The URL can be used to link to this page

07-27-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 33-2021 333 Cleverdale, LLC/Sans Souci 1. Special Use Permit 2-2021 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43,; 226.12-1-44 Site Plan No. 34-2021 Laphatt Holdings 2. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30.3 Site Plan No. 9-2021 Trevor Flynn 5. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48 Site Plan No. 41-2021 Kent & Cheryl Smith 10. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-33 Site Plan No. 40-2021 David & Pamela Way 13. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-23 Site Plan No. 44-2021 Artisan Ink/Melissa Freebern 16. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14 Site Plan No. 43-2021 Foothills Builders 18. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.7-2-2 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 07/27/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting thth for Tuesday, July 27, 2021. This is our second meeting for July and our 15 meeting thus far in 2021. We may have an alternative set of items on our agenda this evening, only in that some of the representatives are at another Planning Board meeting in Lake George and may be here a little bit late. So we may rearrange a few items, as needed, to get through our agenda this evening. We do have, we have no administrative items. We do have, the first item on our agenda is going to be tabled, and I also want to remind everyone if you have an electronic device, a tablet or other electronic device, please turn the ringer off or turn the device off entirely. You see the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency that is the way out. There are a few items that have public hearings this evening. We’ll call those as they occur. So we’ll move to our agenda. The first section of our agenda is Tabled Items, and the first item is 333 Cleverdale LLC, Sans Souci. This is going to be tabled I understand this evening. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 33-2021 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING – TOM CENTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD & 337 CLEVERDALE ROAD. REVISED: APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF OUTDOOR SEATING AREA OF 24 SEATS FOR THE RESTAURANT BUT OCCURRING ON THE ADJACENT PARCEL (337 CLEVERDALE RD.). THE RESTAURANT (333 CLEVERDALE RD.) HAD PREVIOUS APPROVALS FOR 105 SEATS – THAT IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. SEATING LOCATION TO OCCUR ON THE MAIN FLOOR AND OUTDOORS – AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO BE USED FOR WAITING AREA OF 10 PEOPLE MAXIMUM – NO SEATING ON FIRST FLOOR. RESTAURANT PARCEL SUBJECT TO AREA VARIANCE FOR PERMEABILITY (333 CLEVERDALE RD.) ADJACENT PARCEL (337 CLEVERDALE RD.) SUBJECT TO AREA VARIANCE FOR PERMEABILITY, DENSITY AND SETBACKS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-4-090 & 179.10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOOD SERVICE IN A WR ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 38-2009, SUP 45-2009, SUP 9-2012, AV 28-2012, AV 28-2021, AV 32- 2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .27 ACRE & .15 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43, 226.12-1-44. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179- 4-090, 179.10. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The first item is 333 and 337 Cleverdale Road and the application at the Zoning Board of Appeals, 333 is the restaurant parcel itself. That was removed from the variance review. So they no longer needed the variance review, and then 337 was withdrawn. So the applicant has asked for the application in front of the Planning Board to be tabled so that they can re-evaluate their project and come up with either an alternative site plan for you or I’m not quite sure what they’re going to do from here. st MR. TRAVER-Yes. That’s quite a site up there. So in any case they requested a tabling to September 21. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And I think we have a motion to that effect. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 33-2021 SUP 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) Revised: Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating area of 24 seats for the restaurant but occurring on the adjacent parcel (337 Cleverdale Rd.). The restaurant (333 Cleverdale Rd.) had previous approvals for 105 seats – that is to remain with no changes. Seating location to occur on the main floor and outdoors – area on the first floor to be used for waiting area of 10 people maximum – no seating on first floor. Restaurant parcel subject to area variance for permeability (333 Cleverdale Rd.). Adjacent parcel (337 Cleverdale Rd.) subject to area variance for permeability, density and setbacks. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040, 179-4-090 & 179.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, food service in a WR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Request is made by the applicant for further tabling to September 21, 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 33-2021 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the September 21, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by August 16, 2021. th Duly adopted this 27 day of July 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-And just for information, typically we open the public hearing, table it. In this case because the project may change in its manner, we’ll probably re-announce that public hearing again as well as send out those notices. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I actually, I think it may still be open from a previous tabling. This is not the first time that we’ve tabled it, but in any case we’ll let the audience know, if you’re here to comment on that application, they will be coming back in September and there will be a public hearing at that time and I guess that will be advertised as well in advance. MR. SHAFER-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? The Staff Notes show a considerable change in the project since we saw it last. Will there be additional changes beyond what’s’ in the Staff Notes? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Because they’ve cut it in half from 48 to 24. MRS. MOORE-Yes. For the number of seats. So they’ll demonstrate the number of, where that seating is located. Because what they did with the seating is they removed it from both parcels. So it’s only on one parcel for the outdoor seating because they wanted to have the residential parcel to have the outdoor seating. MR. SHAFER-It was going to be confined to the patio. MRS. MOORE-Correct, on the residential parcel. MR. SHAFER-The question is will there be changes beyond that? Do we know? MRS. MOORE-Yes, there will be. MR. TRAVER-So we have a tabling motion I believe that was seconded. Is there any further discussion? Maria, can you call the vote for us please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next we have Laphatt Holdings, Site Plan 34-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. LAPHATT HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): TOM CENTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: NR. LOCATION: MANOR DRIVE. SEQR: PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CAN PROCEED WITH SEQRA REVIEW. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS. EACH BUILDING IS TO BE 3,200 SQ. FT. WITH EACH UNIT TO HAVE A GARAGE, TWO BEDROOMS AND A DRIVEWAY ONTO MANOR DRIVE. THE SITE IS TO HAVE TWO ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND EACH BUILDING IS TO BE CONNECTED TO WATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MULTI- FAMILY BUILDINGS IN THE NR ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 33-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: .87 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30.3. SECTION: 179-3-040. MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Laphatt Holdings. This was in front of you last week for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. We appeared before the Zoning Board last Wednesday tonight and received the variance for the requested density on this lot. We’re back in front of this Board for your review at this point. I believe, I wasn’t here, I was in Lake George last week. I was stuck at another meeting, and I think Tom Center was here and addressed a bunch of comments, but if you have anymore, let me know what you have. We did have a letter back I believe from Chazen for your review and there were two very minor comments that Tom Center said weren’t an issue. There was doing a little bit more soil testing during the installation of the stormwater devices just to confirm. We have done test pits there for the septic and stormwater, and they just recommended a couple of additional test pits get done and we can definitely accommodate that and I think that was the only comment back from them, and I don’t know if Tom sent a letter or a notice back to Laura, but he said he had zero issues with that and he told us that at the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, and, Laura, I neglected to give you a chance to comment and introduce this. MRS. MOORE-There was no new information to add. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Can you even dig a test pit over there without it collapsing in? Isn’t it pretty sandy? MR. STEVES-Yes. Everybody remembers this area back in the Indian Ridge days when we were doing 30, 40 foot deep test pits and it’s sand. MR. TRAVER-30 to 40 foot. Wow. MR. VALENTINE-Matt, I had it down last week on my notes, I think it was Toms stated that he was here for Matt Steves as one of the owners. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VALENTINE-You are> MR. STEVES-Definitely. MRS. MOORE-Just as a reminder, you will need to open a public hearing for this portion. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. So there is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Planning Board on the Laphatt Holdings on Manor Drive application? I’m not seeing any. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We did conduct SEQR. This went before the ZBA. Are there any follow up questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I just have one question. In the landscaping plan you show trees sort of between the units. Is there any room on the Farr Lane side to put a couple of street trees in? MR. STEVES-Yes. As I think we explained when we were here the very first time for the Zoning Board, the reason we chose this layout instead of having the big garage in the back where the rest of them along Manor Drive are that way, is so that we can leave about a 20 foot tree buffer along Farr Lane and I have no problem in-filling that in areas where it’s a little sparse with a few more trees. I have no issue with that. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my only question. MR. DEEB-And we have the lighting plan. All lights to be Code compliant. MR. STEVES-The only lights that would be on here would be down lit, downcast surface lights on the front of each of the buildings on the garages and on the entrance doors right there. They’ll all be downcast, LED type lights. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you do show a post light. MR. STEVES-We were looking at a post lamp in the center of each of those little islands, just to keep the streets. MR. HUNSINGER-It would still be downcast. MR. STEVES-They will all be downcast. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there are no other questions, we’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: The applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two on-site septic systems and each building is to be connected to water. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction of new multi- family buildings in the NR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 07/20/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 07/21/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 06/22/2021 and continued the public hearing to 07/27/2021, 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 07/27/2021; 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 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are consider reasonable as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant has provided these items: g. site lighting, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, 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: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) 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) No less than two trees (evergreen or deciduous) to be filled in on Farr Lane. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of July 2021 by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want to mention filling of shrubberies or anything? MR. DEEB-Is that on the site? Do you want to condition that? MR. MAGOWAN-What did you say you were going to do along Farr Lane, kind of fill in where needed? MR. STEVES-Yes. It’s fairly wooded in there now, but I agree, it will clean it up and make it look nice and take out some of the brushy stuff. I want to leave the larger trees. So there’s a couple of spots that are kind of thinning. I have no problem stating that I will plant or replace evergreens or something along those lines. I can fill in there, mostly deciduous trees. I don’t know if it’s going to be two or six, but any area that is sparse I can fill in. It is pretty thick there. MR. DEEB-Should we quantify it? MRS. MOORE-Maybe something no less than two and no more than six and it can be a mix between evergreen and deciduous. MR. MAGOWAN-But if you need to put ten in you can do that, too. You always keep your properties nice anyway. MR. STEVES-I’m speaking for the applicant which is myself. MR. DEEB-Matt, is that the Farr Lane side? MR. MAGOWAN-The Farr Lane side. Correct. MR. DEEB-Okay. I’m going to amend the resolution. L. No less than two trees to be filled in on Farr Lane. MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll second it. MR. TRAVER-We have a motion made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Maria, can you call the vote for us, please. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda, also under Tabled Items, we have Trevor Flynn, Site Plan 9-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TREVOR FLYNN. AGENT(S): BRANDON FERGUSON, EDP; JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): DANIEL GRASMEDER. ZONING: WR. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) LOCATION: 3222 RT. 9L. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 884 SQ. FT. LIVING ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, A 436 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BREEZEWAY/MUDROOM ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME CONNECTING THE EXISTING 1,315 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MASTER BEDROOM THEN ALTERATIONS TO THE THIRD FLOOR TO INCLUDE A 48 SQ. FT. STUDY NOOK AND A NEW ROOF OVER THE EXISTING BATHROOM AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITH THE UPPER LEVEL GARAGE AREA OF 576 SQ. FT., LOWER LEVEL OF GARAGE AREA 644 SQ. FT., AND WORKSHOP AREA OF 644 SQ. FT. (GARAGE 1,220 SQ. FT.) AND HEIGHT TO BE 18 FT. 11 ½ INCHES. EXISTING FLOOR AREA 3,388 SQ. FT., MEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,458 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 AND 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43-2002, AV 27-2002, AV 76-2002, ALL RE: GARAGE/GUEST COTTAGE; AV 8-2021; AV 29-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-060, CHAPTER 147. TREVOR FLYNN, PRESENT; DANIEL GRASMEDER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application had been sent back to the Zoning Board of Appeals in relation to the APA denying the Area Variance for the application that included housing renovations as well as a second garage. The Zoning Board was shown a new application in the sense that it still maintained renovations to the house and a second garage. The tabling at the Zoning Board, again, was in reference to the second garage. The applicant went back to the drawing board, reduced the height, made it even a little bit smaller. So in front of you what you have the final product with the smaller garage, smaller height and the same renovations to the house and the Zoning Board granted that at their last meeting. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I will recuse myself from this item. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Just for the record, Mike Dixon will be sitting in. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mike. Jamie, did you have a question? MS. WHITE-Well, I guess I’m still confused by this italics and APA withdrawing. MRS. MOORE-So what happens is, because it’s an Area Variance that’s in the Adirondack Park, the application for variance is subject to, once they’re decided at the local level, they’re sent along to the APA for them to review. They have an option to deny an applicant. They came back with that the Zoning Board did not take a hard look at the relief requested for the house renovations and in this case the second time around the Zoning Board as well as the applicant concentrated on those house renovations and why they needed to occur instead of doing a teardown/rebuild. They explained the function of the existing house and its condition as a Great Camp I think would be the terminology that we could use, and so they wanted to maintain that style of house and then with the second garage they wanted to maintain that same architectural appearance, and so when it does ultimately go back to the APA, hopefully they will get through that process because the Zoning Board and the applicant took a hard look at both items for the renovations to the house as well as the second garage. MS. WHITE-But at this point in time it has not received approval from the APA? MRS. MOORE-And that’s the process. It has to go through local review first. And then it gets moved along to the APA. And so the APA doesn’t necessarily look at what the Planning Board says. They only look at what the Zoning Board says about it. MR. FLYNN-Technically there is not enough written in the resolution in regards to the house, as more was discussed and focused on the detached garage at the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-This only the second time that I’m aware of that the APA has declined the variance request from the Town of Queensbury. We were happy for the first one, the Planning Board was. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well in any case, welcome back. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. Trevor Flynn with Balzer & Tuck and Dan Grasmeder as well. I know Brandon Ferguson is one of the other representatives that is in Lake George and hopefully on his way. I do want to state that we did get our signoff approval from Chazen as they reviewed the entire application. I believe that was a while ago, though. I recall that they had signed off and reviewed it. So I’m hoping there’s not too many technical questions. I’d be happy to try to dive into that, but I can just briefly walk you through the project to date as a refresher. I’ll show you the improvements that we have made. So to re-acquaint you, Page Three, please. So there’s an existing camp built in the 1920’s in this area and then there was a detached garage built in 2003. What we’re currently proposing on the left is attaching the existing house to the detached garage with a mud room link, and then also a small addition towards the west, southwest area that is setback further than the previously existing footprint. And then also further, going back one slide, is the detached garage, which is roughly 200 feet away from the lake, and then another plus or minus 120 feet from a small stream, brook to the south as well. Back to Page 3. I think it’s important to note all of the improvements that we have performed to the site thus far. There were previously, you’ll see on some upcoming images, this entire area was a driveway within the 75 foot setback, and you’ll see little areas of impervious ledge rock as well. That doesn’t count towards our calculations but I think it’s important to note that in front of the Board, and since then all of this water was essentially coming down this driveway and into Lake George. So what we’ve done is we’ve introduced a lot of rain gardens and buffers. We’ve reduced the impervious coverage within that 75 foot setback. So this red area indicated on both the drawings, we’ve reduced it by 40% within that setback. There are no longer any impervious driveways within that setback as well. We’ve used permeable pavers to achieve that. So jumping to the next slide. This is the one area to the north. This is the existing detached garage, and as you’ll notice there’s very little lawn throughout between the driveway. It’s all ledge rock, and now what we’re proposing, when we go back to the site plan, you’ll see that the addition actually buffers that from Lake George and stops the runoff from occurring and retrieving that. Other areas you’ll still notice as well large amounts of ledge rock on both sides. It’s a pretty impervious site overall. Next drawing. Again, this is the view. That’s the detached garage. You’ll see more ledge rock in between some of these grass areas and the pavement, and then on the opposite side of this truck you’ll see in the next slide, please, is where the sheet drain off was occurring and it was going directly down into the grass and out towards the lake. Next slide. So it might be hard to see, but this is the view from the lake. There’s a lot of wooded areas that exist and existing shoreline buffers that remain, and there’s also a smaller shoreline buffer in front of the grass and what you’ll see in the up and coming slides is what we did is we basically found those weak spots of the shoreline buffer and introduced plantings in those areas to build up the vegetation. It could be hard to see but this is that rough area where we do have some existing shoreline vegetation. You can see how the house is kind of nicely tucked into the wooded area overall. Next slide please. So in green is the rough outline of the existing wooded areas, and previously where that existing driveway was is now buffered by grass swales, rain gardens, additional plantings to aid in any potential runoff off of the permeable paver areas and then also finding those weak spots towards the lake and enforcing them with more plantings. Besides just the vegetative buffer drawing we’ve also introduced more percolation in front of the