Loading...
10-27-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2020 INDEX Site Plan PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings 1. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXT. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-48, 49, 54, 55, 60 Site Plan No. 42-2020 Bill Pogonowski 6. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60 Site Plan No. 49-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 7. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Site Plan No. 48-2020 Mark Prendeville 8. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Site Plan No. 44-2020 Trevor Flynn 9. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-22 Site Plan No. 46-2020 Northway Self Storage, LLC 11. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.13-2-31.112 Site Plan No. 47-2020 West Side Storage 17. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.2 Site Plan No. 4-2020 AREC 34, LLC-UHAUL 20. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-71 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JAMIE WHITE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. TRAVER-Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for thth Tuesday, October 27, 2020. This is our second meeting for the month of October, our 15 meeting thus th far in 2020 and our 11 meeting under the COVID-19 environment. Observe that we have illuminated exit lights in the room. If we have an emergency, that is your emergency exit. If you have an electronic device, a cell phone or other device that has a ringer or something, please turn it off or turn the ringer off so that it will not interrupt our meeting. Those of you that are coming up to address the Board on the podium when you’re done if you would take one of the cleaning wipes provided and clean the microphone off for the next speaker we would appreciate it, and I want to let folks know that are viewing these proceedings by the Town YouTube site that we will have a couple of items of public hearings this evening, and if you wish to comment on those you should be prepared to call 518-761-8225, and that will be the line into this meeting for the public hearing segment, and I will repeat that number as we get to that point. I also want to let folks know for public hearing purposes that there are three items under Old Business this evening that are being, that we anticipate offering a tabling motion, and that is Pogonowski, Site Plan 42-2020, Godnick, Site Plan 49-2020, and Prendeville, Site Plan 48-2020. So if you are interested in making comment on that, you should be aware that, should we table those items, as anticipated, we will be opening the public hearing, we will leave it open, and you will have an opportunity to comment when the applicant returns, and there may be some potential that there may be changes to their plan. So be aware of that, and with that we have one Administrative Item this evening, which is Site Plan PZ 230-2016 for Legacy Land Holdings, a request for a one year extension to their Site Plan approval, and I understand we have representation here this evening to speak about this item. I do want to take a moment to explain. We have a bit of housekeeping to do on this item this evening. We looked at this, as the Board is aware, last week, and we entertained a motion to approve the one year extension which failed, and it’s very unusual for us, it’s not unusual for us to have requests for extensions. It’s actually fairly route, although to have requests for this length of time or over this period of time is a bit unusual. We’ve actually had some earlier this year that have gone on long enough that when we granted the last extension the applicant was warned that this may very well be the last extension that they receive. So for that reason, when the request for approval of an extension was not approved by the Board, I think everyone left with the understanding that the approval was not, the one year extension was not going through. However, because the approval doesn’t expire until next month, and we were told that there was new information that the applicant had that he wanted to present this evening, we will listen to your presentation again, and because we had a motion to approve last month which was defeated, we will, I anticipate we will begin after your presentation with a motion to deny this week, and should that fail, then we will entertain another motion to approve. That way we will have covered ourselves either way. With that, I open it up to your presentation. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION TOM JARRETT & MIKE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JARRETT-Good evening. My name is Tom Jarrett with Jarrett Engineers. With me tonight is Mike Borgos and Dan Valente. We were not here last week so we apologize. We may not understand exactly what the dialogue was last week, but we do understand there maybe some confusion, and certainly you’ve expressed some concern as a Board, but we understand the concern, and I hope we can straighten out the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) confusion. This subdivision was first approved in 2007 and it was designed as a professional office subdivision. Dan fully intended, he can explain, he can even contradict me If he wishes, but he fully intended to fill the subdivision out with professional offices, but right after the approval we had the ’08, ’09 recession and that essentially killed office demand around this area, and we’ll get into COVID in a minute, but that has just basically wiped it out for this year, maybe for the foreseeable future. A couple of other extenuating circumstances are that, at least one is that the sewer issue, joining the Queensbury sewer district, was an issue for the first three years after approval. We really didn’t clear that issue up until last year. Possibly we could have developed during that period but it was still outstanding and the Wastewater Department was not ready to grant us a connection for the sewers for this project for Fairfield until last year. So we lost three years and there were very good reasons for the first three extensions. So we understand your concern regarding extensions that are unwarranted. We think we have very good reasons for those extensions. The market, the sewer issue and now COVID basically put a damper on everything. So for those reasons we would ask for one more year. We understand that if we get one more year that’s probably it. We would not go to the well again. So that’s the summary that I’d like to present. I don’t know if Mike or Dan would like to add something. MR. TRAVER-Well if I could just ask on your comments, you mentioned the issues with the sewer system being delayed. How was it you were able to sell the lots that you did back in 2007? MR. JARRETT-It was under a prior director of Wastewater and when Chris Harrington took over he had some questions regarding how this system should be administered and stopped everything until we cleared that up, and the former director even weighed in, but that didn’t resolve the problems from last year. Mike had to work with the Town Attorney to resolve that. MR. BORGOS-Without belaboring the point, there was also a transition where one year Bob Hafner was not the Town Attorney, and that kind of fell in the midst of this, too. When we worked it out last year we understood that we don’t need a transportation corporation for the sewer because we have the association of owners already in place from the early days of 2007. It’s all cleared up. I thought we were home free, and then COVID struck and kind of killed the market. I can tell you from a financing standpoint for the last nine months lenders have not wanted to touch anything. They’re just starting to come back into it. Developers are just starting to come back to the market. I met with one today who is looking to come out of the Capital Region and start looking at investments up here. So we think we’re on the cusp of being able to get this done. We’ve just been delayed by those issues before. So we’re asking for one final year extension. If we can receive that from the Board we understand that this is the final year. If the Board wants to make that very clear, we’re prepared to accept that. MR. TRAVER-Well, let me clarify on that, because should you receive a one year extension tonight, you’re still welcome to come back after a year and ask for another extension. I’m just saying that from our experience, and typically we don’t have extensions for year after year after year after year. I mean it’s not unusual that for some of the reasons you mentioned, and especially this year, I was chatting with Laura before the meeting, and there have been a number of them that we believe are COVID or being presented as COVID related. So there has been an increase recently because of the COVID issue, but it’s not up to me whether you get an extension a year from now or not. I’m just saying that there is increasing concern and resistance to that when it goes on with the same plan. It’s one thing if you say, you know, we’re going to come back with a modification, because as you have done with this property over the years, because we see this is just not going to work the way we envisioned it way back when we first got the approval, but anyway, I go on and on, but I’m not here to say that you cannot automatically get an approval. I’m just saying that we’ve had our discussion for this extension, and bear that in mind should you decide to come back for another. MR. JARRETT-Thank you for that clarification. We understand the Board’s concerns. MR. BORGOS-I’m just going to let Dan add his two cents about his family’s history with the project, too, to give a fuller. DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-It’s a long history. I was concerned based on, I know Bob Sears was here last week, and he really sounded like there was a lot of confusion between the professional office push and this request for the senior housing extension. Obviously a professional office park is what it is. I wish it was different, because obviously we could have done something else. We’re restricted on the setback with the Bay Road Corridor guidelines. At this point we’re kind of handcuffed to be able to do anything else. So I would love to see some changes so maybe we could be a little more, if we had a few more units it would become more cost effective to develop. It’s really on the cusp right now. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well that was one of the things I was actually kind of wondering, if you could, as a sort of though experiment, if you could change the site plan that you haven now, is that something that you would do? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. VALENTE-If the zoning would allow us to do other than what we have approved, we would be more than happy. MR. JARRETT-Would you clarify what you mean by changing the site plan? You mean more units? MR. TRAVER-Well, that would be up to you. I’m just saying, one of my concerns last week was what I heard over and over again was this isn’t selling. It’s not going to work. It’s not appropriate any longer for a variety of reasons for what we’re doing, and it made me think maybe you should just come back and modify your plans for the property in order to resolve those issues. It wasn’t simply, I mean we have a lot of requests for extensions, for example, because of perhaps utilities or negotiations with the neighbor or even sometimes there’s issues with clarifying the deed or marking the property lines, that type of thing, but in this case what I heard, and again I’m not speaking for the entire Board, but what I was hearing was this just isn’t working, things like, and I have the thing here. It says that over 10 years it’s been marketed and only two of the lots have been sold. So when I heard that I thought well what’s the point of going? MR. JARRETT-That’s the professional office park. MR. VALENTE-The professional office park. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That’s what the Town wants. MR. VALENTE-We’re handcuffed, like I said. If we can, we’d be willing to look at doing other things there to expand it. The 27 unit, as I’ve said, is on the cusp. As things change in the market, the senior demand continues to rise. Of course with the COVID thing, the price of materials have gone through the roof. So that’s shelved some projects. So that works against us, but there’s X amount of dollars that have to go into the building and if you don’t have enough units it doesn’t justify. So we’re on a cusp. Unless market conditions change, unless we can get some additional units, it may work, it may not work. We’ve had some interest the past couple of months but it takes time to develop this stuff, and in all honesty in the developer world it took the better part of three years to clear up a situation with the Town of Queensbury who gave me the approval and honestly I don’t think I should have even had to have asked for the extension. They should have given it to me because it was a self-created issue by the Town. MR. JARRETT-A Town created issue. MR. VALENTE-A Town created issue. MR. TRAVER-Well for us it’s just a process. MR. VALENTE-I’ve been here every year spending money to ask for requests and I understand it’s year by year. We’ve got it resolved so we want to move on and I’m hopeful that there’s some light at the end of the tunnel. MR. TRAVER-As are we, certainly. And for us this is a, the issue of having to come in and request an extension is a process issue. We approve the plan that you have now, which expires next month. So it’s not the plan, but the reasons given last month I think led some to believe that it wasn’t viable, that it was better to re-plan the project. MR. JARRETT-Thanks for clarifying that confusion because it’s the offices that are not working. MR. VALENTE-And like I said we’re on the cusp with the units that we have. The market is becoming a little more favorable. We’re getting more interest. If they can get higher rents, then I can justify the, MR. TRAVER-Well it’s just speculation but I would think that as we come out of this COVID thing there would be some economic development funds that might be available that could have an impact over that. MR. JARRETT-Just to clarify, before 2014, and Laura corrected me today, that zone, multi-family was allowed indiscriminately right up the Bay Road. It was discouraged, but it was allowed, and in 2014 it went to 300 feet. 2016 it went to 600 feet, which clamped everything down. MR. VALENTE-And that’s why we’re handcuffed at this point. So unless there’s a change in those guidelines. MR. TRAVER-Well, and again, it’s not our project. It’s your project, but I would suggest if you want to brainstorm, if you talk to the Planning Department and they’re very expert and would be glad to help. MR. JARRETT-Well, we are brainstorming and internally we’re trying to find a way to make this work, too. We just would like a little more time, and if you could see your way through to do that. I understand 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) a lot of concern was generated, and you don’t want to set a precedent for unwarranted extensions, but we hope you would re-consider. MR. TRAVER-Understood. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-You started to talk about some positives over the next year, you’re on the cusp, you’ve had some phone calls, maybe a grant application to the State. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? What positives can we look forward to over the next year? MR. VALENTE-All I can say is that we’ve had a couple of inquiries, one very serious. One I don’t know how long it would take to get through because it was actually a government agency that’s expressed interest in this project, and I think that could be a timely process to get through with them, and I don’t want to disclose it, who they are obviously at this point. So we’ve had some interest as of late, which is nice. At least there’s, again, a glimmer of hope to help move forward with something here. MR. JARRETT-And, Mike, you heard something, too. MR. BORGOS-Yes. I can’t reveal too much, but I met with a developer this afternoon, with Jim Siplon from the EDC, and he’s out of Brooklyn. He’s looking to the north. There’s a tremendous demand, you might have seen it in the papers, I’ve seen it in my practice with the residential demand. Where there’s not enough supply up here for available housing. Many of the people are coming here to retire here because it’s a great place to live and senior housing could be filling a need for those who are empty nesters looking to downsize to other properties. They need a place to live if they want to stay in the community. So this might be suitable. There’s not a lot of that out there. So that’s a very pressing need. I think there’s going to be something that comes from this. So COVID’s created the problem in a way, but it may also be providing a solution for us, and we just do need that little bit of additional time. MR. SHAFER-Thanks. MR. VALENTE-I would also add that if you have any way of trying to help or look at that area to change the zoning to some extent to get away from the office because we’re so handcuffed and that’s all we can virtually put there is professional office and you know the COVID has exacerbated the lack of need for the offices. So if somebody could help us, we would encourage that. MR. MAGOWAN-I’d like to bring up, thanks for bringing that up with Jim Siplon. Because I said that last week, because I sat on the economic growth, and this guy’s bringing in some great energy. He’s got some wonderful connections. He put together Just Water, and the Town beat him up. The City beat him up, and he came in and he delivered and was an upbeat guy and I’m really impressed with his speeches, and I did bring this up last week to the Board that he’s really got some things going on. I don’t have a problem. With all the circumstances, you’ve had a very unique project there, and like you said, your hands are tied with the professional park. I understand you tried to do this with the building in back and last week I didn’t have a problem with it. So I am still going to move forward this week with an extension and invite you back next year, too. MR. DEEB-I guess, Dan, you’re probably not going to like what I have to say because I remember, it’s a good thing, years ago I was watching a Town Board meeting, and you were sitting in that meeting and they changed the zoning, and it was a 600 foot setback, and it was very impactful because I saw you pleading with the Town Board and you were very distraught and you looked at them and you said directly to them you took my retirement away. And that’s a quote, and you worked so hard to get to what you were doing, and I feel that you’ve been through a lot. I’m not going to say the Town did you a disservice, but it’s been hard on you, and I feel that if we’re going to promote growth in this Town we cannot deny things that just should be done. So I just want to bring that up and let you know that we follow what you’ve done. MR. VALENTE-That’s really nice of you to say that. I appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else? Well we did have, there was a very robust discussion last week with the applicant and members of the Board, and since then, I should tell you gentlemen, it’s been a useful exercise for us because it motivated us to really look at our procedures. It’s an unusual, as I said, it’s an unusual situation because generally people ask for an extension and it’s a very simple thing and very obvious, straightforward reasons, not involving business plans and poor sales and so on. So we ended up in a situation last week where a majority of the Board denied the approval motion, but because you’re still alive, if you will, until next month, we didn’t deny the motion and so as I mentioned when we started we’re going to try to clear that up tonight in addition to giving you another opportunity to explain. So what we will do tonight is we will begin with a motion to deny, because that was the majority position of the Board last week, and if that passes, then it’s denied. If it fails, then we will re-hear the motion to approve. So if we’re ready to do that, let’s proceed with that motion. RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MOTION TO DENY ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR PZ-230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll second it, but explain it again, please. Vote for the denial? MR. SHAFER-Are we to vote as we did last week? MR. MAGOWAN-That’s it. We don’t move forward. MR. DEEB-If we deny it, then it’s denied. MR. TRAVER-Then they don’t get an extension. They would have to re-apply. MR. MAGOWAN-Well then I’m going to take back my second. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have a motion made. Do we have a second? MR. VALENTINE-No second. MR. SHAFER-I’m still not clear what we’re doing here with this motion, in advance of another possible, another motion. MR. TRAVER-I will try to explain. Last week we had the majority of the Board that was clearly in favor of denial of the extension. I think everyone left the meeting, in fact if you look at the minutes when they come out, you will see that after the vote was taken I asked, does that mean this has been denied, and everybody said yes, not everybody, but anyone who answered me said yes, and I think everyone who left felt that that was the status as we left it, but it turns out that that is incorrect. Because it’s an unusual, as I explained to the applicant, it’s an unusual situation in that we very, very rarely deny requests for extensions because it’s generally routine. There were elements of this request which struck the majority of the Board as not being routine and worthy of re-thinking of, or at least a re-application, re-hearing of the entire site plan. So a majority denied it, but the end effect was not a pure denial because we weren’t approving a denial motion. We were denying an approval motion. MR. HUNSINGER-So there was no action. The motion failed so there was no action by the Board. MR. TRAVER-I can clarify it further. In the sense that this is not a, most of the applications we hear, nothing exists. They have a plan, they come in and they request an approval. If we deny that then there’s nothing that can happen because they don’t have any approval to move forward. In this case, they have an approval and it hasn’t expired yet. So by denying an extension, I’m sorry, by not approving a motion to approve an extension, we haven’t denied the extension, but they still don’t have an approval. They’re in approval because they don’t have an approval, but they haven’t been told it’s been denied either. MR. VALENTINE-Unless it was followed up right after that. MR. DEEB-Right. We would have had to have followed up right after. MR. TRAVER-I wondered about that. Which is why immediately after the vote I said does that mean that we have denied moving forward. MR. HUNSINGER-I sandbagged on purpose. I purposely didn’t say anything after that. Because I knew that we did not take action. MR. DEEB-And in essence we’re following it up with a now. MR. TRAVER-We’re following up with it now by doing a clean motion to deny, which was position of the Board the last time we discussed this application. MR. DEEB-This is a bookkeeping thing. We’re trying to clear it up. MR. TRAVER-I’m just trying to clarify the record. So the if the motion to deny the extension passes, then we will have denied it. If that motion fails, then we re-hear an approval motion which failed last time and has an opportunity to pass this time. MR. SHAFER-So we’re supposed to vote the same way we did last week? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. DEEB-No. If you vote to deny it, then you deny it, but if you deny it, you give a no vote on this, then it’s not denied. So then we can go forward with the approval motion. MR. TRAVER-We have received new information, extended information if you will. MR. SHAFER-Why can we just do an approval motion? I mean I’m ready to approve an extension. I was one of the no votes last week. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-So I have no idea what to do on this next resolution. MR. VALENTINE-Don’t even second the resolution. MR. TRAVER-In many ways that serves the same function, because a motion to deny has been brought up and it did not pass. MR. DEEB-And it didn’t pass. MR. TRAVER-So just to clarify, am I not hearing a motion to second on the motion? MR. VALENTINE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right, then hearing none, let’s hear a motion to approve, then. RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE YEAR EXTENSION PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes a partial 3 story, 27 unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and landscaping. Project involves lot line adjustments for lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14. A portion of the existing pathway is to be increased in width and to be paved within 50 ft. of the stream for emergency access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, senior housing, multi-family housing and fill or hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a stream shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project includes subdivision modification for lot line adjustments for current site plan and SP 4-2011. The Planning Board approved this application on November 15, 2016. A one year extension was granted on October 17, 2017. Additional one year extensions were granted on October 16, 2018 and September 24, 2019. An additional one year extension is requested by the applicant. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. JARRETT-No offense, but I hope we don’t see you next year. MR. DEEB-Good luck, Dan. MR. VALENTE-Thank you all. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good luck over the next year. MR. DEEB-The Town Board did a good thing. We rectified something. MR. TRAVER-All right. So for the benefit of the Board and those watching us on the YouTube channel, we have three items that we’re tabling tonight, and for clarity we’re going to address those next. So the first item, under Old Business, is Bill Pogonowski, Site Plan 42-2020. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BILL POGONOWSKI. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 24 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 627 SQ. FT. DETACHED 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) GARAGE WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,114 SQ. FT. AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. EXISTING HOME IS 1,954 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,195 S. FT. THE NEW GARAGE IS TO BE 23’3” IN HEIGHT. PROJECT INCLUDES COMBINING TWO LOTS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 27-1999, AV 28-1999. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .30 ACRE/.09 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application was tabled at the Zoning Board last month. So you need to table this to the second Planning Board meeting in December. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would be December 17, and I think we have a draft motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 42-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a 672 sq. ft. detached garage with a floor area of 1,114 sq. ft. and associated site work. Existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. The new garage is to be 23’3” in height. Project includes combining two lots. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 42-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the December 17, 2020 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 15, 2020. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-And let me remind myself as well as everyone that the public hearing is open on this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Although we won’t be hearing it this evening, and when they return in December, the public hearing will remain open. So we’ll be open to that. The next item is Jeffrey Godnick, Site Plan 49- 2020. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JEFFREY GODNICK. AGENT(S): JON C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 312 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A 188 SQ. FT., 10 FT. HIGH SHED TO REPLACE A SHED THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE EXISTING HOME IS 4,259 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,931 SQ. FT., WHICH INCLUDES 188 SQ. FT. SHED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 71-1994, SP 95-21323, 2008-016 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .49 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-84. SECTION: 179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-:Laura? MRS. MOORE-Again, this application was tabled at the Zoning Board and again it will be tabled to the second Planning Board in December. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, again, we will open the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) th MR. TRAVER-We’ll be tabling this, we anticipate, to the second meeting in December which is the 17, and there will be an opportunity for public comment at that time. So I believe we have a draft motion again. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant requests to maintain a 188 sq. ft., 10 ft. high shed to replace a shed that has been removed. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. (footprint) with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft., which includes 188 sq. ft. shed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 49-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Tabled until the December 17, 2020 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 15, 2020; th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-Next we have Mark Prendeville, Site Plan 48-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARK PRENDEVILLE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 102 ASH DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION WITH A BASEMENT TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE FLOOR AREA OF THE NEW ADDITION IS 3,844 SQ. FT. WITH A 1,518 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND PREVIOUS SHORELINE VEGETATION REMOVAL IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 88723-1824 SHED, 90279-8236 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant has requested to be tabled to a December meeting, to the first Planning Board meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would be December 15. So likewise we will open the public hearing on this application, but we will not be hearing the applicant this evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-When they return at the anticipated date of December 15 the public hearing will remain open. I think we have a draft motion. thth MR. DEEB-Yes. I have a question. Is it the 15 or the 17? MR. TRAVER-Let me double check. th MR. HUNSINGER-The 17 is Thursday. MR. DEEB-Well, then we have to change the other motions. th MR. TRAVER-Yes, the first meeting is the 15. th MR. DEEB-The other motions I read the 17. MRS. MOORE-Correct, and those are correct. MR. VALENTINE-This is the first, not the second. MR. TRAVER-Yes, December is an odd month because of the holiday. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. DEEB-Yes, we do because of the holiday we have two meetings the same week. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 48-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a two story addition with a basement to an existing home and associated site work. The floor area of the new addition is 3,844 sq. ft. with a 1,518 sq. ft. footprint. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and previous shoreline vegetation removal in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant has requested tabling to December 15, 2020. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 48-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the December 15, 2020 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 15, 2020. th Duly adopted this 27day of October, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we return to our regular agenda under Old Business. The first item is Trevor Flynn, Site Plan 44-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TREVOR FLYNN. OWNER(S): JAMES S. DENOOYER. ZONING: RR-5A. LOCATION: 19 LOCKHART LOOP. APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO PORCH ADDITIONS – 81.4 SQ. FT. +/- COVERED ENTRY PORCH, 224 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH, RELOCATION OF DRIVEWAY AND TWO DORMER ADDITIONS. EXISTING HOME IS 1,540 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND FULL BASEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA, APA. LOT SIZE: 1.84 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-22. SECTION: 179-6-065 TREVOR FLYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant requested some variances last week and received those variances from the Zoning Board in reference to setback. The applicant was given some guidance to come back with some information regarding the stormwater and it was given to me. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FLYNN-Good evening. My name is Trevor Flynn representing Mr. and Mrs. Denooyer. So did they get the site plans I dropped off? MRS. MOORE-They got it electronically. MR. FLYNN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And if the Board members still wish to see it in hard copy, I have it in the folder here. MR. FLYNN-As mentioned since the last meeting and our Zoning Board meeting, we have re-visited the stormwater calculations and the raingardens and provided a planting schedule as well. So after re-visiting the stormwater we’ve added a shallow grass depression here to capture the stormwater coming off the driveway itself, and then looked at a raingarden in this location capturing the rest of the impervious area from the driveway and some of the roofs running down towards the site. And if you recall this was also a problematic area with the existing driveway where all the runoff went straight into the street. We’ve also added a trench drain, too, along the side of the house that has enough capacity to take the stormwater runoff from the roof on this side of the roof down. It prevents it from going down the hill. That was technically all we were required to add, but we also looked at two additional raingardens, you know, one to the southeast just for more screening, too, from the road around the fire pit and hot tub area and then also added another raingarden between the parking and the screening foliage. So I think other than that 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) the top right we have a planting schedule. It’s hard to see on the screen, but we do have hard copies, and a digital submission. MR. TRAVER-And they were e-mailed to us as well. MR. FLYNN-So I believe that’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say I had a service call up at the lake and I went up Bay Road way and I happened to take a drive around that loop again and I really like t hose trees. I didn’t realize how many there were until you actually get in there. He really planted a lot of hemlocks and a gorgeous way of showing it and knowing the Denooyers, they don’t do anything halfway, and I knew the previous owner of this house and he really maintained it and I don’t remember seeing gutters but if I did I know he put them in drywells because that’s just the way Bill did things, but I really think this project is going to really look nice, and I really liked the softness of the driveway coming in from the side instead of the big stone down. I never did like that, but I’m picturing that house there and that’s really going to look great. So thank you for rushing on that and getting this back up, but like I said, those hemlocks, there’s quite a few there, and there’s not any small ones. They’re all huge. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other comments, questions? All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. I’ll remind the public watching us on the Town YouTube channel that if they wish to comment, as I mentioned earlier, they should call 518-761-8225. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application this evening? I’m not seeing anyone. Is there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. No additional questions from members of the Board? I’m not hearing the phone ringing and they’ve had 40 minutes to think about it. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 44-2020 TREVOR FLYNN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes two porch additions – 81.4 sq. ft. +/- covered entry porch, 224 sq. ft. screen porch, relocation of driveway and two dormer additions. Existing home is 1,540 sq. ft. (footprint) and a full basement. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/20/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 10/21/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/27/2020 and continued the public hearing to 10/27/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 10/27/2020; 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 44-2020 TREVOR FLYNN; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Mike Dixon. Duly adopted this 27day of October 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. Next we move to the Unapproved Development portion of our agenda. The first item under Unapproved Development is Northway Storage, LLC, Site Plan Modification 46-2020. UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 46-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, LLC. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 162 CAREY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE THE ENTRY AREA LANDSCAPING AS THE PREVIOUS APPROVED LANDSCAPING WAS REMOVED. THE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FT. IN LENGTH AND 45 FT. DEEP. THE PLANS SHOW A PLANTING PLAN WHERE SOME TREES ARE TO REMAIN AND NEW PLANTINGS TO BE INSTALLED – DOGWOOD, JUNIPERS, SUMMER SWEET, BLACK EYED SUSANS AND LAWN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: CC-000402/403/40/416-2015. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK. LOT SIZE: 2.77 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-31.112. SECTION: 179-9-120. JON LAPPER & BRANDON FERGUSON REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura> 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to update the entry area landscaping as the previous approved landscaping was removed. The area is approximately 200 feet in length and 45 feet in depth. The plans show a planting plan where some trees are to remain an new plantings are to be installed, including Dogwood, Junipers, Summer Sweet, Black Eyed Susans and lawn area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. So this one and the next one that are coming up, they were both purchased by the same individual. They’re separate entities. They were both purchased within the last year or so. So the gentlemen came in. They were kind of what was in front, even though it was a buffer on the site plan, it was kind of scrubby. He didn’t go to the trouble to go look and see that they were supposed to be there. So they knocked down what was scrubby and then heard from Craig Brown immediately, called me, and I prevailed upon him to hire Environmental Design to do a landscape plan. So I think what presenting on both is nicer than what was there to begin with, trees and shrubs and grass, they’ll all look a lot better. Better visibility for him and just better for people driving by as well. We’re here to talk about both and hope you like them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-That’s one of my pet peeves on storage units is they look so sterile, and to have good landscaping, I hope you’re listening everybody. It’s important that we clean up a little bit because they have just become prolific in the Town of Queensbury. Wow. I’ve never seen so many. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s amazing there’s that much demand. Any comments on the modification? MR. DEEB-No, I think it looks good. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, I did, too. MR. DEEB-I like it. MR. HUNSINGER-So made the mistake of doing what I frequently do when I do a site plan review and I went to Google Maps, and Google Maps shows a beautiful, I mean I later saw the site plan so I saw that it was scrubby stuff, but beautiful buffer that buffered the road from the project, and to look at what you propose versus what was there, I think what’s proposed leaves a lot to be desired. At least in my opinion. MR. TRAVER-What was proposed is significantly better than what they’re proposing now? MR. HUNSINGER-No, what’s proposed now is significantly worse than what was there before they took the vegetation out, and I’m like David, and I frequently say this when we see a self-storage unit, I hate them all. If it were up to me we wouldn’t have any in the Town of Queensbury, but I recognize that it’s an allowed use, that there’s demand for it, and that there’s a need for it, but mitigate the sterile look, and I’ve mentioned it in other meetings. One way to do it is what they did down at Exit 10. Right? Where on the gable ends they put in brick. We didn’t ask him to put brick ends facing the road because there was going to be a nice existing buffer which is now gone. So that’s the tradeoff. The tradeoff is, you know, t the aesthetics of the buildings versus the buffering. Now the buffering’s gone. Now we’re forced to deal with the aesthetics of the buildings or replace the buffer to something that’s better than what was there or at least what was there. So that’s just my opinion, my position on both projects really. MR. TRAVER-So would additional planting improve it to the point of at some point later we discuss about how they could add to their planting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So the Google Map shots, you can’t see the buildings from the road. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the street view. MR. HUNSINGER-The street view you can’t see the buildings, and so then when I went to the site plan, I can see, and I totally agree with you. Most of the stuff that was taken out was not very good, but collectively it was a perfect. MR. TRAVER-Because it was so dense it made a perfect buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. And that is something that is in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, that we seem to, as a community, not as a Planning Board, have really gotten away from, talking about natural vegetative buffers between the road and development, not just commercial development, but along major thoroughfares and that’s what this is, it’s a major thoroughfare. MR. VALENTINE-Are you all set, Chris? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m done. I’m sorry, not this one. Luzerne Road is the major thoroughfare. MR. VALENTINE-I had, a while ago, when we had the ones Mike O’Connor brought in from Bay Road before, I followed up with everybody on like a 10 page study, report that I had done for my employer. Part of that whole thing is going to the point that you made and which I made to Michael, is that we don’t just sit there and say okay, let’s just cover everything up with buffering and landscaping and then hide something because it’s ugly. Take the thing that’s ugly and make it presentable, and that’s something that comes about with certain standards that we don’t have, and that’s played out in communities all across the areas is I mean you can go from here to Fort Ann and take Route 4 up all over and everybody just plop up units all along, put a fence around it, and one of the things about it, you don’t have to do anything with it, and that’s what I said to Michael before. Not to pick on that site, but you’re not running sewer. You’re not running water. You’re not putting electricity in there. You get a cheap piece of land and you’re going to make out on it in the long run. And not to say as a body that we don’t want anybody to get a good return on their investment or something, but in the same regard, you’re putting up something that is a reflection upon the community that you live in, and I think that the pictorial stuff that I had put in that stuff that I had shown you was not only maybe some planting stuff but it was done by the trade organization for the self storage units, and they had come up, you know, just what Chris had said, what could be done down at Exit 10 was to put a front on those. Any front that faces a public roadway, that’s visible to the public, make it look like something that you would want to see on your own street of houses. They put false roof peaks on them, stone coverage. Obviously you can’t do anything with the sides. Those are the entry points to the storage units, but that side that faces, it should be reflective just as if it was a residential street that we live on, not just to plop something down and say okay I’m going to get whatever I’m going to get out of it and not care for the appearance. Now I don’t know is it necessary to consider, do we think about taking this up as a use that has to go through, that’s approved under a Special Use Permit, and by that way you have certain standards in there, or do you call in for this under Site Plan that it has standards under Site Plan that have to be met? And you call for that, not just to say flood landscaping on it and cover it up, but make it look presentable, and that’s just my thought to it. MR. DEEB-Well I think that has to be addressed. I don’t see there’s going to be many more in the future. I can’t envision that. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s what we said a couple of years ago. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Replacement of old ones. MR. DEEB-Well if they replace old ones, but if they’re grandfathered in, we don’t do anything with it now, but I do believe that we need to set a standard like you said, any future ones that do come in. MR. TRAVER-Well in this case they have an existing approved site plan and we’re just dealing with above that. MR. DEEB-And I understand that. MR. VALENTINE-We’re just talking. MR. DEEB-We’re chit chatting. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s fine, and certainly we can address that with future site plans, or try to when they come in, but for now what do we want to do with the buffer? They’ve modified the approved buffer, replaced the approved buffer. If we don’t like what they’ve done, do we have specific requirements that we want to request of them to enhance the buffer? If so, we need to be specific. MR. VALENTINE-Well, I think, again, to go to the one we had on Bay Road, we had a long discussion back and forth with the applicant’s attorney and with the landscape design, calling out exactly what type of landscaping you wanted and where, and if you’ve seen that. MR. TRAVER-Well they had an approved plan, but I don’t think it included landscaping because it was already there basically. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the frontage was part of the no cut. There was going to be a no cut buffer in front of the building. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We also have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone observing us on the YouTube channel that wants to comment? And while we continue discussion I’m remind folks of the telephone number, 518-761-8225, and ask Laura if there are any written comments? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this Site Plan? I’m not seeing anyone. MR. DEEB-So what would you like to see, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean if I had my way I would just ask for more trees. MR. LAPPER-So Laura did give me a heads up today that we might be asked to put some more trees in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And we have authority to put more trees in. So Brandon can discuss what we have there and what would be appropriate to put in. MR. DEEB-Let’s hear it. MR. FERGUSON-So right now we are proposing leaving the existing large trees that remain there, and re- planting around the signs and around the transformer on this site. As far as existing trees, there’s oaks along Carey Road. We’re proposing adding another one to create some spacing between the oaks and there are some white pines behind there that remain. As far as supplemental plantings we could add, our thought process would be to supplement between those oaks with some shorter evergreen trees. MR. TRAVER-Can you be specific about numbers? MR. FERGUSON-So, I would say the spacing between those trees now is close to 40 feet. So we would probably look at adding like two or three trees in between them, kind of smaller evergreens. MR. VALENTINE-In between the existing oaks? MR. FERGUSON-In between the existing oaks. MR. VALENTINE-In line, just a straight line again? MR. FERGUSON-We could push them back a little bit, kind of push them back and maybe space in between the oaks, kind of fill in the gaps, but we could push it back a little bit further into that buffer. One of the things is he wants to plant most of this lawn to be able to mow around everything because we don’t want to do a bunch of little plantings everywhere. We want to make it somewhat easy to kind of maintain that area. So if we did little clusters of plants in between and maybe set back a little bit would be the idea. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-I have a question. Why did you pick white pine? MR. FERGUSON-Those are existing. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. That’s a good choice. MR. MAGOWAN-Those are good size, 13 inch, 14 inch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there are some existing trees there. MR. FERGUSON-All large trees that were there he left. He really went in there and essentially brush hogged it. Took out all the brush, the smaller stuff, a lot of it was like one, two inch diameter. MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m sure if his site is anything like next door, there was a lot of. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, a lot of really small stuff. MR. TRAVER-Virginia Creeper. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t see any of that, but I also wasn’t really looking for it. MR. DIXON-So you’re talking about staggering some evergreens between the oaks. What types of evergreens specifically? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. TRAVER-What caliper? MR. FERGUSON-I don’t remember. I think the Town has kind of a minimum caliper for a lot of their trees. Height wise I would think something around like four, five feet. If we do for planting purposes they grow a little bit bigger obviously. Something full grown would be like eight or nine. The thing is these buildings are kind of set a little bit lower than the road, too. So I don’t think they’d have to go real high to kind of block, create that buffer. They’re kind of sitting down below the road. The tall tree is probably going to actually do less if it grows up too high. MR. DEEB-Well, what size are you saying, five foot? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-With the ball or without the ball? MR. FERGUSON-I think they were measured without the ball. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, because we’ve asked for four foot trees and I’ve seen them planted and once you get them in the ground they’re two feet off the ground, and I’m like that\\s not what I wanted. I wanted four feet out of the ground, but a good place is that Lockhart Loop. Those hemlocks are gorgeous. MR. FERGUSON-They might be a little big. I mean, and hemlocks might be an option here, if we wanted them to grow a little higher. MR. VALENTINE-Hemlocks are a lot better than white pine. They’re going to be a filler tree. They’re going to grow and bush out. White Pine, man, they are just a skinny growth. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. SHAFER-They lose their branches. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-I would say a hemlock would be a better filler in between. We could kind of put a couple of hemlocks kind of setback between those oak trees. MR. DEEB-How many? MR. FERGUSON-I would say, there’s five spaces, two a space. MR. DEEB-Okay. Three new hemlocks. MR. MAGOWAN-Three or five? MR. DEEB-I heard three. MR. SHAFER-In each open. MR. DEEB-Yes, between the. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you look at it, there’s one, two, three, four, five, and you’re going to set them back. There’s five oaks. You go in between the oaks, and then you go over to the, you know, toward the entrance way there’d be five. So I’m happy with five. Are you happy with five? MR. FERGUSON-That’s good. MR. DEEB-Five total? MR. DEEB-Five trees? MR. MAGOWAN-What about hemlocks? We’re just talking hemlocks. MR. LAPPER-Brandon said two per space. So that would be 10. MR. DEEB-Okay. So you want each, MR. VALENTINE-Well, he said there’s 40 foot separation. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. FERGUSON-They bush out quite a bit, hemlocks. Give them a little room to grow, a little spacing out. MR. MAGOWAN-Don’t get those little gallon jugs, okay. I don’t want to see those little gallon jugs. MR. DEEB-So we’re, no pun intended, scrubbing the evergreens? MR. FERGUSON-We’re going to do hemlocks. They’re evergreens. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, hemlocks are evergreens. MR. TRAVER-Scraping the white pine and going with the hemlocks. MR. FERGUSON-The white pine are existing. So he’ll just leave those there as well. MR. TRAVER-So there’ll be a total of ten. MR. DEEB-Got it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else on landscape? All right. I guess we’re ready to hear the motion. MR. DEEB-You’ve got to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 46-2020 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to update the entry area landscaping as the previous approved landscaping was removed. The area is approximately 200 ft. in length and 45 ft. deep. The plans show a planting plan where some trees are to remain and new plantings to be installed – dogwood, junipers, summer sweet, black eyed susans and lawn. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/27/2020 and continued the public hearing to 10/27/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 10/27/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 46-2020 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) The applicant to install additional plantings to include a total of 10 trees at 5 ft. in height – 2 hemlocks to be placed in between the (5) oak trees. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of October 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Could you add at five feet or taller? MR. DEEB-Okay. Amend resolution to include (2) five foot hemlocks to be placed between oak trees for a total of ten hemlocks. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Let’s do that again. MR. TRAVER-Next we have West Side Storage, Site Plan Modification 47-2020. This is also under Unapproved Development. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 47-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WEST SIDE STORAGE. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP. OWNER(S): BLAUVELT HOUSING, LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 240 LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE THE ENTRY AREA LANDSCAPING AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 12,000 SQ. FT. ALONG LUZERNE ROAD. THE PLANS SHOW APPROXIMATELY FOUR TREES TO REMAIN AND PLANTING PLAN FOR NEW TREES AND OTHER PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF T HE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-2018 ACCESS RD.; SP 26-2017 & AV 25-2013 POLE BARN. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 6.56 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.2. SECTION: 179-9-120. JON LAPPER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Hello again. MR. LAPPER-The minutes are going to reflect the comments that we made at the beginning of the last application. It’s the same here. Bought by the same individual around the same time. Cleared at the same time. Brandon has prepared a planting plan. This one is a little different because there were some other trees that were removed by an adjacent neighbor here in the back, and those are being added as well. . MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I understand you’re willing to enhance the landscaping. We just need to figure out how many and where and how to go about doing that. We also have, I wanted to alert the public that we also have a public hearing on this application, and if you wish to call in for comment that number is 518-761-8225. So we’ll open that public hearing, and ask the Board to open it up for discussion. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. FERGUSON-This one, too, I can add, we are enhancing the buffer a little bit. On the rendering you kind of see when you first pull in the driveway off to the right there, has building up around a few existing trees. There’s some lower shrubs as well. It’s a little bit different than the last one, but we are looking at saving a number of trees in that area, kind of creating a planting bed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We just need to be specific in terms of type and numbers. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean this one there’s not as many existing trees left as the other one. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. FERGUSON-Right. MR. LAPPER-Was there something you want to propose, Brandon? MR. FERGUSON-Yes.. I mean I would kind of propose something similar with hemlocks and I would propose, we’re showing that maple there near kind of the road, and there’s an existing like a poplar tree. I’d put a buffer of hemlocks in there. It’s not quite as big of an area as on the other site. MR. DEEB-Brandon, we’re going to need a specific number. MR. FERGUSON-I’m thinking like five hemlocks in that area, kind of staggered and spread out. MR. DEEB-So to compromise we’ll say seven. MR. FERGUSON-Seven. MR. HUNSINGER-I like seven, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, a nice round number, and what about height? MR. DEEB-Same five foot height. MR. TRAVER-There you go. MR. MAGOWAN-Those Austrian Pines, do we call them scrub pines? Are they long needles. MR. FERGUSON-Are we proposing Austrian Pines over there? MR. MAGOWAN-No, no. I just saw them on the plans. Aren’t those, I always called them a scrub pine. MR. LAPPER-That’s a pine barren. That’s sandy soils. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, right. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, they grow out on the Cape a lot, too, but just not as tall as they do here. MR. VALENTINE-But they’re also at, anybody has Christmas tree farms. Austrian Pines are in there a lot. So they’re not like a junk pine. MR. MAGOWAN-But I guess if you prune them they’d look pretty nice. I can see the confusion of just cleaning it up, not knowing why we had it there. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean you have about 150 feet of road frontage and it’s about, you know, was about 50 feet deep. So there’s a lot of space in there for, I don’t think seven trees is outrageous. There’s certainly plenty of room for them. MR. DEEB-You said you wanted to cluster them? MR. FERGUSON-So we’d spread them ou6, but kind of in that general area between that other pine tree that we’re proposing and the right side. Kind of spread them out in there, kind of stagger them a little bit. MR. TRAVER-Bear in mind, we’re looking at buffering. That’s what we want. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And you’re still going to keep the proposed Red Oak. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’ll work. MR. DIXON-I’m just surprised you don’t use rhododendron or something to get you a flash of color at least somewhere along the line in there. MR. FERGUSON-That could be a possibility as well. They’re not going to be as big as a hemlock. They may not cover as much of an area. MR. VALENTINE-A nice Crimson King. Deep purple leaves on it. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. DIXON-Crimson King Maple? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-I think we are proposing some color as well around the sign. We’ll get the red twig dogwood. We’ve got irises, and we’ve got some more perennial type plants around the sign and on the other side there that little planting bed. So if you want something with more color I mean obviously you’d prefer some kind of evergreen, which a rhododendron is. MR. DIXON-Well that’s why I’m thinking even with the hemlocks that you’re proposing. If you stagger them, maybe you’re filling in between, you end up with a natural fence that gives you some color. It gives you some interest. You can use rhododendrons. You can use small leaf rhododendron so you can get color for probably a good three or four weeks in the spring, which would actually improve your property, too. MR. FERGUSON-Something like five hemlocks and three rhododendrons kind of spread out in there. MR. DEEB-You want the rhododendrons between the hemlocks, right? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. If we do seven hemlocks, we’re going to need five rhododendrons. MR. VALENTINE-Five rhododendrons. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments or questions? MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t talk at all about the landscaping on the side. MR. VALENTINE-Well, yes, that is something, too, and I thought you were going to take the before you, when you had mentioned that there wasn’t much on this one. MRS. MOORE-Could I add something? So there was a requirement in a previous approval in regards to the road that you can see on the west side of the property, and so I had identified this issue with the applicant and when they were updating the front entrance I said, no there are some trees that are required, and so those are the trees that had been required on the side. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was required on the prior Site Plan approval? Yes, okay. MR. DEEB-So are we okay? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay. I don’t have a strong feeling about that. MR. TRAVER-I think we’re all set. MR. DEEB-Okay. MRS. MOORE-You need to close your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Were there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right.. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 47-2020 WEST SIDE STORAGE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to update the entry area landscaping as previously approved landscaping has been removed. The area is approximately 12,000 sq. ft. along Luzerne Road. The plans show approximately four trees to remain and planting plan for new trees and other plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/27/2020 and continued the public hearing to 10/27/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 10/27/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 4-2020 WEST SIDE STORAGE; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) The applicant to install additional plantings to include 7 hemlock trees at 5 ft. in height staggered and 5 evergreen shrub i.e. rhododendron to be placed in between the evergreens located at the front of the property east of the sign. th Motion seconded by Mike Valentine. Duly adopted this 27 day of October 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to thank you guys for working with us. MR. TRAVER-Next we have AREC-34, LLC/UHAUL, Site Plan 4-2020 and Special Use Permit 1-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2020 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2020 SEQR TYPE: COMPLETED. AREC 34, LLC – UHAUL. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP; JON LAPPER OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 308 DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT 69,120 SQ. FT. OF AN EXISTING 170,130 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR INTERIOR STORAGE OF 661 UNITS. A PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO INCLUDE OTHER RELATED UHAUL OPERATIONS – 2,100 SQ. FT. U-BOX STORAGE, 1,240 SQ. FT. DISPATCH AND RETURN AREA, 2,760 SQ. FT. UHAUL STORE AND BOXES, RENTAL VEHICLES AND TRAILER PROCESSING. THE PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES A 20’ X 40’, 19 FT. HIGH GREEN CANVAS CANOPY FOR VEHICLE RETURN AND PICK UP AND 12 SELF- STORAGE BUILDINGS FOR 216 UNITS. OTHER SITE MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE UPDATED PARKING AND TRAFFIC FLOW CONFIGURATION, REPAIRS AND CLEAN UP OF CURBING, CATCH BASINS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. BUILDING FAÇADE UPDATE WITH CORPORATE UHAUL IMAGE – CREAM, ORANGE AND GREENISH COLOR SCHEME AND ORANGE FAÇADE DOORS ON ROOF AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) ZONING ORDINANCE, A NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 33-1993, UV 59-1994, PZ 798-2019 PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2020. LOT SIZE: 29.35 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-71. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & BRANDON FERGUSON, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant recently received information about the change of zone that allows interior self-storage, and in that case the applicant proposes to convert 69,120 sq. ft. of an existing building for interior storage of 661 units. In addition there are other UHaul related operations which includes a U-Box storage, a dispatch and return area, a UHaul store and boxes, rental vehicles and trailer processing. They also have exterior storage that includes 12 self storage buildings for 216 units and the Board had previously identified some concerns on the site and the applicant is prepared to discuss them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. This time we have representatives of UHaul to address specific questions, but Brandon did submit a revised site plan after the last time we were here. We were delayed, as Laura said, because we had to deal with the Town Board on re-zoning for interior self-storage in a Commercial Light Industrial zone, and we had to address the garage door issue. We got that settled with Craig Brown. MR. FERGUSON-I know it’s been quite a while since we’ve been in front of you guys with this with everything going on, but we did make some changes. I know one of the big requests from the Board was to remove those outdoor storage buildings along Dix Ave. up in this area up in here which we did. We got rid of those up there and moved all the outdoor access self-storage into that one kind of cluster there. We came back with some updated elevation views of the buildings, with renderings. Some of the parking lot changed around a little bit. We clarified whereabouts they’re planning on queueing, storing the vehicles, rentals that are going to go in and out. They don’t store them very long, obviously. They’re kind of, the goal is to have them constantly on the road, not sitting there, so they’re not long term storage. And so elevation views, we’ve provided them for all the sides of them we provided renderings. Overall the plan is still to be used as interior self-storage. Not a lot of changes, but. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-877 units. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. DEEB-Wow. MR. TRAVER-That’s amazing. MR. DEEB-And 661 inside, which is an increase from 641. MR. FERGUSON-That’s correct. There was a slight increase in that. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-I think it’s about the same square footage, MR. DEEB-I mean the climate control ones I can really see. There must be a need for those. People love those, but 877 and 216 are going to be outside, and one of the questions I had was, if you can go back to the other, the site plan. The storage units are going toward Quaker in the middle, and then you’ve got some empty space in the bottom. Is there any reason you didn’t want to put them down? MR. LAPPER-So that empty space on the bottom is for future outdoor storage of like boats and recreational vehicles underneath the covered top, but that’s not a permitted use in the zone. So it’s not part of our approval yet. MR. TRAVER-You’re just reserving it. MR. LAPPER-Reserving that. MR. DEEB-Well my point is you know how I feel on storage units. I guess you’ve got my opinion. That’s why you four guys came up after. We’re loaded for bear and here you are. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. LAPPER-The difference is this is a Commercial Light Industrial zone. So we’re next to auto on the other side. MR. DEEB-Yes, Jon, I understand that, but storage, this is a visible corner, very visible corner, one of the primary visible corners in all of the Town of Queensbury and it’s just got to look good. People come into the Town. They’re going to see this. This is the first thing they’re going to see, and it goes back to what Mike was saying about appearance on this, and I hate to be a stickler on it, but. MR. LAPPER-Well we did add a whole bunch of maple trees and street trees. MR. DEEB-Well I’m talking about the building itself. MR. LAPPER-We have berms and planting beds and we here to talk about that. MR. DEEB-But that’s not going to hide the building. I mean. MR. LAPPER-Well, they’re along the self-storage units that are outside now, planting beds and berms. MR. DEEB-So they’ll partially obstruct the building. MR. LAPPER-Partially. MR. DEEB-I just think they’ve got to be done tastefully to go there. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. And I’ll remind the public again, if you wish to call in on this, the number is 518-761-8225., and ask, Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and we don’t have an audience anymore. So we don’t have to worry about them. MR. MAGOWAN-I’d like to make a comment. Thank you for making those changes. Really. I appreciate you taking them off over there on Dix Avenue. You tucked them behind the building which really helped. There is quite a bit of land, I don’t want to say quite a bit of land, but there’s a good grass area there on the Quaker Road side and I just was looking for the, do we have planting on this? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. I think that’s on Sheet Two of the plan set. MR. VALENTINE-I think that was discussed at one of the meetings before, and Brad, I think both you and I had mentioned about the gradient that comes off of Quaker, and talking about, and I haven’t looked at it yet to see what plantings, but I know we did talk about something going back in that area. I don’t know if you can comment on that. Because I was looking on here, too, to see if, and you’re saying Sheet Two. MR. FERGUSON-Actually, no, I’m sorry about that. It’s actually Sheet Three. Sheet Two is existing. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. FERGUSON-So what we’re proposing is a number of Red Maples. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, they are, seven of them. MR. FERGUSON-A number of Red Maples along Quaker then extending a little bit in front of these parking areas here. I think at one point we actually had a building here as well that we removed, and then closer to the building we’re proposing a little bit lower type plants. We have winterberry, which you know can get sizeable, as well as. MR. MAGOWAN-Not to interrupt you, but some of the trees on that, I think they call them like a tear drop or a pear tree. I don’t know, but I planted one at my house. MR. VALENTINE-Did you get any pears? MR. MAGOWAN-No, but the thing grows like four feet a year. It’s amazing. I mean I planted it and now it’s like this big around, but they have the same trees up there. They look like a tear drop and for some reason I don’t even remember, I have two of them. I have one that looks like a tear drop and then one that looks like a cone, but they grow immensely and quickly. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. FERGUSON-Are you saying there’s one there now on this corner? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, there were some up there in that parking lot in the curb cuts and that. Don’t quote me. They might be back, but I know they’re in that corner because I used to go to the car shows up there. MR. VALENTINE-The one building, and I’ve got to say, I’m going to sound like Brad in here. I do want to commend you guys on the changes, because I remember I strongly voiced my opposition to what was there as far as the out buildings and the appearance, and this area right here where the red maples are going. So I commend you on that. The use is there. The use is what it is as far as those self-storage units. They’re not the most favorable, but there is a wide expanse of property there that could end up being left unused at all for a number of years if something didn’t go in there. I think that this Board and Staff go a long way into looking at color schemes, signage, things like that. The Board has always been, since I’ve been here and hearing about different color schemes on something like a Walmart or other buildings like that. So I think that the buildings there, that they’ve gone through, going through with Staff and looking at them and looking at the colors. I mean that’s a big building. There are a lot of units in there, but I think that’s going to be important as far as that appearance. What do you do with it? That is going to be critical for the use of this building and those other interior, I liked it. Again, not that I’m thrilled about those outside storage units, all right, but to have them where they are in one long length rather than hit and miss here and there. The only question I did come up with when you said you did remove one I asked about, you removed those buildings, I didn’t look, I’m trying to look in here and see what is that now. Is that just going to be a grassed area? Right along. MR. MAGOWAN-Along Dix Avenue. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-Up in this area here? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So that’s going to be a, kind of. BEN NAAKTGEBOREN MR. NAAKTGEBOREN-It’s going to be where we have our rental equipment. So we did add some landscaping. It’s going to be mainly our rental fleet lined up for customer view. My name’s Ben Naaktgeboren. I’m with UHaul Company of Eastern New York. MR. DEEB-Okay. You brought it up, Mike, and I hate to be the Devil’s advocate, but, yes, the appearance is so important and we had a fiasco on Quaker Road with colors at one point, and not that this isn’t attractive, but the orange really stands out, and I know that’s U-Haul’s colors, but when I first read about the green roof I said, oh my God, and then I saw the rendering, and that looks nice, and I would like to see a more muted color, earth tone, rather than orange, so it doesn’t glare out at you, and I also looked at the drawing. Over on Main Street you’ve got that big canopy, which you propose to put here also. I’ve got to say I’m not a big fan of that. That to me just glares. It just doesn’t look good, and I don’t know if that’s something you can deal with, and I don’t want to say at cost, but if there’s a way to permanently put, not permanently, but maybe a type of building that looks more attractive than just that canopy that sits there. Those are the two things that I’m concerned about. If these colors were more earth toned or more muted, I think that the building would look really good, but again, that’s just my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-See I don’t have a problem with the orange. I don’t like the teal. MR. DEEB-So here we go. I like the teal. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t like the teal color. I like the, I don’t have the paint colors out in front of me, the green colors I think is nice. It’s hard for us as a Board to pick colors. MRS. MOORE-Am I correct that the roofing is existing? Is that teal color existing? MR. NAAKTGEBOREN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That’s an existing condition. MR. DEEB-Can you address the canopy a little bit? Is there an alternative to that? MR. FERGUSON-As a color? MR. DEEB-Just the canopy itself. I’m not a fan of that canopy at all. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. NAAKTGEBOREN-It’s our standard. It’s to protect our fleet from the elements when they’re returning a truck. MR. DEEB-Is there a place that you could put it that’s not so visible? MR. NAAKTGEBOREN-Based on where I show it is that that’s kind of where it fits for the flow of our equipment, from walking a thousand steps a day walking to and from the return area. There may be another option. I haven’t done one myself, so I would have to get some more detail on that. MR. DEEB-Rather than eliminate it, if you could replace it, put it somewhere else on the property. Again, I don’t know if the rest of the Board feels the same way. These are just my pet peeves. I’m only one guy. MR. VALENTINE-You mean the canopy on that piece that I was just saying about where the building was removed? MR. DEEB-I don’t know. I can’t seem to find it here on the drawings. MR. FERGUSON-If you go back to Sheet Three, it’s up in here. This is Dix Ave. over here. This is that area where the buildings were removed. So in this area here, this is their show room and their hitch area. This is kind of, and here’s their shunting area where people come in, pick up their vehicle and leave. Here’s where they pull in to return it, and then his crew comes out, cleans the vehicle, does what they need to do and then heads out. MR. TRAVER-And that’s where the canopy is. MR. FERGUSON-And that’s where the canopy is. MR. DEEB-You can’t use like a roof, you know what I mean, a carport? MR. HUNSINGER-A carport. Yes. MR. DEEB-Type of thing with wood on it or something instead of the canopy? MR. FERGUSON-Like a more permanent structure? MR. DEEB-Yes. a more permanent structure. MR. FERGUSON-Based off the existing building. MR. DEEB-It would flow better than what’s on there. It looks like a temporary tent. And that’s what bothers me. MR. LAPPER-So if it was a permanent structure with four posts? MR. DEEB-Yes, that would look blended in and look nice. MR. NAAKTGEBOREN-I’m sure we could work that out. MR. DEEB-I’ll acquiesce on the colors if you do that. How’s that. MR. VALENTINE-This isn’t a trade and bargaining. MR. LAPPER-Ben’s agreed to that. So that we’ll make that a permanent structure instead. MR. DEEB-Good. MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. Between Two and Three, all right. MR. VALENTINE-Two and a half. Between two and three, what, Brad. I’m sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m wondering One and Three, One and Two, between One and Two, with a Three at the end. On Number One, where we had you move that stuff and you took the parking away closest to Dix Avenue, but on Two, Three they’re showing there. MR. FERGUSON-Two and Three it’s showing removal as planned. That’s showing the existing conditions, and there’s a few islands that are getting removed, just to make like something work in that area, they’re going to remove that island. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-So this is what we’re going by, One. MR. FERGUSON-One is the Site Plan . Two is just existing conditions. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I just saw the two and I wasn’t sure. I was looking for the removal. All right. So thank you. I personally, this is a big U-Haul, probably one of the biggest one’s I’ve seen, and I think it’s going to look nice over there. I’m just happy that we’re actually utilizing that parking lot for something because that has just been a weed tumbler for years. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And I know this was the first big super store that came in and we just thought people were going to drive in from Montana and go shopping there, but it didn’t happen, but I really think, I mean and you’ve been using it, you know, and I see the trucks there, and it’s just so nice to actually see something there, and really Main Street, Main Street doesn’t really bother me that much. I like the colors. The colors are, you brought in some more tans, and the flow with the oranges, and I really think that’s a busy little spot over there, but this, with the indoor/outdoor, this is quite a huge venture, and I’m looking forward to seeing it go over there. So thank you for your time and patience, especially for all you had to do to get in the building with the Codes. Yes, if you could do something with that canopy, I’m not a big fan of it, but, you know, I understand why you need it, but I would get something that, make it big enough so you can get the trucks in so they can be comfortable and even have done some roll down sheers or something for the bad weather. I mean protect your employees. Okay. MR. DEEB-Is Main Street staying? MR. NAAKTGEBOREN-It is. MR. DEEB-It is? You’re going to have both places. MR. NAAKTGEBOREN-We are. We’re hoping this will just take some of the burden off that store. MR. DEEB-You’re pretty crowded over there on Main Street. Yes. MR. DIXON-Can I make a suggestion. So you’re planning a lot of vegetation along Dix Avenue. MR. LAPPER-On both sides. MR. DIXON-What we’re seeing in other places in Town, especially with hemlocks, and obviously these aren’t hemlocks, but if one species starts to die out, then you lose all of them. Would you consider, instead of doing all red maples, maybe you alternate with a gingko or something, just so if a blight comes through, and I know personally I lost a maple tree to leaf It was a beautiful tree, a beautiful specimen, but I actually lost that and I actually lost a red maple in close proximity to it. So I’d throw that out, as well as the closer you get to the road, if you use a lot of salt around here. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, and I don’t see any reason why we can’t do every other. Red maples look good. We can definitely switch them out with something else if you guys prefer. If you prefer any type of hardwood, let us know. We’re more than willing to switch out with the species. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s a really good point. Yes. We’ve never really talked about that before, but it makes sense. MR. DIXON-You want something maintenance free along the berm. You don’t want to be out there re- planting every three years and unfortunately a lot of people don’t. MR. DEEB-So you want to use alternate, you want use maple and what else? MRS. MOORE-I would just say another Code compliant species. MR. VALENTINE-There you go. MR. FERGUSON-That works. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Code compliant hardwood species? MR. VALENTINE-Deciduous, you mean. MR. MAGOWAN-Deciduous. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MRS. MOORE-Yes, I just don’t want to get caught up identifying a species that’s an invasive, and not knowing it’s invasive. I apologize I don’t know them all. MR. TRAVER-We haven’t received any phone calls. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on the lighting plan? MR. FERGUSON-So the lighting plan is relatively simple. The poles right now are 40 feet in height. We have to lower them. So they’re going to lower them and replace the fixtures on them with LED fixtures. I think our foot candles ended up being like an average of two, just a little under what the Code requires. MRS. MOORE-So we were addressing the average of the site. It wasn’t on the lighting plan itself. I think that may be what Chris is asking for. MR. FERGUSON-It should be on that lighting plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s really hard to read. MR. FERGUSON-I think it’s up in a little table at the top, it says average is about two. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. FERGUSON-And with this type of use, you’re not getting, a I think two is a reasonable number. You’ll be able to see. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean that’s an old store. Back when that was built we put the lighting like 40 feet in the air. We wanted to light up the whole world. MR. LAPPER-Just because they’re there, they want to do the right thing. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. DIXON-No, I think this is a nice project. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-It is. It’s sat there vacant for a while. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s going to be nice. So are we ready for a motion? MR. DEEB-I think so. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 4-2020 SUP # 1-2020 AREC-34, LLC – UHAUL The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to convert 69,120 sq. ft. of an existing 170,130 sq. ft. building for interior storage of 661 units. A portion of the building to include other related Uhaul operations – 2,100 sq. ft. U-Box storage, 1,240 sq. ft. dispatch and return area, 2,760 sq. ft. Uhaul store and boxes, rental vehicles and trailer processing. The project site work includes a 20’ x 40’, 19 ft. high green canvas canopy for vehicle return and pick up and 12 self-storage buildings for 216 units. Other site modifications include updated parking and traffic flow configuration, repairs and cleanup of curbing, catch basins and stormwater management. Building façade update with corporate Uhaul image - cream, orange and greenish color scheme and orange façade doors on roof area. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, a new commercial use 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; 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/27/2020 and continued the public hearing to 10/27/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 10/27/2020; 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 4-2020 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2020 AREC 34, LLC/UHAUL; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) The canopy proposed be replaced with a permanent structure to blend in with the other buildings. m) The applicant to alternate the maples proposed on Dix Avenue and Quaker Road with another code compliant deciduous species. th Motion seconded by Mike Valentine. Duly adopted this 27 day of October 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I just want to clarify the Board often discusses the color scheme of the building, and you touched upon it and I just want to make sure the color scheme on the façade that you discussed, are you adding anything? MR. DEEB-Chris and I disagreed. So I guess we’re caught in the middle. I gave in on that concession. It looks good. I just like muted tones, but I’m fine with that. It’s not glaring. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t think it’s garish either 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2020) MR. DEEB-It’s not garish. MR. HUNSINGER-Sometimes I think you have to look at it as its own standalone project. And clearly this site is a standalone site. MR. DEEB-Yes, and those are U Haul colors. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it’s commercial. MR. VALENTINE-Unless we were to go to certain design standards that were Town wide, we wouldn’t have anything to stand on because we wind up with our own things and our personal preferences, and that’s dangerous. MR. HUNSINGER-Well we do have standards in the Comprehensive Plan for different sections of Town. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m happy with it. MR. DEEB-If Brad’s happy then it’s a go. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other discussion? MR. SHAFER-In the Staff Notes there’s an issue about sign size, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. That’ll come back at a later date. Not necessarily to this Board. It’ll come to the Zoning Board because they need several sign variances. Those will occur at a later time. They’re not part of this project. They’re not part of your approval. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone. MR. DEEB-Okay. Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. NAAKTGEBOREN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Before we adjourn, I just wanted to mention that, as Laura reminded us, she’s going to be doing some training next month on Work Place Violence, and I think she’s hoping to do it on our second meeting next month. So we’ll do that then. Also immediately before the Board meeting, the Planning th Board meeting on the 17, there’s a technology committee meeting. Everybody’s welcome to attend that. I’ll send out a reminder at some point during the month, and if there’s nothing else, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. MAGOWAN-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2020, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 29