Loading...
08-24-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2021 INDEX Subdivision No. 16-2020 Harrisena Church 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59 Site Plan No. 48-2021 Dark Bay Lane, LLC 7. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-37 Site Plan No. 53-2021 Michael & Alice Crotty 8. Tax Map No. 289.18-1-17 Site Plan Modification 45-2021 Stewart’s Shops Corporation 11. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 Site Plan No. 54-2021 National Grid 13. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-7 Site Plan No. 46-2021 Curtis Dybas – Masciocco 16. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-39 Discussion Item 5-2021 Hoffman Development Corp. 18. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-42 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 08/24/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board thth meeting for Tuesday, August 24, 2021. This is our second meeting in August and our 17 thus far for 2021. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to disturb our proceedings we would appreciate it. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency those are the emergency exits. I should note for those of you who may be h re for the public hearing that one of the items on our agenda, Dark Bay Lane, LLC, which is on our agenda this evening, is going to be tabled to October. So just to let folks know we will not be hearing that this evening. And with that, we can begin our agenda. The first section of our agenda is tabled items. The first item is Harrisena Church, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 16-2020. TABLED ITEM: SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. HARRISENA CHURCH. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 1616 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION OF 3.8 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 TO BE 1.3 ACRE TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING HOME 1,580 SQ. FT. WITH DECKS (FOOTPRINT). LOT 2 TO BE 1.3 ACRES AND LOT 3 TO BE 1.2 ACRES FOR NEW HOMES AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, , SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 37-2003 LOT LINE ADJ., AV 45- 2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 3.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATT WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is back in front of this Board. They re-presented an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for subdivision of the 3.8 acre parcel. They are now doing a two lot subdivision. Lot One is to be 1.3 acres to maintain the existing home and then Lot Two is 2.5 acres proposed for a new home and associated site work. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and do I recall that we still have the public hearing open on this? MRS. MOORE-You still have a public hearing open on this. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. To save you from reminding me later. All right. Do we have someone representing Harrisena Church? Good evening. MR. WEBSTER-Good evening. My name is Matt Webster. I’m with VanDusen and Steves Land Surveyors, here on behalf of the Harrisena Community Church. Of course as you see before you we have a modified plan from the last time we were here because our friends at the Park Agency asked for less density out of our plan. So accordingly we have revised and now we seek to subdivide of course into the 1.3 and 2.5 acre lots. Now in this case there were some questions at the Zoning Board as to why we’re seeking 2.5 acres instead of trying to make the lots, both lots more compliant and the blunt truth is that it makes the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) 2.5 acre lot, since it’s unused land as it sits anyway. The Church currently has no use for it. It makes it more desirable and more buildable. So that whomever comes in might be able to maximize their opportunity to build where they want. So I think that just about covers everything in the introduction. So if you have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Well that was going to be my question. MR. TRAVER-Are there questions from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Will we get to see this again? Is that the final house location and septic location? MR. WEBSTER-This is just concept. MR. TRAVER-Just a subdivision. MR. SHAFER-We’ll get to see this again. MRS. MOORE-Actually you will see this application again because right now it’s at Preliminary Stage, and then you’ll see a Final Stage. So if this Board sees that, you know, right now there is a tree line that’s not necessarily in the clearing limits. If they would like to discuss whether that needs to be a condition to locate it in that particular area so that it never has access to a different road, I think you’ll hear some public comment tonight. So I think that maybe further discussed, it’s particular location. Maybe that is something that you want to include in the Preliminary Stage so that when the Final Stage comes you’ll see that drawing may be revised. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. MR. SHAFER-My question was going to be whether they considered access, a driveway on to Clements rather than 9L? MR. WEBSTER-So of course nothing’s been finalized yet, but there were some concerns from other residents about accessing from Clements versus 9L. Now of course as you know when we actually go to build on the site, as far as the curb cut on 9L, that will require DOT approval anyway. So with regard to any potential conditions, of course I would ask that you guys consider that given that there could be a chance where the State says you can’t do a curb cut here anyway. So that would force the driveway off Clements. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-That really was the only comment I had was the access drive on the larger lot. A lot of times we like to see it lined up with a driveway across the street or something like that. MR. WEBSTER-Understood. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience who wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, ma’am. If you could give up the table for the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KATHY STANDBRIDGE MS. STANDBRIDGE-I’m Kathy Standbridge, 8 Clements Road and mine is the driveway that you were talking about, right across the street from the 2.5 acres. BRIAN WILLETTE MR. WILLETTE-And my name is Brian Willette and I’m at the same residence. MS. STANDBRIDGE-So we talked last week to the Zoning Board and I discussed my interests, my concerns. First and foremost is having a driveway opposite our property. Because that would be, we already have a lot of traffic on Clements Road due to some of the things that are going on with the amount of people coming and going constant, and we feel, living there, that it’s more dangerous for them to come out of a driveway there, some out against us as we’re coming out, and your right on Ridge Road. So with the comments last week, well let me just tell you my concerns. That’s a major concern for us. The second is that we were very happy that Matt did this from VanDusen and Steves. We were very happy that they came up with this, If they have to sell the property at Harrisena, which we don’t’ want them to do to begin 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) with, but we’d understand if they have to, this is a much better layout than what we saw first. So we were happy with this and we thank Matt and the company for doing that. Our second concern is the environmental issue, the wetlands there. The animals are wonderful. They come and go and give birth there. We’re very concerned about that. At the Zoning Board again we had a couple of people that were concerned there as well, and of course the wetlands are an issue with the way the snow piles up. It runs down the side of Clements Road, the opposite side of us. So it runs right down and it’s a major issue. There are people that live down further on Clements Road. They’re actually iced out. They have puddles of water all over their land and especially in the spring, and you were worried about, concerned about the health issues. MR. WILLETTE-As far as the foliage and the land the way it is currently right now, as far as being absorption, because there’s a culvert just on the other side of 9L, Ridge Road, that everything gravitates to that one spot in that lot, and all that foliage absorbs a lot of that condition, which prevents a lot of that moisture and runoff from Ridge Road down to the other residences down Clements Road. Some of those residences actually have a block foundation, not a poured foundation. So it harbors any of the moisture, water, for mold content, which relates to a health factor, but as far as this preliminary picture here, we found that that was very pleasing and acceptable to our terms as far as where the access road is versus on Clements. We have a commercial property down at the other end of Clements and most of their shipping and receiving for products, we have 53 foot containment trailers making that turn right onto Clements to access that commercial, and most of the residences that are down that road are experiencing high volumes of traffic due to clientele for that establishment, plus they also have tours, bus tours for scenic, they call it the booze cruise. It starts over on Glen Lake. It goes all around to all the areas and over to Fort Ann. That’s one of the major access points. So there is a high rate of traffic on Clements Road now as it is. MS. STANDBRIDGE-And even Spectrum, an employee at Spectrum mentioned to us that he’s up in our area at least