as well as the diesel. So there would be. MR. SHAFER-Where would a pickup with a diesel motor get diesel fuel? MR. POTTER-It would be at the island underneath the canopy. So it would be just like a car would be fueling up. MR. SHAFER-So it would be one of the six? MR. POTTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Gotcha. Okay. MR. POTTER-Yes. We don’t, we’re not providing space for like a tractor trailer to come in if you will. MR. TRAVER-Like a truck stop type thing. MR. POTTER-Right. It would just be your diesel car or pickup truck. MR. DEEB-I was wondering about that, whether you were going to have larger trucks come in for diesel fuel. MR. POTTER-We’re not planning for it, no. We don’t have the high flow. MR. DEEB-One of the only questions I have, and I don’t know if this is feasible or not, but if you do go to a right in/right out, if they’re coming from I-87 they’d be going west the trucks. Is there a way that they can go up and turn around and then come back in and go in? I mean there’s got to be some way to turn around up there, and that would alleviate your problem of right in/right out. MRS. MOORE-Wouldn’t they be turning on Big Bay making a different traffic pattern? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. DEEB-I thought they were coming in from Corinth Road. MR. POTTER-The delivery truck is, yes. MR. DEEB-The fuel truck that’s going to come in and replenish fuel, where will that be? MR. POTTER-He will be coming off of Corinth Road, because they drop their fuel on the passenger’s side of the truck. That’s where the drops are. MR. DEEB-That’s what I’m saying. If they could go up and turn around then you could get a right in if they wanted to come in off of Corinth Road. Does that make sense? MR. POTTER-Yes. I don’t know what’s available. MR. DEEB-Just to West Mountain. MR. POTTER-I don’t know that some other business would want a fuel tanker turning around in their parking lot. MR. DEEB-I don’t know. It was just a suggestion because I like the right in/right out. I didn’t think about that. You could do it in Carey Park. MR. SHAFER-Can you come out of Stewart’s now and take a left on Corinth Road? MR. POTTER-Yes, there’s no restrictions today. MR. SHAFER-I would have more of a problem with a left turn out of the site a left turn into the site. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, are the staggered or offset roads, is there a problem, any existing? MRS. MOORE-There’s no stagger in this. They’re directly, their exit/entrance is directly across from Rhode Island. MR. VALENTINE-It doesn’t look like it on the plan. MRS. MOORE-Well, this is Rhode Island. MR. POTTER-I think we’re wider than Rhode Island. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, they’re wider, but the idea is that a vehicle going straight across from the access to here is causing traffic conflict someone turning left in. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but it’s like a four way intersection, you know, somebody’s got a right of way. The guy taking a left headed west, he’s got the right of way, or I mean he’s going to have to wait for the through traffic. MR. TRAVER-Yes, somebody would have to yield. That’s for sure. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. I do like the description, though, Laura, in here. I’ve got to say that threw me off. I don’t know all the Town streets and all it says in here, and those leaving the site and heading north to Rhode Island. I’m sitting on the floor of my living room reading this going, what? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well with regards to the right in/right out I’d like to kind of poll the Board. How are people feeling about that? I think the applicant is making the case that not only is it not required but that it could potentially complicate things, and I’m just wondering how people, because the applicant has to go back and make some modifications to the site plan to add the turning motions and the shed. So if we want them to include that change, I’d like to let them know tonight. MR. DEEB-There is an exit, you can go out to Big Bay Road. I mean there is a way that you can exit that way and then that goes right to the light. Right? MR. POTTER-Right. MR. DEEB-So that would alleviate some of the traffic. So I don’t see where right in/right out would be such a problem. MR. TRAVER-Yes, when I looked at it, I did not think that, although I did remark before and I think we all agree that there are times when right in/right out is very handy. I didn’t see the need for it on this particular site. MR. VALENTINE-I thought that, you know, it’s one of the situations where we get in any case that people will become accustom to what’s the most expedient way for them to use, and they’ll find leaving the site by Big Bay, going to the light making the turn. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s always better to go to the light anyway. MR. POTTER-I think the local people that would frequent the store know which way is probably the quickest way for them to get out there because that’s the way they’re going to go. MR. VALENTINE-Laura, did County DPW chime in with anything on that at all or did they say anything? MRS. MOORE-I did not hear from them. I did send them the information sheet, but I did not hear from them. MR. POTTER-The problem with making a restriction with the left in, too, for us would be the potential of somebody that’s not from the area, because we’re right off the highway, is them missing Big bay and then not realizing they can’t make a left in. MR. VALENTINE-That will sort of tell us the indicator of where the fuel truck should go, then, to turn around. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Carey Road. I’m not a big fan of prohibiting left hand turns for two reasons. Number One, especially in a situation like this, there’s only a few hours during the day when it’s a problem, and I think people know when it’s a bad, I mean morning rush hour you’re not going to want to take a left off of Corinth Road. You’re not going to have time, but, you know, at seven o’clock in the morning, when you’re coming home from work, or nine o’clock at night when you’re coming home and you live down Corinth Road taking a left hand turn out of there, it’s not going to be a problem at all. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You start to prohibit it and then, you know. MR. POTTER-Well I think those right in and right out, I think you still get people that make the movement. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the second point is I see it all the time, almost every day, I see it at Lowe’s where people turn left from Quaker. I mean you see it all over Town. MR. POTTER-If the traffic’s not there, people are going to make the movement. MR. HUNSINGER-Even when traffic is there. MR. DEEB-And I guess, too, traffic, you know, they have to go by Fastrac. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And that’s on the right if they’re heading west. MR. SHAFER-Is most of your business at this site coming from the east what I would assume? MR. POTTER-I would guess, but there are a lot of homes in the back there. MR. SHAFER-My point is if you miss the light and it’s right in/right out only, you’ve got to go somewhere and turn around. MR. POTTER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. So I’m not hearing that the Board is feeling as though the right in/right out is something that we’re going to require. Okay. So in that case, what we’re really looking for is the addition of the shed element that you wanted to add to your Site Plan that wasn’t on the original, and then we’re looking for some more detail on the traffic flow on the site, and, Laura, what do you feel we should do as far as tabling? When should we? MRS. MOORE-There’s one more item and then I’ll get to that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-The County Planning Department offered the comment that in the past there was the pedestrian access which is shown on here, but it also notes that staff would suggest identifying the area of safe passage for the pedestrians entering the site. So I don’t know if that’s a hatched area that comes out of there to get them safely to a sidewalk at the building. I’m not quite sure what is possible on the site. MR. POTTER-So you’re talking the existing path. MRS. MOORE-Yes, and then trying to get them from that point when they enter the site. MS. WHITE-Can you kind of show us where you’re talking? MRS. MOORE-So this area right here is the pathway. MS. WHITE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then when it comes into here the County Planning Department is indicating there used to be a safe passage or some sort of ability to get to the building. MR. SHAFER-Sidewalks. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MS. WHITE-For people walking. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-There’s not a lot of foot traffic, but there’s some, and there might be more with the new facility going up next door. MRS. MOORE-So it sort of came in this way and it seemed that there wasn’t too many other conflicts in this case now. MR. TRAVER-So can you take a look at that element as well? Because it’s evidently there now. MR. POTTER-Right. We could change, I guess where that would enter. We could bring them further back into the site. MRS. MOORE-Or whether it’s just some demarcation on the pavement, I mean so people know there’s pedestrian access there. MS. WHITE-Vehicular traffic would pay attention. MRS. MOORE-Hopefully. MR. TRAVER-Yes, hopefully is right. MR. DIXON-Well, are you giving any thought to sidewalks at all on the piece of land along Corinth Road and the Bay Road? MRS. MOORE-I’m pretty sure there’s sidewalks there. MR. VALENTINE-It looks like there’s something on the corner at the intersection, from the radius there, and I can’t tell if it’s sidewalk or if it’s just showing edge of pavement or something. I can’t tell from the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a crosswalk. MR. DEEB-The sidewalk is on the other side of the street. MR. TRAVER-And there is a crosswalk there at the light. So what we’d be looking for is from that crosswalk. MR. POTTER-I guess that seems to me like the safer movement and kind of eliminate the other one and force people to use the crosswalk. MR. TRAVER-Yes, because that’s got the traffic light. Yes. MR. POTTER-And at that point we could bring a sidewalk I guess along either Big Bay, you know, and get them to come in that way. MS. WHITE-In a safer. MR. TRAVER-So can you add that element to your modified Site Plan? MR. DIXON-It would be nice to have sidewalks on both sides knowing that there is the Sky Zone to the west with some of the kids if they’re going to be heading back to the hotel or something on the other side, because that corridor is starting to develop. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. DEEB-There’s no sidewalks there now. There is on the other side. MR. POTTER-It’s on the other, right. What you’re saying, though, with Sky Zone on our side. MR. DIXON-Ideally I think I’d like to see sidewalks all along Corinth Road and the stretch on Big Bay, just because of the development in there. MR. VALENTINE-And I think the pedestrian movement would be, you know, you’ve got the hotel across the street now and you have a crosswalk there, and if they were going to go for a recreational use and then stop in Stewart’s after and then head back across to the hotel, rather than using a car all the time in there, because I know when the hotel came up and we looked at Fastrac and McDonald’s, we looked to try to get sidewalk connections in all of those, knowing that they were going to interconnect in some way. MRS. MOORE-This is probably something that Chris would talk to our County DPW and see what was to occur on Corinth Road and maybe there’s an arrangement that can be made. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if you could work with staff on that. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know for sure but I’m assuming we do. MR. SHAFER-Have the Chazen stormwater comments all been dealt with, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s a question for Chris. MR. POTTER-We’re in the process of addressing their comments. There’s nothing on his list that is not doable on our part. MR. SHAFER-It’s just long. MS. WHITE-It just seems long. MR. POTTER-It seems about typical. Normally we get a two, three page. They’re all really minor in nature. MS. WHITE-I’m glad to hear that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. POTTER-The other thing that was discussed in the last, when I was here last time was lighting. We did go back and we looked at it and our concern with reducing it any further is just it would be that much darker than the Fastrac. I think just given the location where we’re at and the competition, them being at 33 foot candles, we’re already, you know, we’re proposing 22. We’re already reduced from what Fastrac has. So that was our feeling on the lighting is just reducing it any further. MR. SHAFER-How does it compare to 149 and Ridge? MR. POTTER-I believe we were 14 foot candles that we had under the canopy there. MR. TRAVER-149 fuel canopy is 14.04. That’s Stewart’s Site Plan 30-2017, Route 149. MR. SHAFER-And this is 50% brighter? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-This is 22, 22.63. MR. POTTER-And the Fastrac is 33.37. MR. VALENTINE-Under the canopy? MR. POTTER-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Those values are in your Staff Notes under Lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-So how about the existing conditions, though? I mean, you’re not that bright currently. MR. POTTER-I would have to see what lights we have there. I could come back at the next meeting with a lighting plan that would show the canopy levels for what lights we have there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean we have that on file, too, what it was. MR. TRAVER-Well, he’s going to come back with an updated Site Plan. Why don’t we ask for that information. If you can add that to your to do list. MR. POTTER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And in terms of scheduling, let’s see, we’ve got engineering comments that we would like clarified before they come back. So what do you think, Laura, March? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I believe March. Our February deadline has past. I know we have an opportunity for a few meetings in February, but I’m not quite certain that I’d have a timeframe to review it and get it back to the Board. Our first meeting in March, and again in March we also have three meetings scheduled. The tentative first meeting in March is th March 12. MR. TRAVER-We did that in case we needed it. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. The second meeting is, our regular schedule is March 19, and the th regular schedule is March 26. So I don’t, whatever the Board’s preference is at this time, and I don’t have anything scheduled for March at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what would you suggest in terms of tabling date? th MRS. MOORE-You can table it to the March 12 meeting. MR. TRAVER-But if we don’t have anything on the agenda now, that’s probably the meeting that would be deleted. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Potentially, or you could table it further. MR. TRAVER-How about we table it to the, because if we only had two meetings in March thth they’d be the 19 and the 26. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So how about if we table it to March 19. That would give them more time to respond and if we don’t have an agenda, then our default third meeting would be cancelled. th So why don’t we do that. Board members okay with that? All right. So March 19. So we would like you to have the information to Staff by the day after Valentine’s Day. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. DIXON-As far as the storage building that you’re going to propose, although we don’t have it on here, do you have a general idea of the size and where you wanted to put it? MR. POTTER-It’s 12 by 12 and it would be adjacent to the dumpster location. So it would sit right next to the dumpster. We’re currently looking to come in also for a re-build at our Aviation Road store, and that building has space for our district people to store stuff in. That site is much smaller than this one. So with them losing that space, provided we’re approved for our development there, they would have no place for it. So after looking at it again we thought that this, with this site being larger, a shed at this location would probably work out best. That was the reason behind the shed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well there’s also a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. TRAVER-With the tabling we probably want to leave the public hearing open? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we’ll go ahead and open the public hearing and we will leave it open pending their return in March. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And I guess we’re ready for, wait a minute, this is a SEQR Unlisted. So we should probably wait until they come back to do that because there’s going to be traffic issues. Okay. So we can just do the tabling motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 2-2019 STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to build new convenience store with attached 5,139 sq. ft. bank. Existing convenience store and bank, 4,711 sq. ft., will remain open during construction and the existing building and gas canopy will be demolished when the new building is complete. The new canopy is to be 4,656 sq. ft. and to be constructed when the original building is demolished. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2019 STEWART’S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the March 19, 2019 Planning Board meeting with new submission to the Town by th February 15, 2019. The applicant will provide additional detail on the Site Plan for: 1. Traffic flow detail. 2. Light plan clarification. 3. Possible sidewalk installation on Corinth Road and Big Bay Road. 4. Placement of additional shed on property. nd Seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2019, by the following vote: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll see you in March. The next item we have is Damon Hartman/Prentiss Carlisle, Site Plan 64-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. DAMON HARTMAN/PRENTISS CARLISLE. OWNER(S): THEODORE RAWSON. ZONING: -20.2 RR-3A; -21 & -22 LC- 10A. LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVEST PLAN FOR THREE PARCELS. PROJECT INCLUDES A SELECTIVE HARVEST WITH MAIN ACCESS AND HEADER TO BE LOCATED ON PARCEL 300.-1-20.2. SKID TRAILS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH 50 FT. BUFFER FROM STREAM CORRIDOR AND ONLY ONE STREAM CROSSING. HARVEST IS NOT TO OCCUR IN AREAS WITH A SLOPE 15% OR GREATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TIMBER HARVEST SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2018. SITE INFORMATION: STEEP SLOPES, STREAM CROSSING. LOT SIZE: 135.33 ACRES TOTAL OF 3 PARCELS. TAX MAP NO. 300.-1-20.2, 300.-1-21, 300.-1-22 SECTION: 179-6-010. DAMON HARTMAN & THEODORE RAWSON, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This has been tabled from October. The applicant proposes timber harvest plan for three parcels. It includes a selective harvest with main access and header to be located on Parcel 300.