Loading...
04-23-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 7-2019 Stewart’s Shops Corp. 1. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Site Plan No. 16-2019 Alex & Michelle Wilcox 7. Tax Map No. 278.20-1-3 Site Plan No. 22-2019 Robert Spath (Cont’d Pg. 38) 13. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-10 Site Plan No. 9-2019 Leticia Martinez/HFA Architects 13. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25.1 Site Plan No. 19-2019 Columbia Development 17. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.14-1-5 & T/Q Queensbury ROW Site Plan No. 20-2019 Perry M. Petrillo Architects, P C 20. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-36 Site Plan No. 21-2019 140 Carey Road, LLC 32. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-31.114 (lot 14) THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board rd meeting for Tuesday, April 23, 2019. This is our second meeting for April and the eighth meeting thus far in 2019. Please take note of the illuminated exit signs in the room. In case of emergency and you need to leave that is your way out. If you have an electronic device or a cell phone if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we’d appreciate that so we have no interruptions, and also there are agendas for tonight’s meeting on the table at the back of the room and also some guidelines for conducting public hearings which we have a number of this evening. And with that we will begin. We have no administrative items. The first item we have is under Tabled Items, Stewart’s Shops Corp., Site Plan 7- 2019. TABLED ITEM SITE PLAN NO. 7-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 347 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TEAR DOWN THE 4,935 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,696 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE (PREVIOUSLY 3,855 SQ. FT.). PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF THE FUEL CANOPY AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW 1,460 SQ. FT. FUEL CANOPY (PREVIOUSLY 2,000 SQ. FT.). PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-1993, SP 22-043, SP 17- 93, SP 20-94, SP 24-99, SP 5-2006, SP 72-2010; SEVERAL PERMITS & SIGNS; AV 5-2019, SV 1-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33. SECTION: 179-3-040. CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig, would you give us the overview. MR. BROWN-Sure. The applicant has revised their submittal. I think the last time they were in before you they were in with about a 3600, 3700 square foot building. Now they’re down to, no, they’re in with 3855, and now they’re down to 3696 square foot building and previously they had a 2,000 square foot canopy. They’re now down to 1460. So they’re here to talk about those revisions. The Board has two actions tonight to move forward, a SEQR resolution then approval or denial resolution. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. POTTER-Good to see everybody again. Chris Potter from Stewart’s. As Craig had submitted from the previous submittal we reduced the building size and shifted it a little further east to help out with the building setback variance that we’re required to get, which we did receive last week. When we came in for a recommendation for the ZBA there were a few comments from the members. One was circulation around the canopy. So by us reducing the canopy size we lost the dispenser. So that’s two fueling points. So that was able to increase the circulation around that canopy. So now there’s no more conflicts with any vehicles we park at those end dispensers with the fuel delivery truck. We also added some sidewalks along Aviation Road. That was one of the comments. There were some comments about adding some additional trees on the north side. We were going to remove the hemlocks. We moved them to where our dumpster was located which allows us to keep the hemlocks. So with those hemlocks there there’s really no room for any additional, but just keeping the mature hemlocks. MR. TRAVER-And you’re still maintaining the three red maples, right? MR. POTTER-Correct. Actually we’ve met with the neighbors to the west, the Joneses, and they requested some additional plantings behind the building to help screen the view from them. So we agreed upon adding some additional trees and making the planter bed on the western property line larger for them. Currently there’s a paved walkway between the two properties. They asked us to remove that so we’re willing to do that also. One of the things that we also reduced is the levels of lighting underneath the canopy. We previously were in with 24.2 for an average. We’re now down to 11.3, just above the ten, and then parking, we reduced parking by five spaces, which brought our green space up by four percent. We no longer needed that variance. And I believe those were the changes. Any questions? MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-We had discussions last time, and I’d just like to see what the status is of, there was some kind of a cell tower on a pole in the back corner? MR. POTTER-Yes. We’re working with Verizon. There’s currently a small cell on top of our building and what we’re proposing would be to put it on one of our light poles, increase the height of the light pole. The light fixture itself would still be mounted at the 15 foot height, but the pole would then extend above that to mount the antenna on top of that, and I believe. MR. VALENTINE-I think the question came up the last time, was that a separate application? MR. POTTER-If it’s required they would come in for a separate application. MR. TRAVER-It’s not part of your application. MR. POTTER-It is not, know. We don’t show it on our plans. Right, we’ve been working with them in parallel, you know, but we didn’t get their information soon enough. They had gotten the information after we had made this submission. MR. TRAVER-Fair enough. I think that’s the clarification that we were looking for is that they may or may not be doing something, and that’s for them to address, in addition. MR. POTTER-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. SHAFER-It looks like, I’m on the truck route. It looks like the tanker trucks will be pretty close to, even with the reduced size canopy. Can you speak to the tanker truck versus the canopy? Would it go under the corner of the canopy if need be? MR. POTTER-Yes. There would be no clearance issues. The canopy height’s 14 ft. 6 to the underside. So there would be no conflict there. MR. SHAFER-The truck routing plan says trucks only entering from the west? MR. POTTER-Correct. MR. SHAFER-I know we talked about that last time. MR. POTTER-Right. So we routed them to go west and go around the roundabout because of the movement of going into oncoming traffic. So by circulating them around the traffic circle and making them come back, that the movement going into the other lane doesn’t happen. MR. SHAFER-But it looks like, the radius westbound looks softer than any of the other turning radii. The truck could not make it westbound? MR. POTTER-Not headed westbound they could not, not without going into the other lane like we had shown previously. Yes. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Do you have anything that you want to add? We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there members of the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any hands. Craig, do you know if you have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-I see one written comment in here. I have to believe it was read in previously. th It’s dated February 12. It’s from Barbara Jones. Does that sound familiar like you guys had gone through it before? There’s a list of five items? MR. TRAVER-I don’t recall that. MR. BROWN-I can skim through it a little bit. If it starts sounding familiar, let me know. “I noticed on the Town website that Stewart’s is proposing the redevelopment of their Aviation Road site. I have several comments and questions: Were notices sent to adjoining land owners regarding their proposal and the Town meeting dates as Mountainview Commons, the neighbor to the west, has not yet received anything.” Sound familiar? Okay. “Mountainview Commons is adamantly opposed to their proposed setback variance from the required 20’ to 5’ which is deemed to be excessive.” And they’ve since revised that. It’s no longer a five foot setback. “Their intended overdevelopment of the site has resulted in their request for the side yard setback variance as well as their request for a variance from the permeability requirements. Their plans propose the removal of the large hemlock trees that form a buffer between the Stewart’s site and the Health Center building to the north and no landscaping has been proposed to replace that buffer or to separate their parking from the Health Center site. With the reduction requested in the permeable area, the changes proposed to the grades along the property line and the new building being located within 5’ of the west property line we have concerns regarding stormwater control for their site and the potential for runoff entering the adjoining site to the west. In close please convey my concerns to the Planning Board as Mountainview Commons is adamantly opposed 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) to the planned redevelopment of the Stewart’s site as proposed and to the referral by the Planning Board to the Zoning Board as there appears to be potential adverse impacts associated with the site redevelopment. Thank you, Barbara H. Jones, Mountainview Commons, LLC 33 Honey Hollow Road, Queensbury, NY 12804.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Well the setbacks and the hemlock tree, you’ve spared the life of the hemlock tree. So that’s going to remain, right? Plus added some landscaping. The stormwater is an engineering issue which there is requirement for signoff by the Town Engineer. So it sounds like most, if not all of that public comment is addressed. Does anyone have any other comments? All right. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And this is Unlisted under SEQR. So we do need to do a SEQR review. We have the information in our packets. Does anyone, based on the application, have any environmental concerns beyond the information provided? You feel comfortable in moving forward with SEQR. MS. WHITE-The issues that we discussed previously have all been addressed, which I appreciate. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I just wanted to thank you for bringing down the lighting. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s a big deal. Light pollution is a real problem, speaking as an astronomer. Okay. Well then we can go ahead and entertain a SEQR resolution. I believe we have a draft in our packet. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 7-2019 STEWART’S SHOPS Applicant has revised plans to tear down the 4,935 sq. ft. building to construct a new 3,696 sq. ft. convenience store (previously 3,855 sq. ft.). Project includes removal of the fuel canopy and installation of a new 1,460 sq. ft. fuel canopy (previously 2,000 sq. ft.) Project includes associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 7-2019 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) 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. rd Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we move to the Site Plan. Ii think some of the changes you mentioned are not on the plans that we just received. Correct? MR. POTTER-They are not, no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Then we need to include those. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The representations by the applicant this evening regarding landscaping will be included on the final plans. MR. DEEB-Now what about the lighting? MR. TRAVER-The changes are on the plans, on the updated plans. Right? MR. POTTER-Yes, they are. MR. DEEB-Craig, do you have anything else that needs to be put on that? MR. BROWN-No, just clarifying that we’re adding condition L, something about landscaping you’re going to do in the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 7-2019 STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant has revised plans to tear down the 4,935 sq. ft. building to construct a new 3,696 sq. ft. convenience store (previously 3,855 sq. ft.). Project includes removal of the fuel canopy and installation of a new 1,460 sq. ft. fuel canopy (previously 2,000 sq. ft.) Project includes associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial 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; 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) 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 02/26/2019 and continued the public hearing to 04/23/2019, 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 04/23/2019; 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 7-2019 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers were requested; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) Additional plantings to be included on the site plan. rd Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. POTTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Next we move to Old Business and the first item is Alex & Michelle Wilcox, Site Plan 16-2019. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 16-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX. OWNER(S): THOMAS DU BOIS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: CORNER WALKUP RD. & MOON HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,320 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS LOCATED WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. THE SITE INCLUDES GRADING, LOT CLEARING FOR HOUSE, SEPTIC AND WELL. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED FOR LOT CLEARING ACCESS MAY COME FROM WALKUP RD. WITH A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2018 (VOIDED), DISC 1-2019; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. SITE INFORMATION: STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 1.93 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-3. SECTION: 179-6-060. MR. TRAVER-And, Craig, I understand this application is to be tabled due to some zoning? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. The applicant appeared before the Zoning Board last Wednesday. They were tabled to I think the first meeting in June. So the recommendation is to table your action until the second Planning Board meeting in June to give them time to go back to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BROWN-The Zoning Board. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would make that, our second meeting in June would be the 25. We do have a public hearing on this application, Site Plan 16-2019, for Alex and Michelle Wilcox. Is there anyone in the audience that was here this evening to speak to the Planning Board on that issue? Okay. Be aware that there are evidently some changes that are going to be required in their plan, and therefore you’re welcome to offer public comment this evening if you wish, although whatever comments you have may not be reflected in the plan that they’re going to be re-submitting to the Town. So we typically will leave the public hearing open and therefore when the updated application is re-submitted to the Zoning Board and then potentially to us, the public hearing will still be open and still a window for comment. So with that in mind, did you want to say anything this evening? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) AUDIENCE MEMBER-Just a question. So it would be more pertinent to come back then? MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s up to you. If you want to speak you should come up and get your name on the mic so that we have it as part of our minutes. Otherwise, I mean you’re welcome to. You can do that, or when the application returns and we have the full data. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DR. RICH DIMICK DR. DIMICK-Good evening. My name is Dr. Rich Dimick and I’m just going to repeat my brief comments that I made to the Zoning Board the other night just so it’s on the record. My wife and I live in the immediate neighborhood to that lot. We live at 717 Moon Hill Road, and I’m not sure if the address on the Wilcox’s or the Dubois lot is Walkup or Moon Hill because it abuts both roads, but we’re the immediate neighbors. We’re immediately east of him. He’s west of us. And I know they’re not here tonight but again at the Zoning Board I extended our welcome to the neighborhood and good luck on the construction, but our main concern is with the variance and building close to the property line. It’s an area of fairly big lots. My lot is 2.9 acres. Their lot is 1.9. An area where there’s a lot of wooded area. I don’t know if any of you have been in there or driven past. The houses are fairly far apart. If the variance is allowed, that puts us fairly close together, artificially close together between the two houses. As we said in the Zoning Board, we think that there are some creative things that can be done in the construction plans and the layout of this house to increase that distance. As the Zoning Board said it’s a lot of house to build on that fairly small lot. So that was our primary concern. We were wanting to see if there’s things that could be done to these plans and you said it sounds like they’re working on that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and my understanding is they will be next before the Zoning Board of th Appeals on June 17. That could change, but that’s the way things stand, and then they th would, if so, they would be next on our agenda on June 25. We have a motion we haven’t made yet, but that would be presumably the date that this application would be heard by this Board. DR. DIMICK-And we’ll get repeat letters to be mailed regarding those meetings? MR. BROWN-No. If we table it to a specific date we don’t send out any letters. DR. DIMICK-Okay. So we should keep in tune. MR. BROWN-Yes, whatever date they land on. MR. TRAVER-It will be on the Town website, queensbury.net, the updated plans. DR. DIMICK-So if we go to the agendas for the meetings on the website. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-That’s correct, which is not posted yet, but will be prior to the meeting. thth DR. DIMICK-Planning Board 25, Zoning Board 17. MR. TRAVER-That’s of this evening, that’s our understanding, unless their plans change further. DR. DIMICK-Thank you very much. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Yes, sir. If you could come up and get your name on the record. We do keep minutes of the meeting and it’s very important to keep an intact record of our discussion. PHILIP ROBERTSON MR. ROBERTSON-Good evening. My name is Philip Robertson. I’m immediately to the north of the property that this proposal is for. I sent Craig Brown a letter to be read here because I’m not real good at public hearing. I applaud Dr. Dimick for welcoming these folks to the neighborhood, but they don’t own the property yet. This is all contingent on their purchase of this property. When I purchased my property I made a commitment before I built and subsequent built my home, my dream home, and this is going to seriously impact my retirement because I worked for the past 40 years to build my dream home across from this property, and with these variances for a 5700 square foot home on the top of a ridge, which is counter to Queensbury’s comprehensive building, three acre. MR. TRAVER-Well as we sit here this evening they have not received their variances. So just be aware their plan is subject to change and you’ll have an opportunity to address those concerns. MR. ROBERTSON-Right, but I do have a letter that I sent, I gave to Craig Brown to read and he initially, you know, he denied us, and for them to continue to go forward is less than honorable in my opinion, but that’s all I have to say. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. LYNSEY WHITING MRS. WHITING-Hello. I’m just going to read my notes that I read at the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-If you don’t mind beginning by stating your names for the record. MRS. WHITING-My name is Lynsey Whiting. KEVIN WHITING MR. WHITING-Kevin Whiting. MRS. WHITING-We reside at 49 Walkup Road. We’ve lived on Walkup, I’ve lived on Walkup with my family the Hayes’ for over 30 years and consider myself to be a lifetime resident. For over 30 years my family and neighbors have maintained and preserved the area in which we live on Walkup. We have all respected the Rural Residential code, and I truly feel our lives have been blessed by living in one of Queensbury natural beauties. I have many concerns regarding the proposed 3300 square foot project on the corner of Moon Hill and Walkup by the Wilcox and Dubois and greatly feel my family and neighbors will be negatively affected. The Wilcox’s state on their application that their proposed 3300 square foot project is consistent with the visions, goals and policies of our Town’s Comprehensive Plan. I believe it’s not at all consistent. Our Town vows to protect important natural areas and view sheds, especially unique landforms like ridges and slopes. The size of this project doesn’t live in harmony with its own lot. The proposed excavation and removal of mature trees for the 3300 square foot home plus the septic and well, plus the clear cutting of their proposed construction road and surpassing both 100 foot setbacks will have an adverse impact on the natural, scenic, ecological area. Their proposed project will forever change the landscape and rural design. This proposal is not consistent with maintaining the natural area. Walkup is a part of the natural slope on the corner and the natural slope is the 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) backdrop of the wetlands. The hardwoods and pines act as habitat for wildlife and as a natural buffer from noise and light pollution from Moon Hill. The wetlands and wildlife on Walkup deserve to be protected. Allowing such variance and approval will no doubt adversely impact this Rural Residential district. Our Town is about sustaining lifelong residents. All of Walkup residents have resided here for 30, 40 years, if not more, all of whom have maintained and preserved our neighborhood. Our Town is active and Walkup continues to be a positive walkable neighborhood. We have neighbors from Sunnyside and Dream Lake, Tee Hill, Martindale, Glen Lake and Moon Hill and they recreate on our road, on Walkup Road, and clear cutting just the whole lot, three quarters on the 1.9 corner lot will negatively impact it scenically as well. Walkup reflects and maintains the rural heritage, I feel, of our Town and natural environment and I feel our rural residential codes are written with great intentions and we must honor and maintain the preservation of its rural character. So I’m not for the variances. MR. TRAVER-Understood, and as you heard me say before I’m sure, the project is subject to change and you can track those changes as they occur and as they continue to go through the review process, first with the Zoning Board and then back before this Board for Site Plan. So please monitor the Town website, queensbury.net, and the updated plans and the agendas and so on will be there for you. MRS. WHITING-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what was your address? MRS. WHITING-49 Walkup Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. WHITING-You’re welcome. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else want to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Okay. Well, as we began, as we discussed this item earlier, our plan is to table this item this evening, but we will leave the public hearing open, so the public comment will continue throughout this process. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I do have Mr. Robertson’s letter. He asked me if I could read it in tonight, if that’s okay. MR. TRAVER-Sure. It’s about two and a half pages. “I would appreciate it if you could read this at the hearing on Tuesday, April 23, 2019. My name is Philip Robertson and for close to 4 decades I have been the owner/land steward of nearly 20 acres at 37 Walkup Road, Lake George, NY. The Walkup Road community is one of the last surviving rural neighborhoods left in Queensbury. We are nestled at the foot of French Mountain in the foot hills of the Adirondacks. As you drive down Walkup Road from either direction beautiful vistas abound. With Glen Lake Brook flowing through our neighborhood you’ll soon realize wildlife is quite abundant. It is not unusual to see eagles, osprey, a variety of hawks & birds along with water fowl and a variety of fur bearing animals in our beautiful brook and marsh lands. The peepers just started their annual spring symphony, the beavers are busy and the mallards are pairing up in the brook as they always do in early spring. Soon the turtles will return to nest in the yards that are close to the water. Often you can spot deer, red or gray fox, coyotes and occasionally fisher and otters visit. Folks from surrounding neighborhoods frequent this country road to share in its beauty. All the residents of Walkup Road know and appreciate how truly blessed we are to enjoy this “Bit of Heaven on Earth”. This is all soon to be severely disrupted and possibly lost forever if the Queensbury Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals allows the construction of a proposed 4700 square foot mammoth home on 1.9 acres on a hill at the end of Walkup and Moon Hill Road. If the Garage 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) space is included it totals more than 5700 square feet of structure perched at the top of the hill along with a septic field down the steep slope closer to the brook. Although this is a non-conforming lot in the area zoned RR3 acres, Queensbury is considering granting several variances for required setbacks and slope requirements. The potential buyer plans to remove almost all of the 90’ tall pine trees in order to shoehorn a motel sized 3 story structure that stretches 90’ across the 200’ foot wide lot at the very top of the ridge. This will not only scar the area but will most certainly cause a massive amount of runoff that will come off the very large roofs and newly opened landscape. The run off and debris will flow down the hill and into Glen Lake Brook that is at the foot of this property. You can only imagine the negative impact it will have on the Glen Lake Brook Eco System that runs through our beautiful and Idyllic slice, of Warren County. I am asking that you not approve this project as it stands. Craig Brown already denied the application and that was for a 2300 sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 988 sq. ft. garage which was smaller than the actual project scope. Please honor his decision and insist that the builder rethink the size and scope of this project so that it is more in keeping with the deed restrictions and what is spelled out in the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan in the Rural Residential Planning Area. If you must, grant only one of the many variances being asked for rather than the several being applied for. Let’s play by the rules that are currently established. Please keep the 90’ pines that presently fill this property and if any are to be taken down please police the logging operation and keep our rural residential neighborhood rural, as it is and always should be for future generations to enjoy. Let us in Queensbury not leave a legacy of being known for, as the song goes “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”. Thank You for your consideration, Philip G. Robertson” MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Craig. All right. As mentioned, the public hearing will remain open throughout the discussion of this application as it moves forward in June. So you have a resolution. MR. DEEB-I just wanted to comment we had several mentions of the size. MR. TRAVER-We actually don’t know what the square footage will be. MR. DEEB-The plan called for 3320 square feet. MR. TRAVER-The original plan. MR. DEEB-Right. I just wanted to make sure. MR. TRAVER-That’s evidently subject to change. That’ll all be clarified. MR. DEEB-Right. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX 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 construction of a 3,320 sq. ft. single family home with associated site work. The house to be constructed is located within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The site includes grading, lot clearing for house, septic and well. The applicant has indicated for lot clearing access may come from Walkup Rd. with a temporary construction entrance. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction occurring within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) Tabled until the second Planning Board meeting in June with new information due by May 15, 2019. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-To table until the June 25, 2019 Planning Board meeting with new information due by May 15, 2019. MR. TRAVER-We have a tabling motion, any discussion? Yes, Craig. MR. BROWN-Does anybody have the calendar of meeting dates in front of them? I apologize th that I don’t, and we’ve confirmed that the 25 is the day? I know that there were some strange meeting dates in those months. MR. TRAVER-I try to remember to mark them in advance. MR. BROWN-Yes, sometimes they’re Tuesdays and Thursdays and I’m just curious why th Sunny, who’s usually pretty on top of it, picked the 20. thth MR. TRAVER-Yes. Right now there are two Zoning Board meetings, the 19 and the 26 and the Planning Board meetings, as I have them, according to the calendar that we approved, thth is the 18 and the 25. MR. BROWN-Okay. th MR. TRAVER-And the request was for the second meeting in June, which I make as the 25. MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-And that’s reflected in his motion. MR. BROWN-So we’ll just go with this as a typo then. Okay. Thank you. MR. DIXON-Steve, when I pull it out it looks like we’ve got two in one week on that. thth MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the 18 and the 20. MR. TRAVER-For June? MR. MAGOWAN-For June, yes. We’re blue, Planning Board. Right? MR. DEEB-So what you’re saying is we’re having a meeting on Thursday instead of the following Tuesday. MR. BROWN-Yes, see there’s a calendar that we put out every year. Yes, that calendar right there. That’s I’m sure where she picked the dates from. So whatever the second one is is going to put it after the first Zoning Board meeting. So you can either pick a date or leave it generic and say second Planning Board meeting. MR. TRAVER-Why don’t we do that. Why don’t we say second Planning Board meeting. That’s a good suggestion. All right. So you can amend that. MR. DEEB-All right. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under Old Business, the next item is Robert Spath, Site Plan 22-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT SPATH. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: .22 ACRE. LOCATION: CORNER WALKUP RD. & MOON HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS TO EITHER SIDE OF AN EXISTING HOME. ADDITION ONE ON THE SHORELINE SIDE IS TO RAISE THE EXISTING ROOF OF THE 240 SQ. FT. AREA, STILL TO REMAIN ONE STORY OPEN CEILING. THE SECOND ADDITION ON THE ROAD SIDE IS TO REMOVE 98 SQ. FT. AND REBUILD SAME LIVING AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW 33 SQ. FT. ENTRY WITH COVER ON NORTH SIDE AND A 32 SQ. FT. AWNING ROOF ON THE SHORELINE SIDE OF THE HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-2008 DORMER; 2006-599 ALT., 2007-232 DOCK & BOATHOUSE REPAIRS, 2011-042 DOCK REPAIRS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-10. SECTION: 179-13-010. MR. TRAVER-Craig? MR. BROWN-The applicant proposes two residential additions to either side of the home. Addition One on the shoreline side is to raise the existing roof of the 240 sq. ft. area, still to remain one story open ceiling. The second addition on the roadside is to remove 98 sq. ft. and rebuild the same living area. The project includes new 33 sq. ft. entry with cover on north side and a 32 sq. ft. awning on the shoreline side of the home. So expansion of a nonconforming in a CEA. That’s the trigger to get them in front of you tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is Mr. Spath here this evening or his representative? I’m not seeing anyone. All right. Well why don’t we set this application aside for the moment and move on with our agenda and perhaps he will arrive later. If not we can always table him. All right. Then we will move along temporarily, and the next application on our agenda is Leticia Martinez/HFA Architects, Site Plan 9-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. LETICIA MARTINEZ/HFA ARCHITECTS. AGENT(S): LETICIA MARTINEZ. OWNER(S): WALMART REAL ESTATE BUS. TRUST. ZONING: CI LOCATION: 24 QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 1,296 SQ. FT. CANOPY STRUCTURE WITH A FABRIC COVER FOR A PICKUP SERVICE FOR WALMART. PROJECT INVOLVES INTERIOR RENOVATIONS AND EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS. PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SIGNAGE AND NEW SIGNAGE. PROJECT INCLUDES SPECIFIC SIGNAGE FOR ONLINE GROCERY PICKUP INCLUDING PAVEMENT AREA SIGNAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UPDATING FAÇADE, SIGNAGE, AND NEW PICKUP SERVICE AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 61-2007 CONSTRUCTION OF WALMART; SV 9-2017, SP 59-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 33.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25.1 SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-120 MARK TALBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BROWN-So in this one the applicant proposes to install a 1296 sq. ft. canopy structure with a fabric cover for a pickup service for Walmart. Project involves interior renovations and exterior renovations. Project includes replacement of the existing signage and some 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) new signage. This project also includes specific signage for online grocery pickup including pavement area signage. And any time you make a modification to a previously approved Site Plan application that triggers the need to come back and so the exterior changes are making, triggers them to come back to you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. TALBER-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Understood that you appeared before the ZBA and received your variances for the signage. MR. TALBER-That is correct, and just as a point of clarification as we get started, my name is Mark Talber with Dewberry Engineers. We’re the civil engineer for the project. Due to some last minute issues, no one from Harrison French was able to attend tonight. So I am solo. A civil engineer answering architectural questions should be interesting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we last reviewed your application just prior to going to the ZBA and I understand no changes were made as a result of your review by the ZBA and your variances were approved. Correct? MR. TALBER-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. This is the same application that we looked at last time. MR. TALBER-That’s correct. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MS. WHITE-If I’m looking at this one, I had understood we were not doing orange on the front. MR. TRAVER-Right. That’s right. MS. WHITE-But the picture’s still showing orange. MR. TALBER-On the front of the building? MS. WHITE-Where the pickup sign is. MR. TRAVER-When we had discussion with the applicant’s representatives prior to the ZBA that specifically was asked, because that color change had been requested previously and was not acceptable and they clarified that in fact that orange color was not part of this proposal. Signage was, but not this major color change. MR. TALBER-And my understanding from a call yesterday, there is no planned change to the color of the building. It will be re-painted, but existing colors. MS. WHITE-Okay. So there’s a top actual photo which has the actual colors, and then below that there’s a drawing that is showing the orange and the blue. So that’s where my confusion came because I thought we had agreed we were going to stick with the colors. MR. TALBER-My understanding is the building will be re-painted, but with the existing colors. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we can make that part of a, include it as a condition of the motion. So thank you for that clarification. MR. SHAFER-A question came up last meeting about the snow load on the canopy. What the material is and can that handle the snow load in this climate? MR. TALBER-Yes. This particular canopy that is proposed for this site is the, for lack of a better term, the northern climate version. It has additional steel in it which reduces the unsupported spans of fabric. I think if you look on the cover sheet of the plan there is an indication of the snow load used in design. I think it was 50 pounds per square foot is what is shown on there, and there have been several built in the northeast that mimic the same design that is proposed for this particular project and it is some increased steel in that for additional snow load. It would look a lot different than one in Georgia for example. MR. SHAFER-And I know the snow load varies by location in the north part of New York State. I know of a house in North River that has 90 pounds per square foot. Is the 50 correct for this locale? MR. TALBER-That is my understanding from conversations with the structural engineer. Yes. MR. BROWN-Mr. Shafer, I can assure you that our Building & Codes Department will make sure, if this canopy’s going to be installed year round to hold snow, they’re going to ensure that it meets whatever the applicable snow load is for our area. For sure. They’ll look at it during the building permit process. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it the same as the Glen Street project? MR. TALBER-It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Because with the Glen Street project they gave us that analysis as part of the submission. MR. TALBER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So it’s the same. MR. TALBER-It is, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other initial questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing on this application. MR. VALENTINE-The only thing I had was a question from last week which was, having dealt with these types of applications within sites in Saratoga County myself, is the concern for, we talked about last time, the safety of traffic circulation in there, and particularly the mix of pedestrian with somebody leaving from the site once they’ve gotten their groceries from the pickup area. MR. TALBER-Right. Where this particular project is proposed it’s around, if you’re familiar with the site plan, it’s around toward the back corner of the building. We did make some modifications to this layout per, or modifications from what the prototypical design is. We modified the location of the crosswalk that the associates will use from the building to the customers who have parked in these stalls. Typically it’s behind the parking bay. We have proposed it in front to kind of provide some of that separation. MR. TRAVER-And the intent is the customers don’t even leave your vehicle. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. TALBER-That is correct. The proposed, online grocery pickup, OGP as it’s listed in the plans, the intent is you order your groceries on line. When you get to the store, you pull in the parking stall. There is a sign at each stall that has a number, a telephone number and a stall number. That’s how you make contact with the store. You let them know what stall you’re in, an associate brings out your groceries, loads them, goes back in. So the intent is no customers will be out of the vehicle at this location and the door that is proposed is for associates only, no customers. MR. VALENTINE-You wouldn’t think that there’d be anybody walking on that side of the building anyhow in that area, but the only thing was, as those cars, they back out of the stall, then come down and start to merge in with the regular parking area. I’m assuming there’ll be a stop mark there or signage. MR. TALBER-There is signage, and this falls into, other than it being used for only a few minutes, it falls into very similar use for the rest of the parking lot. The customers will stay in this stall typically I will say less than 10 minutes, but as far as the integration between vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic, very similar to what’s going to be existing at the site out in the main parking field. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just trying to feed you some civil questions. MR. TALBER-I appreciate that. I appreciate that very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any takers. Are there any written comments, Craig? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-I’m not finding any. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Under SEQR this is a Type II action so no further SEQR resolution is required. So with that, if the Board is ready, we can move to Site Plan. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 9-2019 LETICIA MARTINEZ/HFA ARCHITECTS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to install a 1,296 sq. ft. canopy structure with a fabric cover for a pickup service for Walmart. Project involves interior renovations and exterior renovations. Project includes replacement of existing signage and new signage. Project includes specific signage for Online Grocery Pickup including pavement area signage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, updating façade, signage and new pickup service area 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; 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/23/2019 and continued the public hearing to 04/23/2019, 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 04/23/2019; 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 9-2019 LETICIA MARTINEZ/WALMART. 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) Building colors to remain the same. rd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. TALBER-Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-The next part of our agenda is under Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first application under that section is Columbia Development, Site Plan 19-2019. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 19-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT. AGENT(S): GAVIN VUILLAUME. EDP. OWNER(S): SARATOGA HOSPITAL. ZONING: CI-18. LOCATION: 124 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A 1.04 ACRE PARCEL AND 0.106 ROW AREA BY DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING RESTAURANT TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY 17,700 SQ. FT. (FAR) MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE NEW BUILDING IS 8,800 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH THE MAIN ENTRANCE ON BIG BOOM ROAD AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-7-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND SIGNAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 11-1990, SP 18-1990; DISC 4-2018 SEVERAL BP’S. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.14- 1-5 & T/O ROW. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-7-050. GAVIN VUILLAUME & KEVIN RONAYNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. BROWN-So with this one the applicant proposes to re-develop, I guess, along with about a tenth of an acre of land from the Town right of way that they’re in the process of getting conveyed from the Town to them for their development. Project includes the demolition of the existing restaurant that’s there and the construction of a two story 17,700 sq. ft. medical office building. Obviously a bunch of associated site work with the new building. The main entrance would be on Big Boom Road, associated parking generally along that side. So the reason for the recommendation is there are variances sought for setbacks and signage. So that’s what the recommendation’s about. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. MR. VUILLAUME-Good evening. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design Partnership. I’m here with Kevin Ronayne from Saratoga Hospital. So for tonight I just want to give you a quick presentation of the site plan. It’s been a while. I think September was the last time we presented the project conceptually to the Board. Site Plan is essentially the same. Since that time we’ve prepared a full application which you have in front of you. As part of that application we’ve identified several variances that are required from the ZBA. So that’s really the primary focus for tonight, but again, just to give you folks a quick recap of the site project itself starting off with the small site plan on the opposite side of the room. I know we don’t have the screen but I just put that up as a reference. I’m not sure what plans you all have in front of you but essentially that plan there is the same as. MR. TRAVER-We have the most recent submitted. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. So that’s the site plan. That’s just the colorized version of it. So if you want to take a quick look at the site plan there, essentially we’ve got the proposed 17,700 square foot two story building proposed at the intersection of Main Street and Big Boom Road. As we presented back in September, this would be a medical office building with a main entrance towards the rear of the building, recognizing that along Main Street we want to keep the streetscape character of Main Street. So we’ve prepared several renderings of the building showing the front of the building along with the back. However as everyone is well aware, since our main field of parking is in the rear of the parcel that’s where our main building entrance is. So we have the two entrances coming off of Big Boom. There are no entrances off of Main Street. Obviously that is to control traffic that currently goes in and out of Big Boom Road. Most of the visitors and patients would come in through the first entrance where we have a drop off canopy and several handicap parking spaces. Throughout the back of the parcel we have approximately 76 parking spaces to facilitate the project along with a small service area on the western side of the building. So as far as the site layout goes, again, it’s the same thing we presented back in September. We won’t get into all the details of the engineering. I guess we’ll take care of that at the next meeting should we gain the variances that are needed. So I’ll just quickly give you a rundown of the six variances that are required. The first one, which is for the upper northwest corner of the building which is approximately two feet from the property. As you know along the Northway you’ve got a 100 foot setback along that road frontage. So the property as you know has three frontages, one’s the Northway, one Main Street and one Big Boom Road. The 100 foot setback essentially encompasses our entire parcel. So no matter what we do we’re going to need a variance off of that one as you can see. Again, keep in mind though that the building that we’re proposing is essentially in the same location as the Carl R’s building that’s there now. The second variance for the building would be the 39 feet from the center line of Big Boom Road. Again, that’s fairly consistent with the building that’s there now. The third area variance would be the site permeable. As you know the site right now is almost completely paved. I believe 10% of the site would be considered permeable at this point. We’re doubling that in green space. We’re providing 20% whereas the zoning requires 30. Also keep in mind the applicant has also purchased some additional land at the corner of the intersection to increase the green space for the 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) project, and that was additional right of way that the Town is no longer really utilizing. I believe right now within that right of way there is some parking that is being used by the or was used by the restaurant. So we’re getting rid of the parking that’s at the corner and then installing green space at that location. So we see that as a nice benefit to the project. And then the remaining variances would be for signage. We’ve got some building elevations. I think you also have some of those. If you have any questions on that, you can take a look at those building elevations. There’s two signs on the building that would require a sign variance for the size, maximum size area of the signs, and then the small pylon sign that we have at the intersection requires two variances, both for its location and for its size. So those are the variances. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And as you pointed out this evening, you’re here for the variances. However, have you seen the Staff comments for your application? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. MR. TRAVER-There are a number of site plan issues listed there that, though not to be addressed this evening, should be evaluated and responded to by you in your plan as you move to site plan because some of them look like potentially require changes in your plan. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? We did look at this application, essentially the same application, once previously as everybody’s aware. Since this is a recommendation we will not be taking public comment this evening. MR. SHAFER-I have a quick question. You said the building corner will be two feet from the property line? MR. VUILLAUME-Correct. MR. SHAFER-How far will that be from the edge of pavement on the Northway off ramp? MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. So the Northway off ramp is about I want to say maybe 40 to 50 feet away from the property. MR. SHAFER-So light spillage, is my second question, is not an issue on the Northway off ramp? MR. VUILLAUME-No, and we really don’t have any, again, that’s a service area here. I think there’s really very little lighting on the building itself. There may be a light, just a pole light that would be needed in the area of the dumpster enclosure. MR. MAGOWAN-Carl R’s is already pretty much on the corner. I think you’re pushing a little closer, but I want to say there might have been six feet there at one time. I mean I remember coming out and walking to the back that way, but it wasn’t drivable nor walkable if I remember correctly. MR. TRAVER-Do members of the Board have any questions for the applicant specifically with regard to the variances that are being requested? I guess we’re ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-17-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOP. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to develop a 1.04 acre parcel and 0.106 ROW area by demolishing the existing restaurant to construct a two story 17,700 sq. ft. (FAR) medical office building and associated site work. The new 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) building is 8,800 sq. ft. (footprint) with the main entrance on Big Boom Road and associated parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-7-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and signage. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. rd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 23 of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is under New Business and the next item is Perry M. Petrillo Architects, PC Site Plan 20-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 20-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. PERRY M. PETRILLO ARCHITECTS, PC. OWNER(S): WALMART PROPERTY TAX DEPT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 891 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 1,296 SQ. FT. CANOPY STRUCTURE WITH A FABRIC COVER FOR WALMART PICKUP SERVICE. PROJECT INVOLVES INTERIOR RENOVATIONS FOR ITEMS TO BE COLLECTED AND DELIVERED TO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE. EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS ALSO INCLUDED TO FAÇADE SIGNAGE, PARKING AREAS, WALL LIGHTING, PICK-UP SIGNAGE, NEW ENTRY CANOPY AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR PICKUP. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 1995 CONSTRUCTION; SP 25-2003 ADDITION; AV 38-2003 RELIEF PARKING/PERMEABILITY; SP 21-2011 EXT. COLOR CHANGES, MANY SIGNS; SV 8-2017; SP 60-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 17.74 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-120 PERRY PETRILLO & DAN LADD, PRESENT 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. BROWN-Okay. Similar to the other Walmart application, this is the Route 9 location that this plan is for the installation of a 1308 square foot canopy structure, fabric covered again, interior alterations, site improvements, exterior renovations, some façade signage, parking area improvements, lighting. So, again, changes to a commercial project brings it back to this Board. So it’s basically the pickup change to the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. PETRILLO-Good evening. Perry Petrillo of Perry Petrillo Architects. We are the architects for the project. I also have along with me tonight Mr. Dan Ladd who is the store manager for any questions the Board may have. To start, I know you’ve already seen the previous application for the online pick up. Does the Board have any questions as to how online grocery pickup works or operates? Again, it’s all app driven and I assume the Board kind of understands how that all works. So we’re here before you for the canopy that we’re looking to add. We’re looking to put it on the northerly side of the store right here. There’s existing 12 parking spaces right here that are tucked in on the side of the store. We are taking those spaces and converting them to online grocery pickup. By doing that, when we do the online grocery pickup spaces, we widen the spaces to 12 foot wide space. So we are losing three spaces in that area because of the access point and the width of the spaces, and to maintain the spaces currently approved for the site which is 763, we’re proposing to eliminate three of the car corrals that are on site so that we can maintain our parking ratio exactly the way it was approved previously. I think that was 2004 in that resolution. The canopy itself is, again, basically the same as you saw previously. Yes, it’s designed for the snow loads in this area. The bigger part of that is also the wind loads and it’s designed for both, and I believe we may have already submitted shop drawings for the review, but if not, they will go to the Building Department. MR. TRAVER-There was a comment regarding lighting, if the canopy was to have lighting. MR. PETRILLO-So the canopy actually has, it’s three bays. There’s six stalls under the canopy, and each one of the three bays has a light that is basically a down light that shines. I do have a, this is an existing already built canopy, just to give you an idea on snow loads. This is in Bangor, Maine. You can see the light fixture underneath it. There’s three of those. They’re small. They’re not meant to be anything more than adding additional lighting where we’re losing it from the site lighting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If you can ensure that the fixture, light fixture information is included on the final plans. MR. PETRILLO-Absolutely. That’s no problem at all. MS. WHITE-The area that you’re proposing is right up against, right, the entrance. So if I’m recalling that’s a terrible flooding. There’s water there all winter long. Will that be something you can address? It’s right to the right. The area you’re proposing is right here? MS. WHITE-Yes. That floods all the time. MR. TRAVER-From snow melt you think? MS. WHITE-I don’t know. It’s always wet. Not even wet. I’m talking like people don’t even go there because it’s inches of water. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. PETRILLO-Of water. That’s news to me. We can look at that. As part of this application we are not adding any drainage or effecting the existing catch basins or drainage on site. MS. WHITE-And this is eight spots and you’re proposing six. MR. PETRILLO-No. There’s twelve there and we’re going to nine. That’s a different proposal. The canopy covers six spots. Okay, and then there’s three additional spaces that are not under the canopy. MS. WHITE-Okay, and the canopy is this tall. MR. PETRILLO-Yes. That is a little deceiving because the parking lot slopes away there. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. PETRILLO-So the canopy is taller at one end than at it is at the other, just because of the grade. Here we’re basically fairly level. So the canopy is one consistent height. MR. TRAVER-And are you proposing any color changes? I know there was some concern raised because one drawing, again, this refers to the other application, but we wanted to ensure that we preserve the. MS. WHITE-We’re not painting one side of the building. MR. PETRILLO-We are not painting any portion of the building. The only color add that we have. MS. WHITE-And this one it’s more important, too, because this is visible from Route 9 where the other one is somewhat hidden. MR. PETRILLO-So for our signage we’re proposing our pickup sign, and the only add that we have is an orange slug behind the sign, only because this store is an earth tone color, and that sign just gets lost if it’s strictly earth tone. MR. TRAVER-But just to clarify, no proposed changes to the building, just signage? MR. PETRILLO-That’s it. Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-You mentioned that you would lose the area where the carts are collected. What happens to the carts now? MR. PETRILLO-Well, the cart corrals that are in the parking lot are double, okay. So what we’re doing is dispersing it and only losing a half every couple of sections, and we’re taking it out of the furthest car corrals from the store. In a busy situation the store will basically just step up their collection of carts to a more timely availability. MR. VALENTINE-In the ideal. MR. PETRILLO-In the ideal, yes, and again, that’s the reason we selected the ones furthest away from the store. In normal traffic they’re not getting that much use to start with. MR. VALENTINE-And your plan shows what John was asking in the last application. You have directional arrows painted on the asphalt and a stop bar. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. PETRILLO-Yes, I do. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. If you don’t mind if you’d give up the table. MR. PETRILLO-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM VALENTI MR. VALENTI-Good evening. Hello. My name’s Jim Valenti. My brothers and I own Whispering Pines apartments and townhouses directly behind Walmart. I’m here tonight in regards to the project that they’re proposing, and also delivery trucks using Weeks Road to enter Walmart’s property and these trucks leaving Walmart’s property onto Week’s Road. In 2003 when the Planning Board approved Walmart’s expansion to a large Walmart superstore there was a condition of Site Plan approval that all delivery trucks must ingress Walmart’s property from State Route 9 and egress Walmart’s property onto State Route 9. No Walmart delivery truck should use Weeks Road at any time. Walmart has been flagrantly violating the conditions of the Site Plan approval by allowing trucks to use Weeks Road. This is a serious violation and a serious safety to all of the school children who walk along Weeks Road to Route 9 where the school bus picks them up and drops them off. Also the safety of all residents walking in and driving out on Weeks Road. These trucks are so large and Weeks Road is so narrow vehicles are put in an unsafe environment. Since Walmart opened their supercenter in 2005 we have filed many complaints to Town officials with Walmart violations with their conditions of the Site Plan approval for use on Weeks Road for delivery and truck traffic. These violations have been going on for 14 years. I come here to talk about the only way to correct it, but I’ve got some questions on this project. As far as, how many people come to this site every day as far as a comparable size store and demographic area? Because I come here to decrease the size, but Weeks Road is going to have a lot of activity with that pickup right over there off of Weeks Road. MR. TRAVER-Sir, you should be aware that part of their proposal for signage includes a sign. Are you aware of that? MR. VALENTI-I’m very aware of that. MR. TRAVER-Regarding Weeks Road prohibiting truck traffic. MR. VALENTI-That’s not going to work. Trucks look at a 70 foot curb cut, they’re going there. There’s also a sign there that states that engines must be turned off after five minutes. Last week I was on that property looking at the traffic and the trucks coming in. Monday, within less than an hour, four tractor trailers exited and entered off of Weeks Road within an hour. I have photos on all this. Tuesday a couple. I wasn’t hiding. They see me out there. They’re telling their people don’t go. They’re still going. Wednesday trucks. Thursday trucks. Friday trucks. There’s a problem there. The sign’s not going to work with a 70 foot curb cut, but now I’m wondering how much traffic is this drive up, pickup delivery going to get? They must have some type of numbers on certain size stores that are comparable to Queensbury and the demographic area. I mean is it 100 a day? Weekends 150? MR. TRAVER-I don’t know but we can certainly ask. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. VALENTI-Thank you. Also, like I said, I filed complaints and the Town did their job. They went. They talked to Walmart. Walmart gave them the yeses, we’ll do this. Continued for 14 years. My complaint started back in 2006 and moved on to 2017. We’ve hired attorneys to talk, to send letters to the Town Code Compliance Officer Bruce Frank. Okay. Now here we are, this is my chance to correct this problem. We have residents walking down Weeks Road and there’s handicap people that live over in our place that have motorized wheelchairs. It’s a dangerous situation these trucks are on. Also I had my office send a memo to all my residents a few days before this project came before the Board, and I asked two questions of my residents. Have you seen any tractor trailers on Weeks Road since st January 1 to present date? I have 189 units there. I did get 83 responses on that question. Sixty-six said yes, seventeen said no. Those 66 did not see the same tractor trailer. Okay. So there’s multiple tractor trailers that have been going on this road since st January 1. The second question was have you seen any Walmart tractor trailer deliveries on Weeks Road during the last year 2018? The yeses were 69 and the reason why, Number 11, I had 11 noes and that’s because three people did not live in Whispering Pines in 2018. Like I said, I came here to ask to decrease the size of that curb cut, to keep truck traffic completely off Weeks Road. I know that there’s a sign. I feel that it’s not going to work after what I’ve seen for 14 years. MR. TRAVER-Can you clarify for me if you know, is there a sign there now? MR. VALENTI-There’s two signs there. One saying truck exit right there, 30 feet away, truck exit with an arrow. MR. TRAVER-From Weeks Road? MR. VALENTI-From their docking space. MR. TRAVER-I guess what I’m asking, just to make sure I understand, there is no signage that you’re aware of that directs trucks not to use Weeks Road. MR. VALENTI-There’s no signage there but their, GPS, their equipment inside their trucks, from what I’ve been told over the years with my complaints with the Town that all trucks are equipped with instructions how to enter their site and exit their site. Okay, and like I said, there’s a sign there that says no trucks idling for five minutes. I was there. They don’t turn them off, and I’d like that addressed with Walmart. We have units right behind and it seems like that area in the corner we have a little bit more turnover than we have on the rest of the property. So there’s some issues there that I want to see what’s the matter, and this is the time now the Planning Board can answer some of these questions that I have. MR. TRAVER-The applicant can answer the questions. MR. VALENTI-Well, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Jim has been here before with the same complaint, and the last time they came in for a little change and some signage, you know, we asked for it to be addressed more, and obviously it sounds like it wasn’t. So I tend to, because I always look over there when I’m driving past and like I said, you do see the kids and there’s a lot of movement and it’s not just the Valenti’s units. It’s also the units across the road. There are a lot of things. MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s deal with public comment and then we’ll address that with Walmart. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. VALENTI-No, that’s it. Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes. Good evening. CATHERINE ATHERDEN MRS. ATHERDEN-Hi, good evening. Catherine Atherden, Queensbury Town Board Ward Two, which is where Walmart is and Whispering Pines, and I just want to support Whispering Pines on this with regard to the danger, not only to the school kids and so forth, but coming in and out of Weeks Road you can’t see. If there’s a semi there you can’t see anything. Also I know that, I believe the last time Jim was here Walmart did put up another sign, which is to tell the trucks to go that way, and none of this has helped at all. If I was a truck driver I think I’d go, well that’s easy. It’s much easier than going out here. MR. TRAVER-Well, and that’s part of the problem. MRS. ATHERDEN-And look it’s 70 feet. If just an island was put in there that would kind of solve it. They couldn’t go. Anyway. I just want to support Whispering Pines. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. MR. LADD-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. LADD-My name’s Dan Ladd. I’m the store manager at Walmart, and yes we want to be good neighbors. We don’t want trucks going out onto Weeks Road. I will tell you the Walmart truck drivers do have it in their GPS. MR. TRAVER-Well, excuse me for interrupting, but you’re not addressing us as public comment. You’re representing the applicant. Correct? MR. LADD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if you don’t mind what I would like to do is address public comments first and then you’ll get an opportunity to talk to the Board. MR. LADD-I apologize. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any others. Are there any written comments? MR. BROWN-No, sir. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well then we will close the public hearing and ask the applicant to come back, and, sir, if you would return to the table as well. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-You have heard, obviously, public comment, and the discussion and I know as was included in public comment and from Board members we have attempted to address this issue in the past and it seems to have not worked, and you are proposing signage, and, you 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) know, I remember when there was a previous discussion on this site and we talked about this, and one of the issues was that these drivers are, you know, even though you may have a sign, even though you may have GPS or whatever, basically they’re responsible for the truck and they’re going to pull in where they think that they can, and we have that issue when we have right out, you know, right in, right out type entrances. People will still cut across and do whatever they want to do. So it becomes, we need to do, it sounds as though something needs to be done to escalate the response, to cut off their access to Weeks Road. How do you propose to do that, if you do it? MR. PETRILLO-I’ll let Mr. Ladd speak regarding some of the measures that you guys have taken with regard to GPS. MR. TRAVER-Well I’m talking about measures going forward because apparently what’s been attempted in the past has not worked. Do you disagree with the public comment that there is frequent and regular heavy truck traffic on Weeks Road? MR. LADD-I can’t verify that one way or the other. MR. TRAVER-You cannot? MR. LADD-With trucks? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LADD-When I’m working in the building, sir, I cannot. MR. TRAVER-But you must know how they access. MR. LADD-I will tell you Bruce Frank’s come to the store probably several months ago I’m guessing, and we called our warehouse and we checked all of our vendors. MR. TRAVER-And why did you do that? MR. LADD-Because of this complaint. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you are aware that they’re using Weeks Road. MR. LADD-Yes. I personally have not seen it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you. MR. LADD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. MR. LADD-No, no. I’m in the building. So if this gentleman’s saying he’s seeing it, he’s seeing it. MR. TRAVER-And you’re not denying that and you’ve apparently made phone calls and responded to complaints because you understand that to be the case. Correct? MR. LADD-Because we want to be good neighbors. MR. TRAVER-You want to be good neighbors to try to prevent this problem from occurring. MR. LADD-Absolutely. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So bottom line you’re acknowledging that there is a genuine issue with this truck traffic that was represented. Whether or not it’s to the degree that was represented, it’s an issue and you’re acknowledging that it exists. MR. LADD-I acknowledge that there was a complaint and we made phone calls and made contacts to correct the issue. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and it hasn’t worked sufficiently. MR. PETRILLO-Obviously, based on their comments, I have not been out there so I can’t testify whether or not this truck movement is still occurring. I do know that from our initial application we did hear that there were some issues with regard to the truck movements and that’s why we proposed the additional signage, to hopefully mitigate that. At this point, that’s what we are proposing. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Question for Staff. Is this something that could be addressed with a physical change to that entrance? Like an island or a pork chop? MR. BROWN-Yes, I would think so. Absolutely. If you decrease the opening that’s going to prohibit trucks to use it, then, yes, that would be an effective deterrent. MR. VALENTINE-Not even to put a pork chop in, is just to even make it where it looks like attached on the plan, where it’s painted on the road, bring the curb line right out so you’re only allowing one vehicle to enter, one vehicle to exit. MR. TRAVER-You mean put markings on? MR. VALENTINE-No, no. It’s already got markings, but it’s still, when somebody said it’s 70 feet wide, the opening may be 70, but it may be marked as if you’re only going to get cars going in and out. Well restrict it by narrowing the whole pavement right up so it’s just like the street setting. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-One of the things that I had always looked at, this is prior work. I had looked at, Queensbury is one of the first towns around, this is years ago, that had right within the Zoning Ordinance a hierarchy of restraints in it for access and this is a residential street. This is not one of the commercial corridors. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-So in that hierarchy of streets, it’s not made for commercial vehicles. MR. TRAVER-Right. Absolutely. MR. VALENTINE-That’s not the function. MR. TRAVER-And we’ve been aware of that. MR. VALENTINE-I understand that, but I’m just saying this has been stated before, come up. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they’ve made an effort to address it, but just. MR. VALENTINE-Well signage and painted striping isn’t going to do it. Limiting that access. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. DEEB-Craig, is this something that we handle here or at the Town level? MR. BROWN-You can handle it here. Any time an applicant comes before the Board with a site plan application it essentially opens up the site. Ms. White brought up something about some flooding in the parking lot. That’s a site plan issue that can be dealt with when they’re in front of you. They’re here for the whole site once they come in with an application. So you could deal with it here. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Magowan, you had something you wanted to say. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I mean would you be willing to do a curb cut? MR. PETRILLO-Well I was going to suggest that as part of the resolution or approval we would, and this would be on me because now it becomes a civil issue and it’s traffic movements and so on and so forth. So I’m not even going to suggest what should be done, but as far part of going forward I would suggest that we would engage our civil and meet with the Town Staff to come up with something that everybody agrees with as a mitigating factor. MR. BROWN-You’ve got to satisfy the Planning Board here. You can come back with a plan that satisfies the Planning Board or the Planning Board sets a bar that we make sure you meet when you come back. So it’s one of those two things. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would go back to SP-1 you show a hatched area that sort of brings the curb out and I think as a solution, you know, that was put in for the last project to address this issue. MR. PETRILLO-That hatch that’s shown is basically what’s existing. We haven’t changed any of the traffic measures. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but if that was actually built out, if the curb were extended in both directions. We heard the public comment that it’s a 70 foot opening, that narrows that opening down. They’re not going to want to go through that. MS. WHITE-You’re suggesting they bring the curb, the actual curb into where those hatch marks are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PETRILLO-Curb the hatched area is what you’re saying. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just a suggestion. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well it’s clear that something needs to be done and needs to be conditioned. So let’s take this one step at a time if we may. They’re talking about if they, hypothetically if they block that section in the back. The other aspects of the application, do members of the Board have any issues with the canopy and the other aspects that they’re proposing? So we’re just needing some clarification to re-address the pre-existing condition of the truck traffic on Weeks Road. Correct? Okay. So what if we were to, I don’t want to mention Craig’s name, but I’ll ask for some suggestions on a condition here, but if we were to make a conditioned approval, and a condition were that a physical change to that area design be submitted to Planning Staff for your review and approval, and be implemented as part of this application, would that be helpful? MR. BROWN-It would. I would look for some specificity on the change. To restrict the movement of tractor trailers or vehicles over a certain size, an effective restriction. If 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) you put a curb there with some landscaping, tractor trailers don’t really care about that stuff and they just drive over those things. So it’s something that’s going to be an effective deterrent. MR. TRAVER-That I’m not sure we could determine. That’s why I’m. MR. DEEB-It needs to be engineered. MR. BROWN-Yes, exactly. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it needs to be engineered and it needs to be such that the design and your department feel that will eliminate truck traffic. MR. BROWN-I think if you craft a specific enough condition that the applicant wouldn’t have to come back to the Board, we could use that as a measuring stick where they would have to meet that. MR. VALENTINE-An example is the Hannaford on Main Street. When you exit onto that side street there, residential street, you’ve got room for only two cars. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. So then it comes down to the wording. MR. SHAFER-Can I ask a question? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-Weeks is a Town road I assume. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. SHAFER-And there are no truck regulations on the books now to regulate truck traffic on Weeks Road? MR. BROWN-No. MR. TRAVER-Well if we make it an enforcement issue that’s problematic. In a way we’ve attempted that. MR. SHAFER-My question is what’s going to prevent trucks from, other than experience maybe, from doing it a second time? Knowing that there’s a very narrow entrance down there. MR. TRAVER-I don’t think it’ll take long for word to get out once that’s. MR. SHAFER-Well the question is, is there a place to turn around, for a truck to turn around if they can’t make it into the parking lot? MR. DEEB-But you’re going to have that no matter what we do. MR. BROWN-And I’m not too familiar with that site, but I think at the end of the road there’s a pretty large parking lot for the Church, not to encourage the use of that for turning trucks around, but I understand what Mr. Shafer’s question is. This is a Town road. How do you restrict vehicles from using a Town road or how do you keep the first one from going down and making a mistake where you can’t turn around? Either way. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you really can’t. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. BROWN-So some of that can be communication from Walmart. Right? You get that out to your drivers. MR. LADD-I would think it would be very quick. MR. BROWN-You would hope so. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Because they’re not going to want to have that, I mean I’ve never driven one of those things, but I’ve driven like a fire truck and you do not want to be a situation where you cannot complete your turn. MR. BROWN-Yes, and keep in mind this isn’t going to be probably a 100% fix. This is, by the sounds of it, may be a remedy to eliminate some or maybe all of the Walmart trucks, but any other trucks that drive up and down that road like people moving into apartments where they have moving trucks or tractor trailers may drive up and down that road. They may not be Walmart tractor trailers but they still may drive up and down that road. MR. TRAVER-I understand, and we can’t restrict that truck traffic anyway, but I think clearly we’re targeting the vehicles, and that’s what public comment indicated, that it wasn’t people moving into apartments or whatever. It was clearly the Walmart tractor trailers. I think the immediate issue before us is to make sure that we have this resolution worded correctly, and I would say that we condition the applicant to obtain engineering to restrict the Weeks Road access to Walmart such that tractor trailers are unable. MR. DEEB-Walmart tractor trailers. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-I wouldn’t leave it just at Walmart tractor trailers. I would say, you know, because tractor trailers that use. MR. TRAVER-Well not all the tractor trailers that deliver to Walmart are Walmart tractor trailers, I assume. MR. DEEB-I’m going to say tractor trailers entering into Walmart facility, Walmart parking lot. MR. BROWN-Entering it or exiting it. Entering or exiting. MR. MAGOWAN-Entering or exiting. MR. BROWN-If that’s what you’re trying to do, make sure you’re clear. MR. TRAVER-And then submit those plans to Town Staff for review. You want them to design it, have an engineer design it, and then run it by Town Staff. MR. MAGOWAN-This is nothing against you personally or Walmart. It’s been brought up a few times. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s not like the applicant isn’t aware that this is an issue. MR. LADD-To your guys’ point, the Walmart truck drivers have the GPS. Occasionally we have to have a Swift driver during the holidays because Walmart doesn’t have enough drivers and to your point, Mr. Chairman, all the vendor partners that we have. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well this will take care of it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that’s why I’m saying it’s not just the Walmart trucks because I know they have Swift and then they do have other, you know, like your vendors. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. BROWN-Did I hear a question earlier about a stormwater condition? Is that something? MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. BROWN-While they’re writing conditions. MS. WHITE-It just appears in the section where they’re anticipating putting this. There’s definitely some water issues. MR. DEEB-I would think they’d want to take care of that if they’re going to have people coming in. That was before the site plan came in. Nothing’s changing. That’s going to be a problem they’re going to have to take care of. Because they’re not going to want to have people going in there, and their staff’s going to have to go out and walk in water. They’re going to have to take care of that. MR. PETRILLO-Correct. She’s absolutely correct. There’s two parking spots where water pools. So they’re going to raise the asphalt, is what I was told, and run the water off. MR. DEEB-I don’t see why we need a condition. MR. PETRILLO-There won’t be any drainage. Over the years that the asphalt has sunk in there. MS. WHITE-So it sounds like something they’re already taking care of. MR. BROWN-If you’re happy. I just wanted to remind you, that’s all. MR. DEEB-They’re going to take care of it. MR. TRAVER-Moving the elevation of the parking, does that trigger any kind of additional engineering? All right. Good. Are we ready for this? MR. DEEB-We are. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 20-2019 PERRY M. PETRILLO ARCHITECTS, PC 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 install a 1,308 sq. ft. canopy structure with a fabric cover for Walmart pickup service. Project involves interior renovations for items to be collected and delivered to customers outside. Exterior renovations also included to façade signage, parking areas, wall lighting, pick-up signage, new entry canopy and pavement markings for pick-up. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial 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; 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) 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 04/23/2019 and continued the public hearing to 04/23/2019, 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 04/23/2019; 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 20-2019 PERRY M. PETRILLO ARCHITECTS, PC/WALMART. 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) Canopy lighting to be included on the final site plan. 4) An engineering design to restrict Weeks Road access to limit tractor trailer entry and exit from Wal-Mart. Plans to be submitted to Town Staff for review. rd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. MR. PETRILLO-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. I’m going to ask again, is Robert Spath here? No. All right. So, well we’ll move on then. The next application is actually an unapproved development. 140 Carey Road, LLC Site Plan 21-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. 140 CAREY ROAD, LLC. AGENT(S): VISION ENGINEERING, LLC. OWNER(S): BILL BRANDT, 140 CAREY ROAD. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 140 CAREY ROAD. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR TREE CLEARING WITHOUT APPROVALS BEHIND THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES TO COMPLETE CLEARING FOR A 40,595 SQ. FT. AREA. A SECOND CLEARING IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR 12,345 SQ. FT. AREA. BOTH AREAS ARE TO BE GRAVELED AND USED FOR PARKING, STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE SIGN AREA TO REMOVE THE LANDSCAPING AROUND THE SIGN. NO ADDITIONAL LIGHTING OR OTHER CHANGES TO SITE OR BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) 6-1987, SUB 10-2010 (MOD.), SP 34-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 6.45 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-31.114 (LOT 14). SECTION: 179-9-120 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. The applicant in this case requests to maintain an area where additional tree cutting was performed. The applicant proposes to complete a clearing of about a 40,000 square feet area and in one location an area of about 12,000 square feet with the intent to increase some parking areas, gravel parking areas for vehicle storage and storage of other equipment materials. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering here representing Mohawk Industrial Werks and Bill Brandt. You may recall this project I think was approved towards the beginning of last year. MR. TRAVER-This project was not approved. MR. RYAN-The original project development was approved last year and constructed a 15,000 square foot building which is for sales equipment, a snow machine, grooming equipment and a maintenance garage is the back half of the building. That project was completed basically through the winter and early part of the spring and essentially once the owner was able to get operations in full swing, he quickly realized that the periphery area that he was planning to use for staging, vehicles coming and going, that’s part of the maintenance was starting to occupy a large amount of space that made it inadequate, essentially, for parking and temporary needs. He does apologize for the advanced, I guess, implementation of what he wanted to do. He was somewhat misinformed by an eager contractor and they did get things going before eventually Bruce Frank came out and found it. MR. TRAVER-Do you know who the contractor was? MR. RYAN-I do not, no, and unfortunately Bill couldn’t make it tonight due to travel plans. So I think ultimately the goal and intention was to obviously follow the rules and do what he’s supposed to do. So he is apologetic about that fact. Ultimately his game plan is to provide additional space for equipment, trailers, parking for overflow. As the equipment comes and goes for maintenance, it’s fairly large equipment. It gets delivered on big trucks. Space is needed in order to allow areas to be, equipment to be left while the parts come in and then it’ll be brought back in for maintenance as he’s able to schedule that. So ultimately there’s an area in the front, .28 acres, that is an acre that’s kind of on the back side of the hill, and that area is utilized for a similar purpose which is parking, overflow parking and staging of trailers and equipment, and then a larger area in the rear of the property which is about almost an acre, a little bit under an acre, and at this point the game plan is to just basically clear the area, grade it for the grading plan that I’ve provided, and use it as a gravel area for staging and putting his equipment for his daily operations. So all in all we have about 1.2 acres of additional gravel space. We’ve deemed it impervious for the hydraulics of the site for the stormwater. The total acreage to be cleared is about two acres. The zoning does require a 30% permeability requirement. We’re still at 61%. So we’re still at a pretty high permeability area and ultimately we do have a 50 to 80 foot buffer around the periphery of the site that’s going to be maintained as a natural buffer. It is an industrial park. Most of the parcels are fairly developed and open. This one’s still somewhat concealed by the vegetation. I’d be happy to answer any other questions. We did update the stormwater report. The engineer did have a couple of minor comments and 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) I’ll be happy to address those at some point. The permit that we have is still active. It was not closed out because we did have a little bit of activity from the winter still. So we would basically continue that permit through the rest of the development of the site as we’ve proposed and then that would be closed out once it’s complete. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Questions comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Dan, you said the permeability of that area itself, you know, the amount of the area. What about the soils? Did you do any testing of the soils? MR. RYAN-When we did the original development of that site, I think we did about eight or ten permeability tests as part of the original development of the stormwater plan. It’s very porous sand. Actually the infiltration rate is over 300 inches per minute. It’s extremely high. MR. VALENTINE-That’s done in the area that has been cleared? MR. RYAN-Yes. We basically, at the time we didn’t have a full development concept for the site. So we actually drove and did test pits almost all the way to the back of the property at the time, and I think that was also in anticipation that maybe if he did something in the future. It wasn’t this as originally planned, but that he would have that data. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I guess not. Are there any written comments, Craig? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SHAFER-While he’s looking, have these changes already been done? MR. RYAN-What Craig alluded to was that they did start, initiate some clearing activity, and that’s when the Town stopped activity in order for this to get properly vetted by the Board. MR. TRAVER-Code Compliance interrupted it. MR. SHAFER-The plan shows four changes. So some of it had been done? MR. RYAN-Basically a little bit of clearing of the vegetation, okay. There is one other item I did not mention. I think it’s important to point out, is in the original site plan there was some landscaping around the signage out at the front entrance. There’s no other landscaping for any of the other facilities there because it is an industrial park and he’s going to have such a small sign he just thought it was a little bit of overkill for that entrance at that location. So he is asking to omit that landscaping around the signage as an item for this approval. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. RYAN-I believe everything else was in compliance per the prior inspections for the original Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Craig, I guess there’s no written comments. Right? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we’ll close the public hearing. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DEEB-Why does he want to get rid of the landscaping? MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that’s a funny thing. MR. RYAN-He wants to be able to literally just mow and not have to maintain landscape areas. He does have his trees planted. What it was, was a sign. Originally it was intended to be a standard sign in accordance with the sign regulations with a landscaped berm around it and some plantings, and driving through the industrial park there is no landscaping on any of the properties. MR. DEEB-That’ll make this property stand out. MR. VALENTINE-I think it’s funny. MR. RYAN-I think his intention is to literally have a small sign that says, you know, Mohawk Industrial Werks. The only people that come here are people that are buying snow machines or getting something maintained. MR. MAGOWAN-Well how about for Bill’s punishment he has to keep good planting around that. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. RYAN-That’s your prerogative. I’m here to offer it as something he’d like. MS. WHITE-How about increase the landscape buffer? MR. TRAVER-Mr. Magowan is talking in gest. The Planning Board does not penalize people. MR. VALENTINE-In all seriousness, though. MR. DEEB-I’d like to see it stay. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. In all seriousness. Here’s somebody that’s come in, an applicant, and instead of coming in, instead of pleading before the Board himself, he sends his consultant to plead and then he says, oh, by the way, although I did this work and didn’t get approval, while he’s there would you still ask that I don’t have to do this additional landscaping. MR. RYAN-I don’t think that him not being here was intentional and I understand what you’re saying. MR. TRAVER-I do remember some discussion about the value of adding landscaping around the side. It sounds as though the landscaping stays. He can still mow. MR. RYAN-I think the simplicity of the mowing process obviously the periphery is going to be a rough mow job and I think coming through quick with a mower is the ideal scenario for maintenance. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. DEEB-The landscaping stays. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Any other discussion? The feeling of Staff is that we can re-affirm existing SEQR as long as the Board is in agreement that this unapproved development does 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) not substantially change the environmental impacts. If so, then I guess we’re ready to move ahead to the SEQR. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 21-2019 140 CAREY ROAD The applicant requests to maintain tree clearing areas without approvals on the existing 6.45 ac site. The applicant proposes to complete clearing for a 40,595 sq. ft. area and a second clearing of 12,345 sq. ft. area. Both areas are to be graveled and used for parking, storage of equipment and materials. The applicant proposes to modify the sign area to remove the landscaping around the sign. No additional lighting or other changes to site or building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an existing 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; 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 21-2019 140 CAREY ROAD, LLC. 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. rd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we address Site Plan. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 21-2019 140 CAREY ROAD, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: The applicant requests to maintain tree clearing areas without approvals on the existing 6.45 ac site. The applicant proposes to complete clearing for a 40,595 sq. ft. area and a second clearing of 12,345 sq. ft. area. Both areas are to be graveled and used for parking, storage of equipment and materials. The applicant proposes to modify the sign area to remove the landscaping around 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) the sign. No additional lighting or other changes to site or building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an existing 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; 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 04/23/2019 and continued the public hearing to 04/23/2019, 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 04/23/2019; 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 21-2019 140 CAREY ROAD, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) Landscaping to remain. rd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. RYAN-Thank you for your time tonight. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2019 ROBERT SPATH CONT’D MR. TRAVER-All right. So the only other issue that we need to address this evening is Mr. Spath who was on the agenda this evening and there’s a public hearing scheduled. So, Craig? MR. BROWN-So the options are to continue without him, which you can always do, or table it and have him come back. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don’t think we want to continue without him. MR. BROWN-All right. MR. TRAVER-So with the public hearing that means we need to re-notice? MR. BROWN-Not if we table it to a specific date. MR. TRAVER-I guess my question would be could we bump it to next week. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Even though it’s a public hearing we don’t need to re-notice. MR. BROWN-Just open it and leave it open, and it will continue next week. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you look at our agenda for next week to make sure we’re not overloaded? MR. BROWN-It’ll be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a pretty full agenda. We have two items under Old Business including Clear Brook, Columbia Development and then four New Business items. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well this, he did receive his variance, and in my opinion it’s not a very complicated item which we did review pretty extensively when we made our recommendation to the ZBA. So I would be comfortable adding it to the agenda for next week and perhaps Mr. Spath could be notified that if he doesn’t want to be tabled until October that he be, I mean until July, that he be sure and be here. MR. BROWN-We will try and reach out to him tomorrow. MR. TRAVER-All right. So then we just need to do a tabling motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 22-2019 ROBERT SPATH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes two residential additions to either side of an existing home. Addition one on the shoreline side is to raise the existing roof of the 240 sq. ft. area, still to remain one story open ceiling. The second addition on the road side is to remove 98 sq. ft. and rebuild same living area. Project includes new 33 sq. ft. entry with cover on North side and a 32 sq. ft. awning roof on the shoreline side of home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2019 ROBERT SPATH, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. th Tabled to the April 30, 2019 Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting. rd Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? MR. HUNSINGER-I move to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL RD 23, 2019, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 40