every month because the high tractor trailers are so tall they’re taking the lines down. MR. WILLETTE-They get caught up in the lines. MS. STANDBRIDGE-So it is becoming a high traffic area on Clements Road and we’re trying to keep that to a limit. So in our conversation with the Zoning Board last week, a couple of the members listened to what we had to say and they said to the Chairman can we put a condition on this if we approve it, zoning wise, can we put a condition on it that says this plan would be kind of locked in. So that if anything changes in this, please let us know because they’re right on top of us. So anyway, so the Chairperson at the time last week said that we can do that, but let’s let the Planning Board do that. So I don’t know if you get a copy of all those notes or video of it or whatever happened, but the other thing, we really appreciate you as members of the Board and thank you for pushing back some times on folks that want to build and want to do things. By the same token, you see this a couple of times, maybe five, ten, twenty minutes, a half hour. We’ve had to live with this for 20 years or more. So we’re looking at it with that concept, that we have to put up with the construction and whatever they’re going to do over there. So between that and we really feel the reason we moved to the country is to see that, the small deer, small rabbits, everything environmental. People come out and they have their homes there and then the water is very, and there’s a big gully as you go off Clements Road, corner of Clements and Ridge. It’s a big gully, and you just look as you’re driving by, I would think it would be a lot of work to move that up to a buildable piece of property which again is what we are definitely against. MR. WILLETTE-Yes, we’d like to keep the scenic buffer as well. MS. STANDBRIDGE-Yes, the trees along, I think this takes care of that, but I’m really worried that Matt just said in his discussion tonight has said I was comfortable at the last meeting when I heard that this was going to be the plan. I didn’t know that this could change. So I’m very worried that if this just changed by contractor or something else and we don’t get a chance to come before the Board and state our concerns, I mean that’s going to be very sad for us. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. WILLETTE-I’m all set. MR. DEEB-Do you feel that there’s more traffic on Clements Road than there is on 9L? MR. WILLETTE-The traffic rating since we’ve moved there has grown substantially on Clements Road. MR. DEEB-Clements Road has a higher rate of traffic. MR. WILLETTE-Well comparable to the State road it’s not comparable to that because that’s more of a main access to Lake George, but as far as what the side road, secondary road, the traffic rate has grown substantially, and just the traffic alone for the distribution, tractor trailers coming and going, they use that more than if there was another access on the other side off of 149. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. DEEB-I just was wondering. We don’t have a traffic count. I was just wondering. MS. STANDBRIDGE-And a lot of us that live there, too, I mean, you know from where we live you have to get in the car. You can’t just walk down to Stewart’s or something. It really has become, as a matter of fact we were really concerned about the pond that’s down, if you go down Clements Road off of Ridge, take a right and go down. There’s a pond, and underneath there, the road is just built up a little bit, there’s no structure under there or anything. So last year or the year before one of the trucks went and swerved to miss something, big, big tires and went right off and the truck went right over. MR. WILLETTE-If you remember it was actually one of the fire trucks. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I remember that. MR. WILLETTE-Yes, that road is not load rated, especially through there, and years ago that pond was actually used for fire access to drain from that. MS. STANDBRIDGE-So we appreciate you listening and considering our comments and our thoughts. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well thank you very much. MR. WILLETTE-Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, ma’am. KATHY GRANT MS. GRANT-Hi, I’m Kathy Grant. My husband John Creede. We live at 1593 Ridge, directly across the street from Clements Road. That shared driveway kind of goes directly across the street to Clements Road. I guess one of our biggest concerns is if that were to be a final plan, we would really appreciate it. There really is wetlands directly across the street from us, which is basically the Clements Road side. It is very wet. It’s very boggy down there. MR. TRAVER-Is that the case year round or just in the spring during the snow melt and so on? MS. GRANT-I think it’s wet most of the time. JOHN CREEDE CREEDE-Considering how much rain we’ve had this year. MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, this year almost doesn’t count. Right? MS. GRANT-There is a culvert right at our property, directly across the street into that area, right, and you can actually see the little culvert there. So there’s a culvert that just does bring everything right over to that side of the road and again there’s a lot of wildlife over there also. So we would appreciate if that could be a final plan if it were to occur to keep the house and let that area of trees and wetland kind of remain as is for the animals. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? Okay. Thank you very much. MS. GRANT-Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on this application this evening? Laura, are there written comments? MRS. MOORE-The written comments came in as comments from Mrs. Standbridge. So I believe she already addressed her comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MS. STANDBRIDGE-I just wanted to remind you, Laura. We had John Keysworthy. He had a very nice e-mail that he sent to you for the Zoning Board last week. MRS. MOORE-If it didn’t come through as coming to both Boards, it may not have been received in that sense, and you said what was his name again? MS. STANDBRIDGE-John Keysworthy. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. TRAVER-This was an e-mail sent to the Zoning Board? MS. STANDBRIDGE-I believe so. I know Laura read it at the beginning of the Zoning Board meeting last week. MR. TRAVER-She’ll find it and share it with us then. Thank you. MS. STANDBRIDGE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. We will go ahead and close the public hearing, then, on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If the applicant could come back up again, please. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, can I also identify in the sense of this Preliminary application before the Board, the applicant has requested waivers from things such as stormwater and understandably it’s because the lot hasn’t been sold, and they haven’t had that opportunity to develop that, typically when you see a new house development. So I’ve seen the Board in the past potentially say that the site plan application is required for any future development, depending, during your discussions. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you for that suggestion. It does sound, from public comment and the apparent wetlands that are on the site, at least seasonal wetlands, that that probably would be advised. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So you heard public comment. I know we talked about the curb cut on Ridge Road, that would be pending approval. As it sits now, is it your plan to put the driveway as depicted? MR. WEBSTER-There is no official plan. As Laura mentioned, not even, this lot is simply being created for sale to raise funds for the Church, which also I’d like to mention would be a public sale. Anyone who’s interested in maintaining a lot or not doing anything on it is welcome to purchase it, just as well as anyone who’d like to build a house. So of course, you know, if they’d like to make it their land, anyone can. MR. TRAVER-They do have a suggested location for the proposed house, right? I mean it’s depicted on the plan. MR. WEBSTER-Yes. It’s proposed for the sake of showing that if they built the lot they could. We have not built the lot. Of course we can’t create a non-buildable lot. So we had to show feasibility. Now that would also tie into our request for a waiver for stormwater as well. So that you guys could put a condition on, of course, that any future construction come to site plan review. That way that would be something that could be addressed by someone who wants to build on the lot, if someone chooses to build on the lot. MR. TRAVER-So to clarify for folks in the audience for example if the Board elects to condition the subdivision, which is just a division of the property, we can elect to put a requirement on for this lot that any development, if somebody comes in and they want to build a house, they’d have submit complete plans, including stormwater and that would clarify the location of the house, the driveway, all of it, and that would come back for review and there would be public hearing on that as well. We haven’t decided that yet, but that’s an option that we could consider. So thank you for that. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I think when you look at aerial photography of that lot, I believe it’s highly unlikely that someone would want to drive out Clements Road, especially with the wetland issues as people were saying. You wouldn’t cut through the trees to put in a driveway when you could just put gravel down and go off Ridge Road. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It would just be too expensive, but you never know what people are going to propose. MR. MAGOWAN-But it is the highest part of the property and I agree with you. It just wouldn’t be, to me, being in the building trade, it wouldn’t be feasible for them. MR. TRAVER-So it would just be a matter of trying to get that curb cut approved. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why you depicted the house in the location where it is. It’s already cleared. MR. WEBSTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s the most logical place. It’s the highest part of the lot. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. WEBSTER-And we had heard the concerns and we have had consultations with Hutchins Engineer about the potential stormwater and wet areas. Now of course there are no declared wetlands on the site. There is that culvert that kind of dumps everything from Ridge on that corner, but that would also be something that the engineer could work with the State on. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I think your idea was a good one and that’s what we should do. MR. TRAVER-Site plan review? Yes. Okay. We’ll be discussing that when we get to a resolution. Yes. I imagine there’s support for that among the Board members. This is Unlisted. So we also need to consider the environmental impacts, and there’s a SEQR resolution, the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Does anyone have, and again, this is not on the Site Plan. This is for subdivision. Does anyone have any environmental impact concerns? Okay. Are we ready to do a SEQR resolution? Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB # 16-2021 PRELIM. STAGE HARRISENA Revised: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 3.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 1.3 acre to maintain an existing home 1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint); Lot 2 to be 2.5 acres for new home and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we look at the Preliminary Stage approval. We’ve discussed this at some length. I think that the primary concern I guess that I would have is the issue of Site Plan Review making a requirement that any development of any type come before us for review for site plan. Do Board members support doing that? MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’ll add that as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Wouldn’t we do that at Final, though. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Usually Preliminary we don’t have any conditions. MR. TRAVER-We do that on Final? MRS. MOORE-You could ask the applicant to put a note on the Final plans and then you could establish that as a condition at the Final Stage. MR. TRAVER-So in other words Chris is right. We do it at Final Stage. MR. HUNSINGER-If we condition it at Preliminary, they’ll never get to Final unless they go for Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be a nice Catch 22. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Which we don’t want. All right. So are folks comfortable moving ahead, then, with the Preliminary Stage with the understanding that when they come back for Final Stage we’ll be adding that condition on their approval? Okay. Then we have a resolution for that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB PRELIM STAGE # 6-2021 HARRISENA CHURCH A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Revised: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 3.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 1.3 acre to maintain an existing home 1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint); Lot 2 to be 2.5 acres for new home and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 12/15/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 01/20/2021; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12/22/2020, 1/26/2021 & 8/24/2021; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll see you at Final. MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and the first item is Dark Bay Lane, LLC. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DARK BAY LANE, LLC. AGENT(S): BRANDON FERGUSON, EDP OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 40 DARK BAY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED GARAGE. EXISTING HOME IS 2,067 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT INCLUDING A DECK. TH4E NEW FOOTPRINT IS TO BE 2,658 SQ. FT. WHICH 653 SQ. FT. IS THE NEW GARAGE FOOTPRINT. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,650 SQ. FT. AND 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) NEW FLOOR AREA IS 4,378 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HARD SURFACE FOR A TOTAL OF 4,824 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SCREEN PORCH, NEW DECK AREA, REVISED ROOF AREA, NEW UPPER LEVEL, PLACEMENT OF ROCK RETAINING WALLS, A NEW WELL AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-050, 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA, SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, HEIGHT, RAIN GARDENS WITHIN 100 FT. OF SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE., PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 56-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. LOT SIZE: .43 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-37. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-5-050, 179-6- 065. MR. TRAVER-And we understand, Laura, this is Site Plan 48-2021. So this was tabled at the Zoning Board? MRS. MOORE-It was tabled at the Zoning Board to be heard at their first Zoning Board meeting in October, and so it would be tabled until the second Planning Board meeting in October. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have any? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it was in reference to the floor area ratio and information about the shoreline view. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good and that was the one concern that we had expressed. All right. So I’ll remind anybody that came in late if you’re here regarding Dark Bay LLC application this is going to be tabled until th the, depending on the vote, October 26, 2021 Planning Board meeting for some revisions to their project. MRS. MOORE-And the remainder is to open the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks. So we’ll open the public hearing and we’ll leave it open for when they return in October, and I believe we have a tabling resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 48-2021 DARK BAY LANE, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes several renovation to an existing home and construction of attached garage. Existing home is 2,067 sq. ft. footprint including a deck. The new footprint is to be 2,658 sq. ft. which 653 sq. ft. is the new garage footprint. Existing floor area is 2,650 sq. ft. and new floor area is 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes replacement of existing hard surfacing for a total of 4,842 sq. ft. The project includes screen porch, new deck area, revised roof area, new upper level, placement of rock retaining walls, a new well and a new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-050 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 48-2021 DARK BAY LANE, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the October 26, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by September 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item under Old Business is Michael & Alice Crotty, Site Plan 53-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL & ALICE CROTTY. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 19 FITZGERALD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION WITH A THREE CAR, 928 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND BEDROOMS/STORAGE ABOVE. THE ADDITION INCLUDES COVERED WALKWAYS AND BREEZEWAY AREA. THE MAIN HOME IS ALSO TO BE ALTERED WITH A MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR THE MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT AREAS. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 3,405 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,302 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-020 & 179-6-065 OF 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SHORELINE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 91-1990, SP 10-1991 ADDITION, AV 60-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .51 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-6-065. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; MIKE CROTTY, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application proposes to demolish a portion of the existing 576 square foot attached garage to construct a two store addition which is to be a three car garage, 928 square feet, and then bedrooms and storage above. In addition there are covered walkways, a breezeway and alterations to the shoreline side of the structure with basement areas and an exterior deck that goes into the master bedroom and in the master bedroom there’s also a proposed addition of a closet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records my name is Ethan Hall. I’m a principle with Rucinski-Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Mike Crotty, the owner of the property. We were before you last week for a brief presentation and then went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, gained the variance that we were looking for the front setback on the lakeside and we’re back to you for final Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In your discussions with the ZBA, were there any changes in your application other than what we saw last week? MR. HALL-No, there was nothing. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to discuss this with the Board? I’m not seeing any takers. MR. SHAFER-I couldn’t tell from the drawings. That separation distance between the septic and the well on this lot and the septic and the well on the two adjoining lots. Is that okay? MR. HALL-It is. So the closest well to the proposed septic is Mr. Crotty’s. The adjoining property owner to the south is the Ogdens and I was here before you for their addition . Their well is farther back and their septic we had to shoehorn in between Mike’s well and their well. And then the well for the Schrader lot is on the opposite side. That’s a relatively large piece of property. MR. SHAFER-Thanks. MR. HALL-That was one of the questions from Chazen’s review as well. They were asking to show the well that’s on that property. MR. TRAVER-Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the questions we had last week was the shoreline plantings, and before the meeting started you had made some comments about that. So I wanted to get that on the record. MR. HALL-The shoreline buffering, Mike and I talked about it as well. We are planting some plantings along the foundation of the front to what’s there now. It is a flat piece of property. They’re building out to the seawall. So runoff really does not go towards the lake. This is uncommon for a lake lot. Normally they’re pretty steep. This one’s dead flat, and there is a right of way for all of the adjoining property owners across the front of these lots that is ingress and egress right of way for all the adjoining property owners to get to and from the lake. It was in the Ogden’s deed and it’s in the Schrader’s deed. Planting a lot of stuff there hinders their ingress and egress across the lot. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. DIXON-Do you think there’s any planting you can do down there? You’re talking about planting sup against the house. MR. HALL-Right. Well there’s already some trees along the front of the lot. If you look at a couple of the pictures, there are some trees that are down in here. There’s some white birches that are on the front of the lakeside that are on the left hand side of the lot. There’s a couple of big trees that are right by the boathouse and then on the opposite end there’s also some trees down there. The rest of it is all grass. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? Do Board members feel comfortable moving forward on this? Well there are some, Laura found some photographs. MR. HALL-Yes, those were in your packets. MR. TRAVER-Yes, just for anyone else. MR. HALL-So you can see on the left hand side of this picture, there are the birch trees. There are two big trees next to the boathouse and there’s some other trees that are just of frame that are on that side, and everything from the house down is tiered and planted and you’ve got a lot of the plantings that are all along the front. MR. TRAVER-All right. So this is Type II. So no additional SEQR is required. If the Board is comfortable I believe we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 53-2021 MICHAEL & ALICE CROTTY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to construct a two story addition with a three car, 928 sq. ft. garage and bedrooms/storage above. The addition includes covered walkways and breezeway area. The main home is also to be altered with a master bedroom addition, interior and exterior alterations for the main floor and basement areas. The existing floor area is 3,405 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,302 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-5- 020 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 08/17/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 08/18/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/24/2021 and continued the public hearing to 08/24/2021, 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 08/24/2021; 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 53-2021 MICHAEL & ALICE CROTTY; 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, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details s. snow removal. The waivers requested are reasonable these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant has provided information about g. site lighting, j. stormwater l. landscaping, p floor plans, 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; 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) 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 John Shafer. Duly adopted this 24 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. MR. TRAVER-The next item under Old Business is Stewart’s Shop Corporation Modification 45-2021. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 45-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 777 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 744 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,954 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND A 100 SQ. FT. NEW ROOF OVERHANG, BOTH ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. ALSO INCLUDED IS RE-PAINTING OF THE FAÇADE AND ADDITION OF STONE VENEER ON THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING. 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: AV 5-1989, SP 20-1989, SP 59-2004, SP 8-2007, SP 60-2010, SEP 789-2016, AV 50-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.513 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61. SECTION: 179-9-120. TYLER FRONTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a 744 square foot addition to the existing building as well as a new 100 square foot roof overhang. It includes re-painting some of the façade and adding stone veneer on three of the sides. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. FRONTE-Good evening, everyone. My name is Tyler Fronte here from Stewart’s Shops tonight. Chris Potter is usually the one doing the meetings but he is not around tonight. So I’m taking his place. So I’ll turn it back to the Board with any specific questions. We did go back to the ZBA and all variances were approved. MR. TRAVER-As a result of that discussion with the ZBA, were there any changes required for your project? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. FRONTE-No, there were not. MR. TRAVER-So it’s the same project modification that we saw before. MR. FRONTE-That’s correct. Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-Was there any changes to the lighting at all? MR. FRONTE-No, there was not. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application, Site Plan Modification 45-2021. Is there anybody in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this application? I’m not seeing any takers. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any other follow up questions? MR. DEEB-Well we did talk about the back of the 22 foot corridor in the back being labeled one way. So I guess we have to condition the resolution. MRS. MOORE-You can, yes. MR. DEEB-Because we talked about it last week. Because of narrowness. MR. FRONTE-That would be correct. Yes, we’re okay with that condition. MR. DEEB-I’ll add that as a condition. MR. FRONTE-Our delivery trucks will come through Quaker and out. MR. DEEB-And you’ll have signage? MR. FRONTE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 45-2021 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 744 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,954 sq. ft. building and a 100 sq. ft. new roof overhang, both on the west side of the building. Also included is repainting of the façade and addition of stone veneer on three sides of the building. 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 08/17/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 08/18/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/24/2021 and continued the public hearing to 08/24/2021, 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 08/24/2021; 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) 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 MODIFICATION 45-2021 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping s. snow removal. The waivers requested are found to be reasonable as there are no changes on the site and it is to remain the same. The applicant has provided information on. g. site lighting, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, 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) 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 rear of the building to be designated one-way traffic by signage. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. FRONTE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business. And the first item is National Grid, Site Plan 54-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. NATIONAL GRID. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 20 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,893 SQ. FT. METAL CONTROL BUILDING WITH FOUNDATION AND REPLACEMENT OF TRANSFORMER EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RELATED COMPONENTS ON SITE 441 SQ. FT. +/-. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179- 9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND NO SITE PLAN WITHIN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 70-1996, 96649-5375 1997 STORAGE BLDG. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. LOT SIZE: 9.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-7. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-020. ANDREW LEJA & NICK SPAGNOLETTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to construct a 1,893 square foot metal control building with foundation and replacement of transformer equipment and other related components on approximate 441 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. LEJA-Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Andrew Leja. I’m an attorney with Barclay Damon representing National Grid tonight. With me is Mr. Nick Spagnoletti, representing the Company. We’re here tonight to seek your site plan review and approval. We plan to conduct some upgrades of the existing station that’s at 20 Country Club Road. I’m sure you’re all familiar with it. It’s not too far away from here. It’s been a fixture on the landscape for several decades dating back to the 50’s. The substation itself is starting to show its age and that’s what dictates the Company’s need to replace some of the equipment there. The substation itself accomplishes an important purpose. It takes in high voltage power coming in on 150 kilovolt lines and it steps that voltage down and then sends it back out through, along the distribution corridors using the normal portals or residential. So the equipment in there is starting to show its age. National Grid proposes to do three things, basically. First they’re going to replace a transformer, the existing transformer there, using the same pad, the same general size. They’re going to do some associated equipment upgrades within the station perimeter and they’re going to construct a new metal control building to house some of the other equipment for the substation in the front of that fenced in enclosure on the Country Club Road side. You’ll see the layout that you’ve already received as part of your packet. The existing fence line is approximately right here. There’s an existing metal clad building right here on the site. We’re proposing the construction of a new28 by 60 metal clad or metal enclosure with some associated trenching work spanning out through here. Otherwise the fence itself will be left intact. The rest of the property will be left intact. No other changes are being proposed for the rest of the property. So it involves strictly transformer replacement associated with equipment upgrades and the construction of the metal enclosure. MR. TRAVER-So the existing facility that’s there, is that to be removed? MR. LEJA-No, sir. That will be left intact. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-What kind of a color scheme on the building? MR. SPAGNOLETTI-Nick Spagnoletti. The building is going to be an ash gray, similar to the existing building that’s there now. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-It will blend in with all the other equipment there now. You guys have really done, I’m up and down Country Club all the time. I’ve always seen it. That is a good sized power station in Queensbury. What do they call them, smart lines. You’ve been going across Quaker with them. It’s all the new technology of free electricity. You’ve got under the road on Country Club, going up poles. You’ve really invested quite a bit. There’s a lot of smart technology there. So I’m sure some of that equipment there is just, that’s like us getting a smart tv. Some of just can’t figure that thing out, but I’ve followed all your progress going on. It’s obviously needed. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? I’m not seeing any. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-So I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DIXON-Can you run any new pole lines or anything out front? Because on that stretch of road already there’s becoming what we consider zombie poles. MR. SPAGNOLETTI-Right. We’ve done that several years ago, but there’s no plan. This is all inside the station we’re working on. MR. DIXON-Since you’re with Niagara Mohawk, do you have any plans on taking any of the other power poles down that are on that road out in front, power station? There’s duplicate poles there now. MR. SPAGNOLETTI-Well, we replaced the poles, I remember that’s been five, six years ago, but I think telecom poles are what’s left there. MR. DIXON-I know that’s always been a confusing part with poles throughout the entire Town and across the country right now, zombie poles. It’s a completely different issue, but I’ll throw my piece out there. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. TRAVER-If there are no other questions, are members of the Board comfortable moving forward on this application? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 54-2021 NATIONAL GRID The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,893 sq. ft. metal control building with foundation and replacement of transformer equipment and other related components on site 441 sq. ft. +/-. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial building and no site plan within the past seven years 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 08/24/2021 and continued the public hearing to 08/24/2021, 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 08/24/2021; 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 54-2021 NATIONAL GRID; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: , h. signage, 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 reasonable as these items are typically associated with retail/commercial projects. The following items have been provided with the submission materials - g. site lighting, j. stormwater, 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. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. LEJA-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have Curtis Dybas, Masciocco, Site Plan 46-2021. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) SITE PLAN NO. 46-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CURTIS DYBAS – MASCIOCCO. AGENT(S) CURTIS DYBAS. OWNER(S): JOSEPH & SHARON MASCIOCCO. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 90 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 100 SQ. FT. SHED ON .21 ACRE PARCEL. THE SHED IS TO MATCH HE EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 902 SQ. FT. WITH DECKS (FOOTPRINT) TO REMAIN AS IS. THERE IS NO OTHER SITE WORK PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-6-065 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BOH 3-2011, SP 16-2011 DEMO & REBUILD, 2013-145 DOCK, 2013-533 BOATHOUSE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-39. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-6-065, 179-6-060. CURT DYBAS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to place a 100 square foot shed on a .21 acre parcel. The shed is to match the existing home. The existing home is 902 square feet with the decks to remain as is. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Curt Dybas. The Masciocco’s wish to construct a 100 square foot storage shed on the side of their residence for storage of lawn equipment, water skis, fishing equipment. There is no basement in this house. They purchased this a little over a year ago and contacted me and said we’re going to do this and I realized soon after talking to Laura that I had to come to the Planning Board . So here I am if you have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I thought it was 120 square feet that you need. MRS. MOORE-100 in the APA. MR. TRAVER-Ten by ten. MR. MAGOWAN-And it’s only what a .21 parcel. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re not cutting down any trees, are you? MR. DYBAS-No. MRS. MOORE-It’s triggered only because we have that update in the Code that requires any new floor area to come before the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Any? MRS. MOORE-Any. MR. DYBAS-I talked to Laura and she informed me of that. So that’s why I’m here. I did the original house in 2012 and the house was done without a variance. We went to site plan review, but the FAR ratio is right on for that, and it’s a very small residence, very small. As far as vegetation, there are two large trees on the south side. There’s a white birch. There’s a big flower bed across the front. There’s a lot of growth on the south side hedge, about six feet high. So as far as buffer, I didn’t put anything in, but there’s a lot of buffer there, and I talked to Sharon and she’d be willing to add some more. She’s also a master gardener. MR. DEEB-The impact’s minimal. MR. DYBAS-Yes, but they want to add more anyway. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board, anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. How about written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. Any further discussion or questions or comments from members of the Board? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 46-2021 CURTIS DYBAS – MASCIOCCO The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to place a 100 sq. ft. shed on a .21 acre parcel. The shed is to match the existing home. The existing home is 902 sq. ft. with decks (footprint) to remain as is. There is no other site work proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-6-065 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area is a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/24/2021 and continued the public hearing to 08/24/2021, 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 08/24/2021; 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 46-2021 CURTIS DYBAS/MASCIOCCO; 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, 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 found to be reasonable as there are minimal changes. The applicant has provided information on j. stormwater – no calculations just method of accommodating roof runoff, 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. th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 24 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. The next section of our agenda is discussion, and we have one item, Hoffman Development Corporation. Discussion Item 5-2021. DISCUSSION ITEM 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) DISCUSSION ITEM 5-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. AGENT(S): FRANK PALUMBO, CT MALE. OWNER(S): 919 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 919 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 6,400 +/- SQ. FT. CAR WASH BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS DRIVES AND QUEUING LANES, AND 18 SELF-SERVE VACUUM AREAS. THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED A SIDEWALK TO BE COORDINATED WITH OTHERS ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON WEEKS ROAD. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR ACCESS ONTO ROUT E9 THROUGH EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT, ACCESS ON WEEKS ROAD, SIDEWALK ON WEEKS ROAD AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1990, SP 53-2011, SP 57-1995, AV 42-1995, AV 74-1995, 99729-8147 ADDITION. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-42. SECTION: 179-3-040. FRANK PALUMBO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM HOFFMAN, JR., PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application proposes a 6,400 square foot car wash building with associated access drives and queuing lanes and 18 self-serve vacuum area. The applicant has included a sidewalk to be coordinated with others along the property line on Weeks Road. The project includes site work for access onto Route 9 through the existing traffic light as well as an adjoining parcel. The project will also include an associated landscaping, lighting and stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you. Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male Associates, here representing Hoffman. The gentlemen behind me are Marty Andrews and Tom Hoffman, Jr. If you have any specific operational questions they’d be glad to answer them. I want to thank Laura for guidance in terms of when we submitted the application we knew we’d have some more things to do and the recommendation was to come in and have a discussion on the project earlier. So we appreciate her guidance on that. Where we are, if everyone is not familiar with it, is on Route 9. You can see the note for Sweet Road over on the right hand side in the center of that drawing. So there’s a traffic signal right there, and I believe he building that you’re seeing in the white and gray just above our site, that’s the old Outback Steakhouse, and below at the bottom of our drawing there is Weeks Road. Presently there’s an existing or a no longer used but existing building that was a car wash at that site. There were two entrances off of Weeks Road. There was, I’d say what appeared to be some less order in terms of how the site was accessed coming in off of those two, those two drives. What we are planning, and Hoffmans, there is another one in Queensbury. So I assume you’re familiar with their operations. Very efficient operating procedure that they have. This will be a car wash only. It doesn’t have Jiffy Lube where they have at some of their sites, but it is their state of the art facilities. That includes, as you see on the lower side there. You can see the three arrows, right below the center of the building, and at that point that’s where we have the automated teller systems. A lot of their operations have gone to memberships, longer term, monthly, three month that people get, get the scanner in their windshield and they can drive up and go through the automated teller. It improves the efficiency in and out of the site. Does a lot to decrease any backup out onto the roads, and it also allows people that don’t have the full membership to use a credit card or other at the facility. So it does rely less on the individuals that have to stand out there which was the older model. There will still be some individuals there for the case where somebody doesn’t know how to operate the automated teller. So what we’re looking at is to have now one entrance off of Weeks Road, and that would be back towards the rear of the site where cars can come in and make that immediate right, go down, go through the automated tellers, wrap around up close to Route 9, enter the, so the entry would be at that point that would be on the front side, the main road side of the building. Then they’d enter out the back. We do have a bypass lane that goes around. We have that at all of the facilities in case somebody comes through and they have a bunch of stuff in their pickup truck and they didn’t realize they still had that in there and they can’t go through it. So they need a way of getting out. Then up in the upper part of the site there is the new vacuum technologies that they use, and you may have seen this at some of their facilities that you’ve gone by. They’re very quiet. They’re very efficient. They go to a centralized vacuum system which has got block retaining wall around it on three sides. The segmental block usually matches the building. So it’s very aesthetic, and really once these systems go in we rarely hear complaints of noise from that. We have generated information before about how much less that is compared to what the older style of the big, at each space where they had big drums and each one of those operated themselves and had to have the higher sucking capacity. That capacity right there. So those were louder. So what that is, so up at the top there, the first bays, right about where you see the arrows indicating directions, those are dedicated to vacuums. The upper spaces, we’ve left those for employee parking. We did have some handicapped accessible space down right near the entrance, and probably moving on to one of the bigger aspects of this is we are proposing to access out to the traffic signal at Sweet Road and Route 9. When I met with Laura we asked that question of was there any foresight by the Board to plan towards access management and she was able to put in a request for the site plans for the Outback Steakhouse and found that the Board at that time did intend that if there was a future development that it would be accessible to go out to the light. It actually 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) called for the owner of that to provide the pavement. Not asking them to do anything, but we did see that the right existed for us to go out there. We know before we come back to you we’re going to gather more traffic information. We’ll go in steps towards that, gather information, coordinated with DOT, see what kind of analysis they would require of us, but one of the things that this evening we wanted to present that to you and see what your thoughts on it were. The site could function without going out there, but we think this is a better thing for the community in terms of access management. It takes away one of the access points on Weeks Road which is, if we did not have that access, we would have to come back to a plan that would have probably two access points on Weeks Road. We also have shown on this plan a sidewalk along Weeks Road. We had been given information that noted that the school, whatever the decision is, drops students off right at that corner of Weeks and Route 9. That has been an ongoing situation. Let me just put it that way, and a lot of those are young students who are meeting their parents and walking back to the apartment complex which is to the left of this screen. We left the required buffer area between any of our pavement and the apartment complex. There is an existing fence in that area now. If there was any need to supplement any of that, that would not be something that would be objectionable, but the sidewalk gives some benefit to the public and the users of that stretch that have to walk along that stretch of road. So those are the main key facts of this particular site plan and we would be coming in with further design elements once we have an understanding of what the Board likes, dislikes, anything that they would now encourage us to look at, certain things. We’ll take that back to the drawing board. MR. TRAVER-One question, regarding the entrance off of Weeks Road. Would that be entrance only so we wouldn’t have people coming, trying to get out there? MR. PALUMBO-No. We are proposing that as a dual entry and exit. What we want to do is allow that, if we only had an exit out onto Route 9, there could be people who would be to the west of this entry or that would go down to access the Wal-Mart from Weeks Road. So we wouldn’t want to prevent that and make that one way. If somebody was to go, need to go, want to go west on Weeks Road, they’d have to go out of the site, make a right, make a right to go in that direction. We don’t think the volumes and the flow of those volumes will be significant from the standpoint of accessing out onto Weeks Road or exiting out there. The one thing that the system enables is really a systematic entering and exiting movement. The car wash itself, cars run through in a specific amount of time. There’s no advantage to, and no desire from Hoffmans to have any kind of back up there. So that is a controlled movement. Nobody wants to be stopped in the middle of the car wash. So our data will be able to show, in terms of the traffic analysis that we’re talking about, give you some evidence of how we expect the flow to be going out there. We do expect that the majority of people would want to get back to Route 9 and they would want to get back to Route 9 in the safest way possible which is why we think the majority might go towards the light Is it possible that somebody might decide I don’t want to wait at that light and come out and make a left and come back down here because they know they’re making a right onto Route 9. They may make that choice thinking that, I can always get a right out there, and it’s not, we’ve witnessed it a few times and I know that you’ve probably seen many, many times when the Route 9 corridor there can get busy, and I think that people start to make the decisions that are safest for them, if not quickest, but we do think we need the exit there because having options, having different, you know, really does help with traffic modeling, and I think represents what people will more than likely do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-How long has the building been empty? Do you know? MR. HOFFMAN, JR-Three years. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all? I thought it was longer. MARTY ANDREWS MR. ANDREWS-Well the car wash was before that. Then they used it as storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you know how long it’s been since the car wash was operational? MR. HOFFMAN, Jr.-Tom Hoffman, Jr. I think it’s been at least five to eight years. Remember, too, that that was a 24/7 operation. It was a self-serve car wash, just like our Quaker Road location is a 24/7. Even the vacuums can be used all the time. The hours of operation will be limited here from eight a.m. to seven p.m. in the winter and eight a.m. to eight p.m. in the summertime. On Saturdays we open a half an hour earlier at 7:30. So this is going to be a much quieter operation than what was previously there. MR. DIXON-I just wanted to make a comment. As you dig deeper into the plans, on Quaker Road, I mean you’ve got a busy business there, and I see people almost out to the main road. As you’re looking at Weeks Road, I don’t know if there’s any value or if we would even approve it, but if you cut into the side of that road a little bit so people can get off to the side if they’re waiting to get in, if you have lines. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. PALUMBO-It’s a point that we’re very cognizant of and have been striving to approve at so many of the locations and where we have been able to add like a three lane entry at the automated tellers, that’s the first step. The more depth we get there, that helps us with getting the cars off the road and in onto the site. Then that whole operation I was talking about is when a car goes through the automated tellers, all the way through, that’s a timed action, but getting people in and having a place for them to line up on site is one of the first things that helps us do that. When we have the, and the other thing about Hoffmans is that they have very good and specific data about their usage. When peak periods are at their facilities, on an average daily basis, which will allow us to put that into the models for the traffic analysis. The other thing that we all know is that there are times, days, when things occur, like that sort of early spring everybody wants to get the salt off their cars kind of thing. What we’re hoping here is that we’ll be able, and we can put it on the plan to show you the number of cars that we’ve allowed for the stacking there. So I think that it will prevent what you may be envisioning. If it comes to that and we need to do something like a little pull off lane, like sort of a right turn lane type of situation there, we’ll certainly give that thought. MR. HOFFMAN, JR.-I have a shorter, sadder answer. The difference between this road and Quaker is night and day. Quaker is just like twice as busy, and the building is enormous compared to this. It’s almost a destination, and with the Jiffy Lube and the self-serve and the automatics, it just generates a lot more traffic than we expect this to generate, and there’s actually, for this size of the road, it’s actually an enormous stacking area that we’ve designed here. The property lays out nicely for a lot of stacking. Plus when our car wash is typically busy, people see the line, they’re not going to stop and block the road and come in. They’re going to use a different type of day, and that’s the other beauty of a car wash. We’re not usually busy during rush hour. We’re busy during the middle of the day when there’s less traffic. People on their lunch break, when they’re out running errands, the destination is Wal-Mart and grocery stores and Home Depot. It’s not just going to the car wash. So we are busy in the middle of the day, not during rush hour. We don’t intend to cause any real traffic problems when traffic is the heaviest on this road. MS. WHITE-You even can see that you’ve reduced some of the traffic on Quaker. I mean I thought that’s what you were going to say when you said sad. Some of this will. MR. HOFFMAN, JR.-Yes, it’s going to alleviate the traffic on Quaker for sure. MS. WHITE-And I hate to tell you that the school buses, the parents actually park there now, inside and you pick up the kids and drop them off to the parents. There’s going to be some adjustments. MR. HOFFMAN, JR.-I should mention, too, the vacuum, the centralized system, you guys approved one down the road, to the east of our Queensbury location, and they are infinitely quieter. There’s an enormous muffler on the inlet of that thing, and we also are going to make a corral that shields the rear of the property. So any noise, any little noise that’s generated, is going to be shielded. MR. PALUMBO-We do have room there. So below that sidewalk, you can see that lighter green there. That’s immediately adjacent to the road, I think what you were referring to. You can see that people have pulled over there. If there’s something that we can do to accommodate and help that situation, we’ll consider it and bring it forward. I think one of the things we want to do first is get some of that traffic data so that we have something, some base to present everything on, making sure that I’m not misrepresenting anything now or not getting the clearest picture. So we think we’ll bring all that to you. MR. DEEB-So you just have the one automatic car wash. You won’t have the touchless car wash. You won’t have any Jiffy Lube. You won’t have any of the other. So in essence you might pull just a lot of car wash people off Quaker just to go there and increase the other business. The other thing I had, the egress at Weeks Road, not Weeks. MR. HOFFMAN, Jr.-Across from Sweet? MR. DEEB-Yes, across from Sweet Road where the light is. Is that going to be an entry also? MR. PALUMBO.-You would be able to enter there. That is a two lane drive lane. So as you can see the lighter gray, the darker gray is the existing road into Outback. We have shown right now, but don’t know if, the DOT will really have a factor in this. We’ve shown where, once we get out there, we’ve left the ability to have a right turn lane at that point. That is something that we would have to work out. I think what we’re going to do is model the traffic without that right hand turn lane first. Because although you did, and it may be something that we just have to have a little conversation with the owner, what I saw on the plans that the Board approved certainly gave us the right to make that connection there. I don’t know that it gave us the right to do that right hand turn lane. I think it would only be beneficial to both owners, but we’ll use the traffic information to generate that, but we wanted to just show you that we’re looking to do anything we can to make those most efficient operating intersection, which is really the best traffic management. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. DEEB-Yes, and one more thing. The stacking does, I’ve used your car wash on Quaker, and the stacking really does seem to alleviate a lot of the problems. I see so many cars just go in there and just, boom, go right through and it continues to move. So actually I don’t know if there’ll be as much up here or not, but for those that don’t know how to use that new machine like me, you always have a tendency there to help out. They’re always trying to upsell you, too. I like that. You’ve got some good people there. MR. DIXON-I was just going to comment. First of all, Hoffman does a good job landscaping. I like that you’re addressing the sidewalk. As you dig deeper into the plans, maybe consider additional lighting in there as well, something attractive. If you look at main street in Queensbury, main street in Queensbury has beautiful lights out there, and I had one question. So all the water that you use, how much of that goes into the Town sewer? MR. HOFFMAN, JR.