-1-20.2. Skid trails have been identified with a 50 foot buffer from stream corridor and only one stream crossing. The harvest is not to occur on slopes greater than 15%. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HARTMAN-I’m Damon Hartman. I’m a forester, and I have a contract with the Rawsons to harvest their property pending this permit, and after meeting with your staff they said I had to come here. This is the first permit I’ve applied for. I’ve worked in the Town doing harvests but the permits were applied for by other foresters. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MR. HARTMAN-So I have a good working history in the Town of Queensbury. I’ve done three or four jobs, but I haven’t been in front of you guys before. So I have detailed write ups of the harvest and the plans. I could go through that. I could talk all night if you want me to talk about forestry. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think you reviewed with us the details of the harvest, and the reason that you were tabled I think was we were looking for some additional details. So maybe you could focus on that for this evening. MR. HARTMAN-So the reason we were tabled is because we requested to be tabled. The Rawsons were entertaining an offer for someone to purchase the property. So I said at that point we should just wait and see if the transaction goes through and so I don’t know of any other issues. There were some comments that came back. I don’t really recall them asking questions that needed to be answered. They were more or less comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. HARTMAN-We could go through that if you wanted to. MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s see what members of the Board have to say. So essentially then what you’re representing is that the project hasn’t really changed from what you presented to us before. You were just waiting to clarify some of the background, the purchasing of the property. MR. HARTMAN-I think the real reason why we’re here is because it’s greater than a 15 acre harvest and the regulations say if it’s greater than that you have to come for Site Plan Review. Again, this is my first time so I’m learning your regulations. MR. TRAVER-Well, rest easy. It’s not our first time. So I’ll go ahead and open it up to members of the Planning Board for questions and comments. Is everybody satisfied with what’s presented? MR. DEEB-I thought we wanted more detail. MR. TRAVER-Well, and we received some detail on the stream, I thought there was a stream crossing or something. I don’t remember anything that wasn’t answered. I know initially there was a lot of discussion. MR. DIXON-Has anything changed from the last time, I think it was back in August? MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the answer to that is no. They’re representing this is the same plan that they’ve presented to us before. They just were tabled so that they could do some background documentation and the purchase agreement and all of that. MS. WHITE-So we have a forest management plan. MRS. MOORE-He does. What I would suggest is maybe the applicant go through what’s being harvested, a narrative project description, if you could. MR. HARTMAN-So the kind of history of the property was it was formerly cleared land for agricultural, like a lot of the property in this area of the world, and you can tell that by the old ag walls through there and it has grown up and forested and about 20 to 24 years ago there was a harvest on the property and so when it all grew up, it grew up as one age class. So when they did that harvest years ago it created another age class because it created light hitting on the forest floor and another flush of trees growing up through the existing trees which are still there. Right now we have two age classes and kind of a popular urban forest management strategy is to go to a multi-age class, uneven age class of management so that you always have a continuous forest on your property, as opposed to having an even age. Eventually you have to do a real heavy cut and you have a new forest that starts, plus communities don’t like that kind of management because it doesn’t look very good for 20 years, and that’s a common issue related to it. So this would be a harvest that would hopefully create or would create another age class. We’d have three age classes at that point in time, and then you can go more shaping harvest in the future that would just trim those three age classes and be a continuous forest until the land owner changes their mind. The other reasons is Mr. Rawson is a hunter and an outdoorsman and this would create some better wildlife habitat for his hobbies, his interests. Any time you have more light on the forest floor you have growth and a lot of animals live on that growth. Right now there’s not much growth so there’s not much for anything to feed on. MR. SHAFER-So what percent of the trees would you be harvesting at this time? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. HARTMAN-So we’re going to be focusing the harvest on the oldest age class right now. We wouldn’t remove it all, but we would cut that one more significantly. Obviously in the process of a harvest you’re going to do some damage to other age classes. It would be about 50 to 60% of that age class, and that’s a little misleading because there might be some areas we don’t do any harvest because it just doesn’t have that age class structure that we’re looking for. MR. SHAFER-This is mostly hardwood? MR. HARTMAN-It’s mostly hardwood. There is some softwood but it is predominantly hardwood. MR. TRAVER-So essentially, to oversimplify, this is a thinning of the forest, not a clear cut. MR. HARTMAN-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Selective cut, and I know those details are in here. MR. VALENTINE-So your choices in selective would be, is it to get the age stuff or is it to get the wood that’s desired to get? MR. HARTMAN-So the ultimate objective is to create a third age class through a harvest. That’s the only way you really can do it is do it through a harvest, but we would focus on different species, undesirable species. You have some beech bark disease going on. You have some Aspens, some hickories that are not very valuable species. We do have oak and maple and some like that and ash. MR. VALENTINE-So you would pull some of the stuff out that’s not of great market value. MR. HARTMAN-Yes, and all my harvests I do that every time, because if you don’t eventually you end up with forest that’s all no market value. MR. VALENTINE-Are you the manager or are you actually doing the work? MR. HARTMAN-So I’m not, I’m purchasing the timber and I have a logger who’s going to cut it. So I don’t really promote myself as a consulting manager, although I have a degree in forestry. So I do still do consulting but I don’t get paid for it. I’m a purchaser. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Can I ask some questions? Did you hire your logger yet? MR. HARTMAN-Heath Reynolds is going to be the logger. Heath Reynold’s Logging. He lives in the Corinth area, Porter’s Corners, and he does have a biomass chipper. So the site will look much cleaner when he’s finished. A lot of the non marketable limbs and tops get used. MR. SHAFER-When would you do this logging? MR. HARTMAN-We’d hope to do it like end of the winter, spring. It could be after that, but I’d like to have it available. The last couple of winters the winters have been short. So I’d like to have it available. It is a very dry site. It would support that kind of logging. There is soils information in the packet from the Soil Conservation County people. MRS. MOORE-Would you be able to complete your harvest by December of 2019? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. HARTMAN-Yes, I think so, yes. MRS. MOORE-Another question is, in reference to the cutting now, so that would be the third age class, when would be the next cutting or say the first or second? MR. HARTMAN-So I have a schedule in the plan. You want to look at it in about 12, 15 years start looking at it to start making some plans. It would be anywhere from that 15 to 20 year range. Forestry’s, it’s hard to make. MR. VALENTINE-Dave just said he won’t have to worry, he won’t be here. MR. HARTMAN-It is a longer term. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then the suggestion is that we would ask that this harvest be completed by December of this year. MRS. MOORE-Right, and in an appropriate timeframe so you’re not in there when the soils are not conducive to bringing logs out and making more of a mess. So that’s why I offered, if we get that nice, that weather that we sometimes get in November, then you get back in there and clean it up. MR. HARTMAN-And it is a site that can support logging during poor weather. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HARTMAN-And that is backed up by the Soil Conservation numbers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HARTMAN-There is one issue that I wanted to bring up on access, more of an advice type thing. I’m not sure this is the right venue for that, but we currently have the access that’s on the plan, access plan map, basically going down Mr. Rawson’s driveway and to the back of his property. That’s where it opens up. Just to the south of that, his house there, he’s got about a six lot development that’s already approved by this Board. There’s been no action on it yet. It’s just on paper right now, but I did ask at one time if we could use that proposed road just for a logging path, and I think that gets me into some other regulations. It’s still a very logical, makes sense to use that road. MR. TRAVER-Well have you spoken to the land owner or? MRS. MOORE-Let me interrupt. So what happens is that that paper subdivision exists. The minute he starts any development on that it triggers a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan because it’s more than an acre, and that triggers the Notice of Intent and the process starting on that subdivision. So that’s why this opportunity to start this logging path, or this access road adjacent to it toward the north of it, not stepping into the subdivision because I don’t believe you’re ready to start that. If you’re ready to start that, then you would have to table that and begin that process of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. MR. HARTMAN-Now if we kept that operation less than an acre. MRS. MOORE-It’s still starting the process, and that, the project is a six lot subdivision. So the minute you set shovel to ground you’ve started that process, triggering the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-And that may be worth it to you if that access is the most. MR. HARTMAN-Yes. So let’s just say for example if I were to go that route, how does that affect my permit process? MR. TRAVER-Well you would want to talk to Staff about that. It would be a revision of the material that you have before us. So what we would do is table your application for this evening, have you go back and work with Staff to re-work your proposal to include that plus the other. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that’s, you would be working with an engineer of sorts to get that process started. MR. HARTMAN-The stormwater monitoring process. MRS. MOORE-It’s a report, that process behind putting that report together. They’re often lengthy. MR. VALENTINE-Is there a SWPPP for that subdivision already? MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of because it was done prior. Now that it starts it actually triggers it. MR. VALENTINE-But you’re also, from your perspective, you’re dealing with cost and time. MR. HARTMAN-Yes. I guess in my mind I’m having a hard time grasping it because I’m just totally involved in this from a forestry perspective. I have no interest in the development or anything like that. MR. TRAVER-Well one of the things that you could consider doing this evening, instead of committing to one path or another, if you want to basically put this on hold and allow yourself some time to investigate the other possibilities, you could do that, too, without necessarily committing to doing the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and going that route. You may come back and say I’m going to go ahead with what I originally proposed. You can do that. MR. HARTMAN-So would it be feasible to just get approved what I originally proposed and come back later if I wanted to go through that stormwater permit? Is that too much to ask. MRS. MOORE-If you propose any changes to your approved plan you most likely would come back to this Board and prior to you starting that change you would have to discuss that with our Zoning Administrator and our Code Compliance Officer. MR. TRAVER-Quite honestly it probably would be easier from your standpoint particularly to make that decision at this point rather than go forward with something approved that you’re going to end up doing, because then you will have invested everything to it on one road when you’re really going to go down another. So I would suggest, if you’re thinking about doing this, decide on that, and decide what literally, I guess, what road you’re going on, and then follow up on that. MR. VALENTINE-Which this are you proposing, or that? I didn’t follow you, Steve. MR. TRAVER-What we have before us or the possibility of also using this development property which would involve the stormwater. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. VALENTINE-But you’re saying the feasible commonsense recommendation would be go with what we’re looking at tonight? MR. TRAVER-No. I’m saying that from what I’m hearing if I were in his seat, I would not want to decide tonight. I would want to follow up with Laura and find out what exactly would be involved if he wanted to take advantage of this other route, because he may decide that it’s worth it in the long run, and maybe not, in which case he can come back without changing anything. MR. SHAFER-But if he decides that it’s not worth it, he could get approval tonight and then just forget the other idea. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s true. MR. HARTMAN-I mean, part of me wants to go to an engineer and talk about costs and that because it is a safer entrance. It’s not right across from Potter Road. MR. TRAVER-Well that was kind of the impression that I had was that you would prefer going with Plan B. MR. RAWSON-Right. That was the whole reason, he’s going to have to have trucks load, literally go by my house and it goes right to the bottom of the driveway and there’s Potter Road. I’ve lived there for 17 years and it’s not easy getting out of there. So I said I have a development right there. All he’s doing is just access. That’s it. He’s not building houses. He’s not developing anything. All he’s doing is doing the access. MRS. MOORE-I know, and it jumps right into the rest of the program development. So there’s. MR. TRAVER-And that’s why, because it sounded as though you were considering it that strongly, that’s why I suggested that you investigate that, rather than proceed with this. MR. RAWSON-Right, but at the same time, if everybody feels that the driveway going down, that, yes, you’re all satisfied, it would be nice if I could get that stamped so we don’t have to drag this on further if he finds out that, oh, no, it’s not going to be. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well we can certainly act on what we have before us. MR. DEEB-We can. It would be a Site Plan Modification. MR. TRAVER-Well, it would be more than that. MR. RAWSON-Or would you wait? I don’t know. MRS. MOORE-It’s your plan. I mean, you’re suggesting that whoever’s logging it may have difficulty entering or exiting the current access road or the proposed location? MR. RAWSON-Well they’re not going to have so much of the problem. I’m going to have the problem because now they’re driving by my backdoor, you know what I mean? That was the only reason why I wanted to put it on that road. That is it. I mean if they could drive across my front lawn I’d rather have them drive across my front lawn and around the south part of my house than where I park my cars outside of my house, you know. Because now I’ve got to have my cars moved all the time because, so the trucks can get in and out. Not a big deal, but it’s just, to me it just made sense, seeing as how I already have it approved as a subdivision. He’s not building. He’s harvesting. He’s not even dealing with that parcel. He’s dealing with the rest of it over there. He’s just using that for access. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-That’s what we’re saying we want to make sure you understand what the implications of using that access would be, but we can act on, and we need to do something. I mean we can act on what you have before us this evening, or you could maybe even come back in a month and in that intervening time further clarify what you have. MR. HARTMAN-So I think I would like to act on it because if I get an engineer and the costs are high then I won’t have to come back. Unfortunately I live an hour and a half from here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. HARTMAN-So if everything else is in order I’d like to act on what we have and I’ll meet with an engineer that’s already drawn up the stuff, and we’ve already talked about that. MR. TRAVER-And if it’s worth it you’ll revise it and we’ll look at it again. Okay. MR. HARTMAN-Yes. We appreciate that. Sorry if we took the Board’s time here. MR. TRAVER-That’s all right. Other questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. TRAVER-We have a public hearing on this application as well. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-There are written comments from the City of Glens Falls Water and Sewer Department, and it’s addressed to the Planning Board. “Please be advised that the City of Glens Falls has a raw water main crossing on Parcel 300.1-20.2 near West Mountain Road. The contractor shall exercise caution in this area and minimize ground disturbance and use of heavy equipment over the raw water main pursuant to the City of Glens Falls Water and Sewer Superintendent City Engineer” MR. TRAVER-So they’re going to need to discuss with them. MRS. MOORE-How to cross that, and have you seen, is the water, you know where the water main is and you know exactly where the crossing is? MR. RAWSON-It goes right down. I can show them where it is. I can show them where they’d cross. MR. HARTMAN-He’s got experience with those things. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. RAWSON-And we’ve already crossed it before. MR. TRAVER-Well you might want to chat with them about it, just to make sure that they understand what’s going on. All right. Well we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn’t they just do a temporary easement to access the property? MS. WHITE-Laura says no. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. RAWSON-To me it’s a no-brainer, yes, it’s farther on down the road. It’s already approved. It’s not like I’m making up anything. MR. TRAVER-They may decide, we’ll see. They may decide. They may not. MR. HARTMAN-The scale really is a little misleading. It’s kind of like the width of this room. MR. TRAVER-It’s just that it triggers some regulations. That’s the issue, and you may find when you investigate it’s worth it, or you may not. So we also have a SEQR resolution on this. Based on the information that we have with the plan as proposed, do members of the Planning Board feel comfortable moving forward on SEQR? Yes? Okay. I guess we can entertain that motion for SEQR. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 64-2018 The applicant proposes a timber harvest plan for three parcels. Project includes a selective harvest with main access and header to be located on parcel 300.-1-20.2. Skid trails have been identified with 50 ft. buffer from stream corridor and only one stream crossing. Harvest is to be no greater than 15% of property. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, timber harvest shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 64-2018 DAMON HARTMAN/PRENTISS CARLISLE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff; 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. nd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-And then we have a Site Plan resolution and let’s see we have at least one condition we’re adding for the plan as presented this evening which would be a completion by December 2019. th MR. DEEB-I was going to put December 15. I want a date in there. stth MR. TRAVER-Okay, well what I suggested was the 31. If you want to make it the 15, that’s okay. MR. SHAFER-And what happens if they don’t make that. MR. TRAVER-They would have to come in for a revision. MRS. MOORE-Yes. They’d have to come back and give you a status update of when they’re going to complete it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it wouldn’t be an entire plan, unless it changed. It would just be, you know, we’ve run into weather or. th MR. DEEB-Is December 15 enough or do you want to go to December 30? MR. HARTMAN-Either one is fine with me. I hope to have it done in six months. That’s my plan. th MR. TRAVER-So you can leave it the 15. That’s fine. MS. WHITE-Just before we finish that I just wanted to make sure that we didn’t need to include anything regarding the letter from the water to make sure that that is taken into account, crossing the raw water main. MR. TRAVER-Well evidently they have experience doing that crossing and it’s on the record that we’ve asked them to contact the water. MS. WHITE-Laura says we don’t need to. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I thought that’s what I just said, but anyway. MRS. MOORE-It is up to the Board. I think the applicant is aware of it and it is on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on the record. MR. DEEB-So I don’t think we need to put it in the motion. MR. TRAVER-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 64-2018 DAMON HARTMAN/PRENTISS CARLISLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a timber harvest plan for three parcels. Project includes a selective harvest with main access and header to be located on parcel 300.-1-20.2. Skid trails have been identified with 50 ft. buffer from stream corridor and only one stream crossing. Harvest is to be no greater than 15% of property. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, timber harvest shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/16/2018 and continued the public hearing to 01/22/2019, 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 01/22/2019; 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 64-2018 DAMON HARTMAN/PRENTISS-CARLISLE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Harvesting to be completed by December 15th, 2019. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. HARTMAN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-So the next section of our agenda is New Business. The first item is MAC Industries, Site Plan Modification 70-2018. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MAC INDUSTRIES. AGENT(S): MICHELE COLON OWNER(S): DMAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 343 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY EXISTING SITE PLAN TO MAINTAIN FENCING, PARKING, ACCESS DRIVEWAY, BERM AREAS AND GATES. PROJECT SITE IS USED FOR A COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND MATERIAL STORAGE – USING EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-19-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEVERAL (91, 92, 94), MOST RECENT: AV 36-1998; SP 67-2012 HOME TO OFFICE; UV 126-1992 CHG. OF USE; SP 77- 2017; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2019. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: .52 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-12. SECTION: 179-9- 120. MICHAEL & MICHELLE COLON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant proposes modification to an existing Site Plan. This is to maintain the existing fencing, parking, access driveway, berm areas and gates, and I’ve identified those site conditions noting fence and berm height, the two curb cuts on Merritt Road and the maintaining of the existing sheds on the property where originally they were proposed to be removed. So I think there’s a couple of other things, but most of it’s highlighted in the Staff Notes, and the applicant can clarify anything else. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. COLON-Hello. MR. TRAVER-Can you tell us about your project? MRS. COLON-So we purchased the property in October of 2017. We’re a masonry contractor. Everything on the site as far as structure is pre-existing. So we just modified it a little bit to accommodate for our equipment, some material storage, and that’s basically it. The original approved plan didn’t quite work out. Not enough space. It was too tight. So we had to make some changes, which is on the modifications that you guys have. That’s pretty much where we’re at. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you just weren’t aware that prior to making those changes you needed to check with the Town. MRS. COLON-And I apologize. MR. TRAVER-Well it looks as though most of what you’re proposing is just to leave things as they have been. Right? MRS. COLON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-With the exception of the. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MRS. COLON-We took away some, we proposed to add some walkways in the front which we did not do. We took away, there was some pre-existing concrete walkways which we did remove. So on the Corinth Road side of the property the only access is the addition of the one way in drive, and there’s no other walkways or anything on that side of the property. We added an access on Merritt Road which the Highway Department is aware of. We just have to make a minor adjustment to for final approval on that. So there’s a one way in and one way out on Merritt Road because to get out of the yard the original drive was too tight for the trucks to make the turn. So the garbage guy couldn’t get out. So we had to add, now they have a straight shot to get out. So that was the reason behind that, and the shed we wound up keeping extra storage space, there was no need, plus it’s tied in to the roof of the garage. It was more of a nuisance to remove it than just to leave it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-You have how many accesses on Merritt Road? MRS. COLON-So there’s one way in and one way out. MR. DEEB-On Merritt Road. MRS. COLON-On Merritt. MR. DEEB-And then you have one way in on Corinth Road. MRS. COLON-One way in on Corinth Road. MR. VALENTINE-And that’ll stay the one way in? MRS. COLON-Yes. Again, that’s for truck traffic. MR. DEEB-Where will most of your traffic be entering from? MRS. COLON-Well really there’s not, it’s not really meant for customer traffic. It’s mainly just us in and out, the garbage guy. We use it for the yard. We’re not using it as office because we don’t have a CO yet so we’re not supposed to be in there. So again, it’s not really meant for, it’s not a retail center. So there’s not going to be traffic in and out and all that. It was more for, the second access on Merritt was for the trucks so they can get in through and not be a mess. MR. COLON-Ten wheeler with a trailer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We do have a public hearing on this. Is there any other questions from members of the Planning Board before we hear from the public? If there is any. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, could we get their names for the record. MR. COLON-Michael Colon. MRS. COLON-Michelle Colon. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Maria. Sorry I forgot that. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes, ma’am. If you would give up the table for public comment, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) KIMBERLY WELLS MS. WELLS-So my understanding is. MR. DEEB-Ma’am, can you identify yourself, please. MS. WELLS-I’m sorry. Kimberly Wells. I live on Merritt Road as well and my understanding is that they were here to get approval for the berms that are existing currently that they put in. Is that accurate? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WELLS-So on Merritt Road where they’ve put the berms in there’s a drainage that’s I believe right between the two driveways. MRS. COLON-Yes. There’s a. MR. COLON-Canal. MS. WELLS-So with the berms that I think that they’ve put in it’s creating flooding on Merritt Road which has kind of become a little dangerous. So I’ve got photos of just the water freezing now. So when you’re trying to come out of Merritt Road, it’s a high traffic area. So it’s hard because your car is slipping on the ice, and so it’s become dangerous, and I’m just wondering is there a way to at least get rid of that middle berm that’s covering that manhole? Because I think that that’s what’s creating a lot of the flooding. MR. TRAVER-We can them about that. MS. WELLS-And I’ve got photos here showing the existing as of last week and now as of today with all the snow the manhole is completely covered and you can see the flooding all in that area which is causing issues. There’s kids on our street that do have to get the school bus and with the cold weather the parents sit at the end of the road with the cars and you have to kind of drive around. So it’s becoming dangerous for the rest of us. So that’s our concern. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll ask them about that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. You can come back up to the table. So you heard the concern is that there’s some stormwater issues being created by these berms and now that it’s the wintertime they’re freezing. What can you tell us about that? MRS. COLON-So there’s not actually a berm around it. It’s armored. There’s stone there, large landscaping stones. MR. TRAVER-Well, let me clarify that. It sounds as though the concern is that whatever changes have been made to the site are causing a stormwater issue where before there was none. Is that your understanding as well? MRS. COLON-No. I mean. May I see the pictures? MR. TRAVER-We’re passing them around up here right now. MR. VALENTINE-Are you talking about the catch basin that’s on the side? MRS. COLON-There’s a catch basin, it’s technically, I think it’s actually the Town’s. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. VALENTINE-Well it’s in the right of way of Merritt. It’s off, if it’s the catch basin that’s on the site plan here, it’s in the Town right of way catch basin, picking up the rain on Merritt Road. MRS. COLON-Right. MR. VALENTINE-Then if you’re talking about stone, is the stone blocking the flow of water to the catch basin? Is that what you’re? MR. COLON-It’s permeable. MRS. COLON-They’re like this big. MR. TRAVER-We’re not asking about the size. We’re asking about the impact. Is it blocking the water? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MRS. COLON-I haven’t seen, that’s why I wanted to see the pictures. I haven’t see flooding there. I mean right now we’re inundated with snow and everybody is. So I mean. MR. TRAVER-Were the stones added recently? Is that part of what you have done? MRS. COLON-No. MR. COLON-The trap rock has always been there around. MR. TRAVER-So this is not something that since you acquired the property? MRS. COLON-No, no. Yes, we’ve added stone around there, to kind of delineate that area and sort of protect it rather, too. MR. COLON-From silts and sand and everything. The drain is lower. The road had a crown in it. There is a crown. There is flooding on our property in the entranceway, but to say that that water backs up high enough to impede on the crown of the road I’ve never seen it do that, which again, the last few days. MRS. COLON-Which we didn’t change any of the elevation of our drive. That was pre- existing with the road. So if there’s flooding there, we didn’t do anything to do that. I mean by all means, if we need to fix something by the catch basin we’ll do what we need to do. MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess the concern would be, you know, if you have modified the site in such a way that it is creating a new, I mean, it sounds as though there’s some water issues there already. Right? MR. COLON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So and by making these modifications, and no one’s alleging any intent, obviously, but by making these changes, if it has now increased the impact of the water, that’s a problem, in which case we would need to. MRS. COLON-Just remove it. MR. TRAVER-Remove it, right, undo whatever impact is created by changes that you’ve made that are now causing this issue. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. VALENTINE-How old is the driveway off of Merritt? MRS. COLON-The original drive? MR. VALENTINE-This driveway that’s on this plan. MRS. COLON-That drive has been there who knows. That’s way before us. MRS. MOORE-But there’s a new drive that you cannot see it on this plan. So there’s a new drive to the. MRS. COLON-Right, which is stone, and that is the one that we need to make the slight modification to, we need to add more stone to raise the elevation on the new drive that’s there, the one way out onto Merritt. MR. TRAVER-Beyond what it is on your current plan? MRS. COLON-It should be on the, is it just a really bad copy, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I believe it is, and that’s why, so I only have the plan that the Board members have. MRS. COLON-You have a plan I can point it to you? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well it’s the same as what’s up there. MRS. COLON-So here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. COLON-So right here. MR. TRAVER-Miss, if you would take the microphone with you so it’s on the record. Thank you. MRS. COLON-So there’s a drive right here. This is a one way out that we’ve added. So it kind of makes like a, there’s like a little island around the catch basin. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the picture. MRS. COLON-So this right now is just like base stone that needs to be added to to make it even with the street from the Highway Department. That’s what they’re waiting for us to do. It got compacted and settled. So it’s a little low where it meets the road here. So yes there is some pooling there on our drive that needs to be filled in, but again, it hasn’t been, there’s not a lake on Merritt Road, but this does need to be addressed, and we are aware of that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. COLON-It just needs to be, more stone needs to be added to that to make it level with the road. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Can I ask a question? Has the Highway Department come out and looked at that? MRS. COLON-They did. The sheet’s attached in the packet that shows what they wanted us to do. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’m just wondering if they realized that maybe they should evaluate the catch basin. MR. TRAVER-It sounds like, yes. MR. VALENTINE-Well, then again, do you know how deep the sump is? Has it got silt in it? MRS. MOORE-It could need to be cleaned out. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MRS. COLON-Right, it could be that, too. MR. TRAVER-And that would be on the County or the Town to do? MRS. MOORE-I believe if it’s in the Town right of way it’s the Town. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this one picture shows that very clearly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Of course you don’t know, what’s the flow? This is a north/south road. Do you know does the flow come from up at Corinth as it heads south, or does it go? MRS. COLON-Right. MR. VALENTINE-It does do that? MR. COLON-Well, not by eye. We’d have to shoot it with a transit. MR. VALENTINE-That’s why I was asking about that drive. I didn’t know if that driveway there blocked the flow to the catch basin but if the driveway’s been there that long, but if it was reversed, if the flow was from the south off to the north, then a new driveway in there could block the flow of water to the catch basin. MR. TRAVER-So if this is the Town, if this in effect a Highway Department issue, how can we condition the applicant to address that? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant would be working with the Town Highway Department to determine if the catch basin needs to be updated to address any stormwater, and to go from there, and if the issue doesn’t resolve with the Town then you can also condition saying that maybe the applicant remove that berm that’s, there’s no berm closest to it. MRS. COLON-I’m sorry, I mean no disrespect. Are you talking about this water here on the corner? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MS. WELLS-I’ve lived on Merritt Road for 15 years. My husband has been there for 42 years. So there has never, in the 15 years that we’ve been there, there’s never been pooling even at the end of the road. MR. TRAVER-Yes, this is a new issue. MS. WELLS-Since the berms have gone in there’s pooling even like when it’s raining. That right there is the end of the road but that was never until the berms came. MRS. COLON-But we don’t, there’s no berm here. We didn’t do anything over here. So I don’t know what you want me to do about that. MR. TRAVER-We’re not trying to clarify exactly what’s causing the issue. We’re just saying that it needs to be addressed. So what we’ll be doing is conditioning that you work with the Highway Department to find out what the issue is and then address it. It sounds like there may be some components that they need to address and perhaps some that you need to address, but obviously it needs to be dealt with. Okay. MRS. COLON-Laura, do you want these? MRS. MOORE-Yes, if I could have them. I’ll make them part of the record. MR. TRAVER-Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we’ll close the public hearing then on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And This also is an Unlisted SEQR. So that’s, is that an issue for us, Laura, that there are stormwater issues that are unresolved pending working with the Highway Department? MRS. MOORE-They are proposed to be mitigated. I mean if the applicant cannot mitigate with the Town Highway Department or themselves, then the applicant would be coming back to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That works. Amy other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? Okay. So we started working on conditions, and this is SEQR Unlisted. So the one issue that we’re aware of is the stormwater which is going to be mitigated by the applicant working with the Highway Department. Should that fail we’ll have another review of this application. Are there any other environmental impacts that members are aware of? Okay. Then we can do the SEQR resolution I believe. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP MOD. # 70-2018 MAC INDUS. The applicant proposes to modify existing site plan to maintain fencing, parking, access driveway, berm areas and gates. Project site is used for a commercial construction company and material storage – using existing building and site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70- 2018 MAC INDUSTRIES. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. nd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And then we can take a look at a resolution for Site Plan and I know we have the one condition of working with the Highway Department to resolve the stormwater issue. I don’t think there were any other concerns that were raised. I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD. # 70-2018 MAC INDUSTRIES The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to modify existing site plan to maintain fencing, parking, access driveway, berm areas and gates. Project site is used for a commercial construction company and material storage – using existing building and site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 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 has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 01/22/2019, 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 01/22/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2018 MAC INDUSTRIES. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 3) Applicant to work with the Town Highway Department to alleviate the stormwater issue on Merritt Road catch basin. nd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2019 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Prior to making your motion, I just want to clarify that the applicant may end up removing some berm on their property based on that decision. So just so you’re aware that if there’s not a resolve at the Town level that the applicant, and maybe the Town Highway Department cannot find one, the applicant may remove some berm that is associated with their property. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, that’s understood. MR. DEEB-You want it as a condition. MRS. MOORE-No, I just want to make sure you’re aware that that may occur. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we don’t know really at this point exactly what’s going to be required. We just know that it’s going to be looked into. MRS. MOORE-Right. Well their final plans may reflect some element in that corner of the property that wasn’t there as part of their amendment. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Any other discussion on the motion? AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. MRS. COLON-Thank you. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under New Business we have The Great Escape Theme Park, LLC. Site Plan 3-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 3-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC. LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE RIDES IN “KIDAPALOOZA” WITH WATER RELATED RIDES. REMOVING CAR RIDE AND REPLACE WITH “SHIPWRECK COVE” AND “WATERMANIA” - 15,000 +/- SQ. FT. OF DISTURBANCE TO INCLUDE RIDES, NEW CONCRETE AREA, SHADE STRUCTURE AND NEW WALKWAY ACCESS TO MAIN WATERPARK. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES NEW PATHWAY ENTRANCE BIG RED PLANES AND A NEW PORTAL TO WATERPARK AREA “HURRICANE HARBOR” PROJECT INCLUDES FENCING TO REMOVE ACCESS TO AMPHITHEATER. PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, GRADING, AND SOME NEW PLANTINGS AT PERIMETER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP PZ 23-2015 GREEZED LIGHTNIN RIDE, SP 5-2017 BONZAI PIPELINE RIDE; SP 15-2018 PANDEMONIUM RIDE; SEVERAL MORE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2019. LOT SIZE: 237.6 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040 CHARLES DUMAS & ROBERT HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And just for clarification we have a SEQR resolution in our packet which is not needed unless we feel the project exceeds the thresholds of the pre-existing SEQR. Good evening. MR. DUMAS-Good evening. Charles Dumas with Lemery Greisler. We’re the attorneys for the applicant. I have with me Robert Holmes, probably familiar to you folks, from Jarrett Engineering, the project’s engineer; Daniel Smith and Jill Martinez with The Great Escape to talk about questions or operation things relative to the new attraction. This involves freshening, if you will. It’s a seasonal freshening that The Great Escape likes to do. It will involve some re-branding and a minor amount of re-development to a portion of the Park that’s located just southeast of The Comet, a part of the Park that used to be known as the Wiggles World, and it involves the removal of a couple of mechanical rides. One is the tea cup ride and the other is the Red Carpet ride, and the installation of a couple of water attractions. MR. TRAVER-And before you elaborate let me just ask Laura to review from a Town perspective. My apologies, Laura. MRS. MOORE-No, that’s okay. I figured you would cover it. The applicant proposes to update rides in the Kidapalooza or the Wiggles World. This is, again, as he just mentioned, it’s replacing a car ride and a tea cup with a Ship Wreck Cove and a Water mania. This is about 15,000 square feet of disturbance to include the new ride, the concrete areas, and the shades structures. There is a new walkway access to the main water park through this new water area, and then a new physical access to the plane ride that is in that area also. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, I just want to state for the record my daughter-in-law works for The Great Escape, but I certainly have no financial interest in either The Great Escape or anything else. I just want to get that on the record. I don’t feel that that interest would cause me to need to recuse myself. MR. TRAVER-So noted. Thank you. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DUMAS-So the proposal is to remove the two mechanical rides I talked about, the tea cups and the red carpet, and the installation of what’s called The Bucket Blaster and the Ship Wreck cove. The Bucket Blaster would be located in this area here. MR. TRAVER-And I note that just today we received an update on your design elements. MR. DUMAS-Right, and Mr. Holmes is going to speak a little bit to that. There was a minor adjustment made. The Ship Wreck Cove would go in this area here. This is the proposed new walkway, and this is the proposed shading area, and there’ll be, you know, some fencing and some other minor improvements associated with this. So with that introduction, I’d like Bob to talk a little bit about the engineering aspect. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. HOLMES-I guess the first thing, Mr. Chairman, you had received my e-mail. I saw you had a little eight and a half by eleven. I do have extra copies of what was sent to that, if you would like to see that. MR. TRAVER-Sure you can distribute those. Thank you. MR. HOLMES-I don’t know, it obviously arrived in your e-mail boxes a little late today, just a little bit of a background on what’s taking place. Since we submitted back on December th 17, The Great Escape and staff realized that there were a couple of tweaks that they needed to make for safety reasons, one being in the Ship Wreck Cove that they actually find that the water depth that they’re going to have in the water feature is actually safer at eight inches of depth instead of six inches. It helps keep kids from running faster when they slide down the slide. They’ve got a little bit deeper water that breaks them a little quicker, and then additionally the shade structure, they just really needed, they felt because it’s a wide open area to provide a little additional shade, you know, just to help protect their guests that sit underneath it. The plan that I have before you actually shows in color is the new configuration but there’s the dashed red line, I believe it’s red, don’t ask a color blind guy, but it actually depicts where it was on the original submission that was submitted back in December. You can see it’s really, to us it’s a minor deviation. In doing so there is no increase or decrease from the prior submission of impervious cover. That all remains the same. So it really comes down to being just a wash in essence, but it’s the case of disclosure and I know unfortunately, Board, you’ve experienced where things have been sprung on you at the last minute or after the fact that we just want to make sure this is brought to your attention, and hopefully you agree that this is a minor change that’s amenable to you as Board members. One other clarification, and there was a misstatement on my part that Laura carried forward in her notes that there’s only a 193 square foot increase of impervious cover over what was pre-existing. I had inadvertently put in the cover letter it was 49, or 42.92 square foot increase that the documents that I have and the drawings on our site plan that shows the net increase of 193, that is the correct number, not what I had originally written in the narrative, and that’s the one change that I have there. I guess if you have any questions I’m more than willing to address that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, a couple of things initially. One was in comparison with what you’re replacing, the mechanical rides that are there now, can you speak to any change in the volume or type of music, Number One, change in the intensity or number of lights, Number Two, and in general the overall background noise. JILL MARTINEZ 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MS. MARTINEZ-So the water park is not open at night. So we do not plan on adding any more light into that area. The light is existing from what was in Wiggles World, and that was open in the nighttime. So no additional lights. Also no plan for addition of speakers or anything of that sort. The music will generally stay the same as the Park playlist. No