building, and if you. If you recall that other previous image it was all just grass in front of the house. We’ve added drip strips and plantings as well as treated some of the runoff from the existing portion of the house. The permeable pavers will do that at the addition area. Next slide. So again just a reminder of where the house is on the lake and the additional stormwater measures that we put in and also the detached garage further back on the site. It’s kind of a two tiered garage, a bank barn design, then tuck it into the hill. There’s a lot of existing ledge rock and it’s a wooded area as well. Trying to limit that disturbance as much as possible, and on our upper level you’ll see a road but it’s more or less a grass paved area to really keep it wooded and kind of also tuck that entrance away from most people. It’s really where he stores all of his classic cars and works on them and kind of tinkers if you will for years on end. I’m sure Dan could dive into more detail of what he does on the cars as needed, but for the most part he still takes the cars to like a Jiffy Lube to get oil changes and there really isn’t any hazardous waste done within the garage area. It’s really renovating and working on the fabrics, seats of the cars and restoration to the cars. MR. MAGOWAN-Adjusting the points and the condensers on those old classics. MR. FLYNN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FLYNN-So I think just going back to Page Three. So again just to leave you with the note I’m really reducing all the impervious areas within that 75 foot setback from the lake and introducing stormwater measures that weren’t there prior. We think we’ve done our due diligence overall from an environmental standpoint. That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Are there any initial questions, comments from members of the Board before we do the public hearing? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-I want to say I want to thank you for really taking a different look. I know when you first started the file was pretty thick. You made some nice changes lowering, tucking it in. The toughest one is the APA, but I really appreciate all the efforts for the improvements. I think the plantings out front, you’ve really put some nice thought into the engineering. That must have been quite a bit of walking up and down the hill there and a few tape measures, probably some long ones here. Both of you did your due diligence in trying to work this in. So thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application, Trevor Flynn, Site Plan 9-2021? Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any additional questions for the applicant or comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I do have one question, and I’ll make the same comment that Brad did. I think you did a very nice job improving that lot, and the question that I have is on the upper garage, the detached garage, that one stretch of road that’s going to be grass and pavers, it looks like it’s about maybe 20 feet off of Route 9. Is there a reason that we’re so close to Route 9 instead of bringing it down on the side road? MR. FLYNN-Yes. What you’ll see if you’re looking at the topography, the topography stretches out. So this is all pretty steep hill when you get to the lower half of the garage. So we’re trying to come in level in that plane. So this is, I believe, 10 feet higher here than it is down here, maybe 11 feet or so. So we’re trying to come in level to that garage at the second floor. MR. DIXON-Do you anticipate bringing in any, if there’s going to be a classic car or cars in there, do you anticipate bringing any sort of trailer where you’re going to end up having the front end of the truck out on Route 9 trying to back into there? I guess that’s where I was going with that. That would be my only concern. MR. GRASMEDER-It’s actually far enough in past the pillars, the two pillars around there at the end. So it’s actually further in past those pillars. I know exactly what you’re talking about. It’s got a nasty turn on that side of it. MR. DIXON-If you did bring a trailer in, there’s not a lot of places to turn around anyway. Me, I’m not good at backing up a trailer. MR. FLYNN-The lower area, there’s an existing turnaround area or bypass area that they’re trying to use to bring a trailer down past, turn it around. That’s the current thought of how we could jockey around a trailer. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. DIXON-That’s my only concern. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion then. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 9-2021 TREVOR FLYNN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Revised: Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes interior alterations on the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to includes a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the upper level garage area of 576 sq. ft., lower level of garage area 644 sq. ft. and workshop area of 644 sq. ft. (garage 1,220 sq. ft.) and height to be 18 ft. 11½ inches. Existing floor area 3,388 sq. ft., new floor area to be 6,458 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010 and 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and expansion of a non-conforming structure and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) 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 02/16/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 07/21/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 02/23/2021 and continued the public hearing to 07/27/2021, 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 07/27/2021; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 9-2021 TREVOR FLYNN (D. GRASMEDER) 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, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are consider reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant has provided the following items: j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping p floor plans, q. soil logs. 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. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of July 2021 by the following vote: MS. WHITE-I just want to say I really applaud all the changes. I still have concerns about the second garage this close to the Waterfront Residential. Just to go on record, and it’s hard because it’s got a lot of acreage, but that’s where I’m at. I still have concerns about the second garage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other comments on the motion? Maria, can you call t e vote for us, please. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. MR. GRASMEDER-Thank you all. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the first application is Foothills Builders, Huntington. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MRS. MOORE-So Matt is still in Lake George. So I would suggest that you move on to the Kent & Cheryl Smith because Ethan is here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we’ll put that one on hold for now and we’ll move on to the next section of our agenda which is Old Business. The first item is Kent & Cheryl Smith. Site Plan 41-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 41-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. KENT & CHERYL SMITH. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 379 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY ADDITION OF 1,964 SQ. FT. THAT IS TO BE 32 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE ADDITION IS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING OF 1,333 SQ. FT. AT A HEIGHT OF 28 FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,561 SQ. FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO E 4,525 SQ. FT. THE USE OF THE ADDITION IS FOR AN EXISTING TENANT WHO NEEDS ADDITIONAL AREA FOR A MULTI-USE SPACE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: BAY ROAD. LOT SIZE: .41 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1- 33. SECTION: 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is in reference to an addition to the rear of an existing building, and the request is relief from setback issues and that was granted at the Zoning Board of Appeals and there are no new changes to this site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. HALL-Thank you. Good evening. For your records, Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture representing Kent and Cheryl Smith, 379 Bay Road. I was here with you earlier last week, went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, got the zoning variances we were looking for. Now we’re back to you for final Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-So any changes as a result of your ZBA approval? MR. HALL-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HALL-They were pretty satisfied that the requests were not overly large and we weren’t looking for a whole lot more than what was already there. MR. TRAVER-Can you review issues with regards to lighting and snow removal? MR. HALL-Yes. So snow removal happens, Kent owns the Midas Muffler shops in the area. So snow removal happens the same as it does in all of his major commercial properties. He puts it off until he gets to the point where they can’t put it there anymore then they take it off site and get rid of it. As far as the permeability of the site, and, Mike can speak back to your question about the curb cut needing additional Warren County. I contacted Warren County. I contacted Warren County DPW to ask that specific question, copied Laura. That was the morning after that, and I haven’t gotten a response back from them yet. So Laura hasn’t gotten anything back either. So it’s not a pressing issue, but I will follow up on it just to make sure that if there is a curb cut required to reduce the size of the curb cut, then we will make sure we get that from them directly. MR. VALENTINE-I’d appreciate that for the future. It’s good to know. MR. TRAVER-Yes, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t work for the County anymore. So I don’t have any pull for you. MR. HALL-So basically we are taking, that entire front of the lot now is paved all the way out to Bay Road. We’re cutting that down to a 24 foot. So we’re actually making the curb cut significantly smaller than what’s there and taking up a lot of the pavement between the sidewalk and the building and making it so that there’s a real drive coming in as opposed to kind of a free for all. MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s really not a curb cut. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MR. HALL-It’s a curb reduction. MR. HUNSINGER-You still probably need a permit to work in the right of way. MR. VALENTINE-That’s a different permit, though. That is a work permit, versus a curb cut. MR. HALL-A curb cut, yes. And really all they’re doing is pulling the blacktop up and seeding. MR. TRAVER-Right, and lighting? MR. HALL-The only lighting that we’ve got is right at the garage doors. There’s a couple of mounted lights on the side that are downcast fixtures, just to kind of light that space that is currently a walkway. There’s currently lights on the side which goes up to the second floor offices. So we’re just kind of adding on to that, dropping a couple of lights. The rest of the lights are all there. It’s a pretty bright area, right down there by Lowe’s. So we’re not really adding a whole lot. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Are you going to be changing the color of the siding? MR. HALL-Yes. On the existing building. I talked to Kent after the meeting. They’re going back to the stone that we’re showing around the bottom. They’re going to continue that around the front of the building. I don’t know if they’ll go all the way down the back side, but they will at least turn it and then they’re going to make the other side match the new building. So it’s going to be a little more cohesive. MR. MAGOWAN-I think it’s going to be a nice addition. I mean no offense on the building, but it kind of just stands out like a sore thumb. MR. HALL-The existing building. MR. MAGOWAN-I think with the addition and the stone and the shrink of that parking lot it’s really going to change the whole appearance. So thank you. MRS. MOORE-Could you just go over that architectural again, so that that’s clear in the materials? Because typically when we do a change of façade that’s subject to site plan review. So I just want to make sure that that’s clear on the materials that is re-submitted for final, that existing building also has that information about what’s changing on it. MR. TRAVER-We’ll add that condition. MRS. MOORE-So you’re saying that the? MR. HALL-We’re showing a painted concrete that runs along the side and around the back of it. The front of it will have a stone front, the part that faces the road and the part that faces the adjoining drive. I don’t remember the name of that asphalt drive that goes out to the back, but I talked to Kent and Cheryl about it. So that will have a cultured stone finish on it and we’ll continue that band along the front of, this up along the side of the existing building across the front of the existing building. So that it’s significantly nicer than what it is. It’s relatively dated. The original building dates back to somewhere around the 60’s and I think that it looks like it. MRS. MOORE-So what is the color of the building now, the building, the main façade color? MR. HALL-The existing color? It’s a faded beige. MRS. MOORE-And the new building will be the same taupe-ish color? MR. HALL-Relatively. I don’t know that they’ve picked a color for siding yet. it’s going to be something that’s going to be a muted tone. I won’t say earth tone because that covers just about every color. MR. TRAVER-So there is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any takers. How about written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board on this application? If not, I think we have a resolution just about ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 41-2021 KENT & CHERYL SMITH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a single story addition of 1,964 sq. ft. that is to be 32 ft. in height. The addition is to an existing building of 1,333 sq. ft. at a height of 28 ft. with a floor area of 2,561 sq. ft. The new floor area is to be 4,525 sq. ft. The use of the addition is for an existing tenant who needs additional area for a multi-use space. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 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 07/20/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 07/21/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/27/2021 and continued the public hearing to 07/27/2021, 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 07/27/2021; 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 41-2021 KENT & CHERYL SMITH; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal. The waivers requested are considered reasonable for these items because the project site has an existing building on a fairly level parcel. The applicant has provided information on. n traffic o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans. 