-All of it goes into the Town sewer. None of it goes into the storm drains. A portion of water is technically carried off by vehicles. We do recycle some of the water to blast the heavy solids off the bottom of the cars, and it’s a 160 gallon a minute recycling system is what we use. So quite a bit. MR. PALUMBO-Every location has a recycling tank which allows to offset some of the amount of usage. They have it very carefully balanced because people are very sensitive about having their car done with, you know, not truly water. That’s just a factor they have to deal with, but what they’ve been able to do is sort of meet that amount of recycle with the amount of new, but the first question, yes, all that goes into the sewer. MR. HOFFMAN, JR. –And home car washing goes into storm drains and pollutes streams and rivers and all commercial water, municipal water, goes to treatment plants. So every drop of water is technically recycled. MR. DIXON-The only thing that I would say out there is prepare your analysis and have that ready to make sure the Town of Queensbury sewer system can handle that extra level. MR. PALUMBO-We would, before we come back in, we’ll make those contacts with the Town’s water and sewer agents for the Town and we’ve already talked about what we would need in terms of the size of the line coming in for the water compared to what was there. So we are planning on putting in a new line, but, yes, all of those things will come up with the estimated flow in, out, the wattage for the water system, the wattage for the sanitary system, and so we’ll be talking to the Town about that. MR. MAGOWAN-One of the things you mentioned earlier, correct me if I’m wrong, but we’ve really talked about traffic on Weeks Road. We’ve had problems, you know, in the past with the amount of trucks in Wal-Mart, and we’re really concerned about the kids. There is a huge amount of kids that hang out there waiting for the bus and the parents and the cars. This is a lot going on. You mentioned you’d like to give people that option of being able to go to Wal-Mart. I like that idea. So if that’s the case, you know, coming out of the car wash there where you have your by-pass lane come in, you can see that little nub that sticks in. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. That, to me, caught my eye as, boy that’s going to come out, even though you’re coming straight out the flow looks more like it all goes to the left. You could make it look more enticing to go to the right to follow that out and go back out to the light. There’s a light up there and that just gets so busy. MR. HOFFMAN, JR.-What we’ll do is we’ll take that into consideration and as I said, when we get the traffic analysis, that first blush, at what the traffic numbers are telling us, then we’ll start to say, yes, we have a problem that is worth emphasizing what you were saying, going out towards the light, but if we found that the light isn’t an expectation, well the delay for exiting will actually make people, say you direct them out there, yes, it’s safer, but then you start to get into unsafe situations. If they feel as though they’re stuck at a light for too long. We want to balance those things. I think that the majority of people who want to go back out to Route 9, I would go to the light. I think more people would do that, because as I said, I would not be surprised if somebody went out onto Weeks Road, thought, I’ll turn left and I’ll go out and I’ll be able to make a right when the light is red on the thru traffic on Route 9. People will always do that. Some people, as I said, they’ll decide, I’m going to go through the car wash now on my way to Wal- Mart, or I’ve finished at Wal-Mart and I’m going to come this way and go out that way. Depending on whether they’re going south or north, that’s going to be the thing that tells them which way they’re going to go. So I will keep that in mind, in terms of saying, okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what I was trying to say, and I’m sorry for interrupting you, I don’t have a problem with the cars coming in, but maybe going out make that a right hand turn to go through, and that gives them the option to go up to Wal-Mart and go in that way. We’ll see what the traffic study is, but I know there has been a concern and we’ve really tried to work with Wal-Mart to really protect the residents behind there. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. PALUMBO-Yes. I think you would see that we have already started on the steps to make that safer with actually having a sidewalk. Right now they’re walking along the side of the road. So I think that’s a step one. They will only have one point where they have that crossing of the lane. Numbers will speak a lot to us in terms of that traffic, but there are some times when you have that right in, right out type of thing, people will do things that you’re not expecting. They’ll make the left in, and if I have somebody, especially somebody with a small child, and they’re thinking it’s my time to go, there’s nobody coming, they’re looking back. I don’t want them to be surprised by somebody making an odd move. If they know that cars could be coming from both directions, they’ll know when to cross. We can put a crosswalk across that entrance so people would know that they should be ready to be stopping at a crosswalk. There are things we can do to make that a safer management, and I guess I’m just saying let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water there. Let’s not make the traffic situation worse by limiting something until we know those numbers. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m more than happy to wait for the traffic study. I think that the overall concept, I didn’t realize the property actually stuck out over there. It would be so nice to see, you guys really do an awesome job on the properties, and Quaker Road itself just amazes me sometimes. Really it’s amazing when you see the cars waiting to get in there and if you sit across the street and watch how quickly everything just flows. I would just, my main concern is really to protect what we’ve tried to do on Weeks Road and to get more people to go out to the light, especially on Route 9 because I grew up in the days when Route 9 was really just two lanes, and then they entered that, I call it the suicide lane in the middle, and I turn off of, down here at Round Pond Road, you know, the entrance onto Martha’s, and try to turn onto Round Pond, you’ve got to be careful now because people like to go into that first entrance where it’s really, in my opinion, safer to go into the second one, but I’m just watching out, because I’ve been involved with the Route 9 corridor study. So those are also the, we’re also waiting to see what happens here, but the numbers, the telltales. MR. HOFFMAN, Jr.-At Weeks Road we’ll keep it landscaped. MR. PALUMBO-Right. You’ll see the final landscaping, we’ll match that, the lighting. We’ll make sure that we have the lighting, something there so we do light that entrance well enough that it’s not a dark area that somebody has to cross, and thank you for reminding me. I mean one of the other things that I wanted to mention about the operational side of where the vacuums are. Some people go to the vacuums first and then go through. Some people get their car washed and then pull up to the vacuums. So that also has sort of a mix of what happens on site and what’s happening, which direction people are coming. So we will put all that together and give you more detailed decision making that’s based on that, but I think that we can combine all the aspects that you, and that’s what we were hoping for tonight to hear those kind of things. One thing that we do like about the Weeks Road entrance is we’ve been able to push it as far back as possible. So that also gives people not the, somebody, I mean, people, not just the kids on the sidewalk, but the other thing of somebody making a turn and then stopping to turn in quickly because the entrance is so close to Quaker Road, the next thing you know you have somebody coming in behind them. This gives as much distance as we can give on our side to try to eliminate any of that kind of fender bender type stuff, get them well into Weeks Road before they decide to make that turn. So I think we do have some housing things already thought out and I think that we’ll be able to match that with the traffic analysis. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments from members of the Board? Do you have any questions for us? Okay. Well thank you very much for your presentation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HOFFMAN, Jr.-Well I guess the only other question is, Laura’s going to schedule us for September. Right? MR. DEEB-Good luck with that. MR. PALUMBO-We know how busy she is. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned your working with Staff, with Laura in particular to get to this point. One recommendation I would have, particularly if you’re anxious to get this process going is continue to maintain high levels of communication with Laura and that’s going to help you a great deal in the long run. MR. PALUMBO-We try to do that. We know how busy she is, but she’s always afforded her time to us and I think I have to come maybe in at least once every week just to see Sunny off since she’ll be retiring. MR. HOFFMAN, JR.-Building costs are skyrocketing weekly. So just from February to June, building costs went up 20% and this last opening they went up again, and I hear there’s 21 container ships anchored off of Los Angeles. There’s miles and miles of trains in Chicago. We can’t order anything in any time. So there’s a sense of urgency to get going and get a shovel in the ground. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/24/2021) MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, believe me, every application we see is an emergency. MR. HUNSINGER-So you haven’t seen prices start to come down. MR. HOFFMAN, Jr.-No. MR. TRAVER-I had heard at least for lumber. MR. MAGOWAN-Lumber is coming down. MR. HOFFMAN, Jr.-It’s still higher than it was. MR. MAGOWAN-But metal sheets is just brutal. MR. HUNSINGER-And then trusses, braces, MR. TRAVER-Well thank you very much again. MR. DEEB-Thank you. Good luck, fellows. Hope to see you soon. MR. PALUMBO-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? If not, does anyone want to make a motion to adjourn? MR. DEEB-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, everybody. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 24