addition, things like that. So the sound will, if not get lower from the water attractions, you might hear some splashes, things like that, but you won’t actually hear any mechanical rides. MR. TRAVER-But you’re actually replacing two mechanical rides. So theoretically it could be less noise, or at least less of the type of noise that would dissipate. Okay. Thank you. MS. MARTINEZ-Yes. My pleasure. MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Do you have either of these two rides in operation somewhere else in the Six Flags arena? And if so, are there any issues? MS. MARTINEZ-We currently have, it’s a Zamperla Water Mania is the generic name, but it’s the Bucket Blaster. We have that in Georgia. We also just installed it in Mexico. There are no issues as we see right now. They’ve been there for quite a while. As of Ship Wreck Cove, that’s kind of our new activity pool. We have nothing like it would be similar to Buccaneer Beach, kind of just an activity pool. We just designed it ourselves. We’re trying to be original. MR. DIXON-The landscape plan that you had already proposed, there’s no change to the landscape plan? That remains as is? MR. HOLMES-Yes, the changes for the shade structure and the Ship Wreck Cove, that has no impact or bearing on what we’ve proposed on the landscape plan. There’s one quick note about the lighting. There is existing lighting. The only thing that’s going to change is the location of some of those light poles where we have them around the perimeter of the Big Red Cars originally. Just the locations are getting tweaked just to make it fit with what’s being proposed. MR. TRAVER-But the number of lights, the intensity of those lights is not going to change. MR. HOLMES-Is not going to change. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions from members before we go to public hearing? MR. DEEB-Just out of curiosity, you had that bucket in the water park, the big bucket that used to come down. Are you getting rid of that? Are you going to, or is that being replaced by the Bucket Brigade? MS. MARTINEZ-The Bucket Brigade is the one that has the big bucket on it right now. We are seeking engineering just for the structure. As of right now it’s still there and it will remain there. It just, the Bucket Brigade is a little bit for teen audience, and then this one’s pointed more towards smaller children. It’s gentler. MR. VALENTINE-It’s not going to knock them off their feet. MR. TRAVER-Not in six inches of water. MS. WHITE-Eight inches. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-Eight inches. That’s right. I stand corrected. All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any hands. Laura, were there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-As I mentioned, there is a pre-existing Findings Statement from July of 2001, which addresses standards for thresholds for SEQR. Do any members feel that this replacement of two rides with two new rides would give us any reason to feel that any of those thresholds have been exceeded? MR. SHAFER-Just a quick question, Mr. Chairman. I notice the traffic letter from th Creighton Manning is dated August 29, 2017. MR. DUMAS-Right. Two years ago we went to every other year monitoring. That was because the traffic counts were not anywhere approaching the threshold established in the Findings Statement. So the Board at that time allowed us to adjust, instead of being an annual monitor, an every other year monitor. MR. SHAFER-So they will do that again sometime this August. MR. DUMAS-That is correct. The season of ’19, yes. MR. SHAFER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-There’s a comment in the Staff Notes, confirm access points to Hurricane Harbor lower water park is existing, new Buccaneer Beach area wooden walkway and new Big Red Planes. Can you respond to that? MR. HOLMES-The current entrance to this area of the park, there’s an existing pergola, or not a pergola, a portal in which you walk under that currently says Kidapalooza. It used to formerly say Wiggles World. That entranceway or walkway is going to remain. So that’s going to be the access point from inside the park. MR. VALENTINE-That’s the upper left corner of that plan? MR. HOLMES-Yes, right where Laura’s got her cursor. That’s the existing access point. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, because I haven’t got the foggiest idea where you are because I haven’t been out to that place with little kids in years. My wife’s going to get the grandkids out there. MR. DEEB-Can you review waivers, what you’re looking for. MRS. MOORE-So if you look above, on the waivers, it says waivers requested for stormwater preparation, and I outlined that, and the waivers that are highlighted is topography, traffic, commercial alterations, things like that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MS. WHITE-It says that you found it reasonable. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MS. WHITE-So we’re good? MRS. MOORE-I don’t see anything else, but you as the Board, you need to weigh in and say, yes, that we agree with those. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board prior to considering a resolution on this? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean you think about the, when we went through, I think I’m probably the only one left on the Board that can remember back. When we went through the whole Generic Environmental Statement, a lot of the things that we talked about were, you know, sight distances and visual impacts, you know, you’re not going to see this from the road anywhere. It’s not going to stick up higher than anything that’s already on the road. You’re not going to hear it. They addressed stormwater management. So we don’t have to be concerned with stormwater. It’s certainly not going to increase traffic. So all of the big items, all of the big issues that were identified in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, none of them are triggered, and I mean it just makes our review so easy. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it does. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it takes all those big issues off the table, and I think that’s why there’s really not a whole lot to talk about, and that was the intent, you know, to give them consistency in our review and to make it easier for us so we’re not going back and re-visiting traffic every time that there’s something minor like this. MR. DUMAS-Really from the applicant’s standpoint it’s necessary to freshen the Park attractions by adding new. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we do this every year. MR. DUMAS-It’s very important. MR. DEEB-We look forward to seeing what you’re bringing in every year. MR. DUMAS-I look forward to seeing you folks, too. MR. TRAVER-All right. I think we’re ready, then, for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 3-2019 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to update rides in “Kidapalooza” with water related rides. Removing car ride and replace with “Shipwreck Cove” and “Watermania” – 15,000 +/- sq. ft. of disturbance to include rides, new concrete area, shade structure and new walkway access to main waterpark. Project also includes new pathway entrance big red planes and a new portal to waterpark area “Hurricane Harbor”. Project includes fencing to remove access to amphitheater. Project includes stormwater management, grading, and some new plantings at perimeter. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board determined no additional SEQR review required as project does not exceed any threshold established in the FEIS of 7/11/2001 or Supplemental EIS of 4/10/2004. The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/22/2019 and continued the public hearing to 01/22/2019, 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 01/22/2019; 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 3-2019 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. nd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 22day of January, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2019) MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. DUMAS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That completes our agenda for this evening. One item I wanted to report to the Board, one informational item I wanted to report to the Board is we had discussed previously that the Town was taking a look at issuing tablets to Planning and Zoning Board members to alleviate the amount of paperwork that we have to deal with, and the Planning Board has been issued, as of last week, I guess, two, one for myself and one for the Vice Chair Chris, and we are working with the Chair and Co-Chair of the Zoning Board. We’ve set up believe it or not yet another committee to play with the things and see what we like and what we don’t like about them and we’ll keep everybody informed. The goal I guess would be if we get these to a state where they’re really, really useful and we use them instead of paper they would be issued to all members of the Planning and Zoning Board. MR. VALENTINE-I could be the last one to receive one. I love paper. I highlight it and I write all over it and turn the pages. MR. TRAVER-Well, believe it or not, these have, we don’t want to get into a long discussion tonight, but ideally and ultimately if everything works out the way we hope, these, you’ll be able to do all of that with. So we will see. We’ll keep everybody informed. It’s not going to be a short process, but the process has started. MR. VALENTINE-I go to church on Sunday and I want to hear pages in the Bible turning. MR. TRAVER-All right. Does anyone have anything else for the Board tonight? MR. DEEB-Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY nd 22, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 43