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. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) 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 south and east addition will have cultured stone and will continue to the south and east of the existing building. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of July 2021 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-L. The building front to have, the new building front to have cultured stone finish and continue to the existing building, and the buildings will have a muted color tone. MR. TRAVER-Sounds good. MR. MAGOWAN-He said up the one side and across the front. You kind of stated, it might be a little confusing, not to go around, it would be the north side. Right? MR. HALL-Correct. Yes. The north side and the west side that just kind of face. MR. MAGOWAN-So the addition will have the cultured stone on the? MR. HALL-South and east. MR. MAGOWAN-South and then the east, which would be the face. MR. HALL-And the same for the existing building, the south side of the existing building. MR. VALENTINE-The south and east would be the public view. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. DEEB-I’ll amend the resolution that the south and east addition will have cultured stone and will continue to the south and east of the existing building. MR. MAGOWAN-I’ll second. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have an approval motion made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Maria, can you call the vote for us, please. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda is David and Pamela Way, Site Plan 40-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DAVID & PAMELA WAY. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 33 CANTERBURY DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 259 SQ. FT. SINGLE STOR7 ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 518 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, REMOVING A PORTION OF A PATIO, INSTALLATION OF EAVE TRENCHES, AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-065 & 179-8-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2020 DOCK WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .20 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-23. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-065, 179-8-040. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MRS. MOORE-So this application again is seen for a 259 square foot single story addition, a 67 square foot porch addition, and it received its variances for setbacks as well as permeability and there were no other changes to this project. MR. TRAVER-Hello again. MR. HALL-Good evening, again. Ethan Hall from Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight with David and Pamela Way. It is the small camp that’s on Canterbury Drive, on the end of Glen Lake, 519 square foot building with a 258 square foot addition, all one story. The addition is going on the back side of the camp away from the lake and we’re just trying to keep it in keeping with the existing camp and take that into account. The clarification that was made was, one of the clarifications that was made was the septic system that’s there is existing. That was designed by our office in 2015 with this addition in mind. So the new septic has already been taken care of. The other clarification we made at the Zoning Board was for the fireplace that’s there is a pellet fed fireplace, a renewable resource. That was one of the questions that came up at the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-So any changes with the ZBA review? MR. HALL-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a cute little road. I mean I’ve driven past it going down there on Ash, and I never realized it until Paul, and it really is, it’s kind of quaint back there. I mean you back right up to the bike trail. One of these days I just might pop up in your backyard just to walk through my woods over the bike trail to go fishing. MR. SHAFER-Ethan, the Chazen comments are all? MR. HALL-Yes, I went through those. We didn’t get those until a little bit, right before the Zoning Board meeting and they were all pretty straightforward stuff. The one question was very similar to one that Matt had for the test pits and the percolation stuff. We’ll take care of that letter from Chazen. We’ll get that approval back to them. We did the test pits down there. Interestingly enough when we did the sewage disposal system, they had to excavate out a pretty significant amount of material right back against the bike trail because the old rail line used to run through there and they buried just about everything, and how many truckloads of material did we take out? Like eight or ten tandem loads of material came out of that site. New material came in. MR. HUNSINGER-What was the old material? MR. HALL-Railroad ties, parts of railroad track, pieces of pipe. There was one piece of railroad track that was standing straight up. I think they brought a bigger machine in because they couldn’t physically get it out, and it was right in the area where we were putting the sewage disposal system. So I know they bought in, the Ways brought in a ton of material when that part went in. So I know the drainage works very, very well out there. MR. MAGOWAN-You know what that track was used for. MR. HALL-Ice. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Glen Lake was a huge ice manufacturer. MR. HALL-Hovey Ice. MR. MAGOWAN- And right there on Birdsall there’s an old car that kind of went in there. There’s not much left, but it’s there, but it’s amazing. It drops off. I mean they’ve got 20 foot six by six posts out there at the end of their dock. Really it’s amazing. Further down in that little cove you’re at it’s a little. Thank you for pulling all that stuff out there. The system probably wouldn’t have worked anyway with all that stuff. MR. HALL-Once we started digging. MR. VALENTINE-Did you get a price for the septic before or after you dug? MR. HALL-I guarantee that the price that was paid was not the before price. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing as well on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application before the Board? I’m not seeing any takers. Written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I think we’re ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 40-2021 DAVID & PAMELA WAY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 259 sq. ft. single story addition to an existing 518 sq. ft. single story home. The project includes site work removing a portion of a patio, installation of eave trenches and new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-065 & 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 07/20/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 07/21/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/27/2021 and continued the public hearing to 07/27/2021, 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 07/27/2021; 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 40-2021 DAVID & PAMELA WAY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are consider reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant has provided information for, j. stormwater g. site lighting and p. floor plans. o. alterations/ construction details. 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: 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27 day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Old Business, is Artisan Ink, Melissa Freebern, Site Plan 44-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ARTISAN INK/MELISSA FREEBERN OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 928 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 535 SQ. FT. GARAGE SPACE TO BUSINESS EXPANSION. THE EXISTING 2,394 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) BUILDING INCLUDES AN EXISTING LAUNDRY FACILITY AND THE ARTISAN INK BUSINESS. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO PARKING ON SWEET ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUSINESS EXPANSION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 30-2005, SP 28-2009, AV 18- 2009, SP 71-2018, AV 70-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: ROUTE 9 CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: .34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14. SECTION: 179-3- 040. MELISSA FREEBERN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is conversion of an existing garage space into the expansion for the Artisan Ink side of the building and they received an Area Variance the other evening in reference to the number of parking spaces. So number of parking on this site, 12 spaces are proposed where 16 are required, and that was granted. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MS. FREEBERN-Hello. Melissa Freebern from Artisan Ink. MR. TRAVER-So the issue was, with regard to the variance, was the parking, and you received that. So we’re here technically tonight for the Site Plan aspect of the application. Were there any changes to your plans as a result of your meeting with the ZBA? MS. FREEBERN-No, they didn’t recommend anything. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MS. WHITE-Can I make one comment on the parking? MR. TRAVER-Please. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MS. WHITE-I noticed, I don’t know if it was a result, I had never noticed it before, but it looks like staff are double parked all the way to the right and that kind of has freed up some room. Is that something that is always done? MS. FREEBERN-Clients typically will park behind us, whether we ask them to or not. MS. WHITE-Okay. But it does kind of create a little bit more room for you. It probably is a pain in the but if somebody needs to get out. MRS. FREEBERN-Yes. MS. WHITE-So I just wanted to comment that that seemed to be kind of working there. MRS. FREEBERN-There is room to park two cars. It is a pain when you want to leave and someone’s parked behind you. So we try not to let them do that. MS. WHITE-Okay. Since we talked it seemed like I’d seen that. MR. MAGOWAN-Or they just park behind, what do they call that, the inkster or the artist. MS. FREEBERN-Yes. They know who we are. They know what our cars look like. They park right behind us. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone here that would like to comment on Site Plan 44-2021 with Artisan Ink? I’m not seeing anyone. Written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any other comments or questions for the applicant from the Board? I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 44-2021 ARTISAN INK/MELISSA FREEBERN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to convert an existing 535 sq. ft. garage space to business expansion. The existing 2,394 sq. ft. (footprint) building includes an existing laundry facility and the Artisan Ink business. The applicant proposes alterations to parking on Sweet Road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, business expansion 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 07/20/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 07/21/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/27/2021 and continued the public hearing to 07/27/2021, 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 07/27/2021; 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 44-2021 ARTISAN INK/MELISSA FREEBERN; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are considered reasonable as the project involves an interior change for a business expansion and no change to hard surfacing on the site. The applicant has submitted information in regards to the p floor plans. 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. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21th day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MS. FREEBERN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Now we return to our earlier part of the agenda under Planning Board Recommendations for Foothills Builders, Huntington, Site Plan 43-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 43-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS. AGENT(S): MATTHEW HUNTINGTON, STUDIO A. OWNER(S): L.P. DAIGLE. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 11 MOON HILL PLACE. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 1,045 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 2,319 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCES OF ABOUT 19,786 SQ. FT. FOR SITE WORK. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND LOT SIZE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2012-311 ALT. DUE TO FIRE, AV 45-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .96 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.7-2-2. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-060. QUINN ROESCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is a Planning Board recommendation in regards to a project that includes demolition of a footprint of 1,045 square feet. Some of the foundation is still there. This was a house that had a fire at it. They’re going to construct a 1,957 square foot footprint. Site disturbance includes almost 20,000 square feet worth of site work. It includes a new on-site septic system as well as a well. Site Plan review is required for the project within 50 feet of 15% slopes. Variance relief is sought for road frontage as well as setback and lot size simply because the lot is in a Rural Residential Three acre and the lot itself is .96 acres. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. ROESCH-Good evening. I’m Quinn Rush. I work for Studio A Landscape Architecture. My manager is supposed to be here, but he is coming back from Lake George. He’s at another meeting. Really simple 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) site. So I think I can manage it. It’s a non-conforming site. It’s just under an acre and it was established prior to the zoning district of Rural Residential Three Acres. The current site, like Laura said, it has the foundation that the house burnt down. We’re proposing a house in a similar location, also an asphalt driveway in a similar location . We’re going to curve it around so there’s more room to actually pull in to the garage. Right now we’re going to be encroaching on the 50 foot setback for 15% slopes. So to mitigate that encroachment we’re proposing a pretty extensive stormwater management system. It’s a pretty large infiltration basin. You can see it on the side of the house. It’s going to be in the footprint of the house that burnt down. We’re going to bring in some fill that we specify the material. So it’s good for infiltration. We’re going to use some drainage basins and roof leaders to get everything from the house into the basin. We are also installing a conventional trench septic system and that’s also on the side of the house, and that’s why we’re encroaching on the 15% slopes because we wanted to put it in an area that’s not exceeding 10% slopes. And we’re also re-locating the well up towards the road so that we have 100 foot setback from the septic system and everything that’s disturbed we’re going to re-establish vegetation, probably improving the vegetation that’s out there, and we’re not going to be really disturbing any perimeter trees or anything. So everything around the outskirts surrounding the adjacent properties is going to stay in place. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So tonight you’re here for the variance which is road frontage, setbacks and lot size. Just be aware that, and you mentioned the improvements you intend to make to the landscaping. We’d like to see details of that for the site plan and also for lighting for the house. So this is basically a pre- existing, non-conforming site in the sense of the lot size, and the new building is going to be further away from the property lines than the original. MS. ROESCH-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So it still requires a variance but you’re asking for a little bit less than the pre=fire, what would be required. MS. ROSECH-Exactly. It’s encroaching more on the rear setback, but, yes, then it’s pulled back from the front. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-When was the fire? MS. ROSECH-Actually, I’m not aware of when the fire was. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s been a while. MS. ROESCH-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Several years. MS. ROSECH-I don’t know if the owner, the client that bought the property, I’m not sure if they know either. MR. TRAVER-So the owners for this project were not the owners at the time of the fire. MS. ROSECH-No. MR. TRAVER-Well, do we have questions with regards to the variances for this project? Do we have any concerns that we want to forward along to the ZBA as they consider the variances? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s a good little project. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. It’s a good little project and I think it’s going to clean up what was left behind in the fire and I think it’s going to fit in nicely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right then we have a draft referral. MR. SHAFER-The Chazen comments, you will address the Chazen comments? MS. ROESCH-Yes. They’re similar to the property that was here before. So it’s additional test pits. Actually in that infiltration basin area but we’re specifying the fill. And then the comment about another area needs to be addressed by it. We’re not disturbing any of the impervious areas. So very similar. MR. VALENTINE-So you’ve got the same slope issue as the one across the street? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MS. ROESCH-No. It’s kind of a common comment that you get where you have to do like the four test pits and the infiltration test. I’ve seen it on every comment that we’ve received. MR. VALENTINE-I know because they want to put a guardrail across the street. MS. ROESCH-Really? Right from here? MR. HUNSINGER-Well it’s kind of diagonal across on Moon Hill Road where the big curve is coming down the hill. There’s a guardrail there now. There’s going to be a house in there. MS. ROESCH-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we approved it over a year ago. Well we approved the extension. MR. MAGOWAN-Weren’t they going to do two cuts? Didn’t they ask in the beginning two cuts in? MR. VALENTINE-They wanted it the first time. Then Chris said no. MR. HUNSINGER-I said no. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it seems like a year ago. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it was a year ago because they came back for an extension. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments or questions before we entertain a motion? I think we’re ready. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 45-2021 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,045 sq. ft. footprint home to construct a 2,319 sq. ft. footprint home. The project includes disturbances of about 19,786 sq. ft. for site work. The project includes installation of a new on-site septic system and well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and lot size. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2021 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 27day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MS. ROESCH-Awesome. MS. WHITE-Let me just say, very nice job. MR. DEEB-You didn’t need anybody else. MS. ROESCH-Thank you very much. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) MR. TRAVER-Just as a reminder for the Board, as Laura reminded us last week, we do have full agendas coming up next month. The draft agendas were just sent out the other day. You might want to take a look at those. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? MR. VALENTINE-Cerrone’s thing that we had last week, is it possible to get copies of the surrounding subdivisions with the lot sizes that are on them? MRS. MOORE-We, as Staff, can produce that information, but you can also go on line and look it up on the interactive mapper and then you can actually, there’s a layer that we have, subdivision, and so when the pop up is red around those particular lots you can look on. MS. WHITE-What’s the possibility of having a little workshop if we brought in our own laptop or our own IPad and maybe just open it. MRS. MOORE-You can either do it during the day during my work time or if you think the entire Board wants to take a look at how to operate, use the interactive mapper. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I’m happy to do that, and George Hilton would be happy to come in. MS. WHITE-I’d appreciate that. I tried it on my phone and I wasn’t very successful. MRS. MOORE-Yes, sometimes, the mobile mapper doesn’t exactly work well as a tiny little screen. It’s much better with a tablet or an actual laptop. MR. TRAVER-So maybe later when we get to a month with not as big an agenda in August, the growing season should be winding down a little bit, hopefully. Maybe we can schedule something. We’ll leave that up to you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I can do that. MR. TRAVER-Much like you do training for us, when it’s appropriate. MR. VALENTINE-I may call you. My thing with that issue is time availability to do that. I just thought it would be nice to have a quick little look. MRS. MOORE-We can do that as Zoom. The interactive mapper, this is John’s question, what does it do. MR. SHAFER-Different from Google Maps. MRS. MOORE-The Town’s interactive mapper gives you information about the actual parcel, it’s size. If it’s located in a subdivision, it will tell you that subdivision name, how many lots are associated with that subdivision. It’ll give you the mapping information that I actual sent out a link for actually tells you how many projects are associated with that parcel. Between 2013 and now I’ve logged all the projects that we’ve done pretty much in a visual sense. So you can look at that map and see how may projects are in certain wards and how many projects are actually on that particular parcel. How many times you may have seen it in front of you. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. MAGOWAN-Along with everything else you do. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? If not, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. VALENTINE-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 27, 2021, Introduced by Michael Valentine who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/27/2021) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 23