Loading...
11-16-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH NOVEMBER 16, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 51-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Main House) 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Site Plan No. 52-2021 Brett & Pamela West 3. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Discussion Item 7-2021 Richard & Lisa Spoerl 3. TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 295.20-1-4.2 CONSENT TO TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENT Site Plan No. 69-2021 Judith Dooley 8. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.20-1-8 Site Plan No. 70-2021 Francis & Erin Steinbach 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18 Site Plan No. 73-2021 William Mason 12. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.8-1-44 Site Plan No. 72-2021 Joseph Gross 15. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2 Site Plan No. 71-2021 Hoffman Development Corp. 20. 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 11/16/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH NOVEMBER 16, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board thnd meeting for Tuesday, November 16, 2021. This is our first meeting for November and our 22 meeting 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 we won’t be interrupted by that in case it goes off. In the event of an emergency, please make note of the illuminated exit signs. Those are the emergency exits. Let’s see. We do have a couple of items with public hearings at the latter part of our agenda this evening and we will be noting those public hearings as they arise and we’ll be taking public comment. We do have a couple of administrative items, and before we get to our regular agenda, I want to draw the Board’s attention to the draft of the 2022 Town calendar, which of course includes Planning Board meeting dates and if possible we would like to approve those. As has been our practice for the last couple of years, we have put a draft third Planning Board meeting during what we have come to call the growing season in the spring, March, April, and May because we tend to have a lot of projects that time of the year and that we tend to use those agendas when necessary, but has everyone had an opportunity to see the calendar? MR. SHAFER-No. MR. TRAVER-Well, we can wait. We’ll be meeting again on Thursday. Perhaps you could look at it before Thursday and we’ll adopt the calendar at that time. So we’ll move on from that. I want to bring th another item up under administrative items, and that is next month on December 16 we have an opportunity to receive the annual MS-4 training from Soil and Water, and Laura has suggested the date, th the first meeting in December which is the 16, and if we just arrive a little bit early. MRS. MOORE-That’s the second meeting. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry? MRS. MOORE-Is it the second meeting? th MR. TRAVER-I thought the 16 was the first meeting. I’m sorry. You’re right. That is the second th meeting. Okay. So the second meeting of December, the final meeting of the year actually, December 16. If we can arrive at 6:15, we will take about a half an hour or so of that annual training, and I’d like to make a motion. th RESOLUTION FOR TIME CHANGE FOR DECEMBER 16, 2021 PLANNING BOARD MEETING TH MOTION TO ARRIVE AT 6:15 P.M. FOR THE DECEMBER 16, 2021 PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next we move to the approval of minutes, and we have the minutes stth from September 21 and September 28 of 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 21, 2021 September 28, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF stth SEPTEMBER 21 AND SEPTEMBER 28, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and we also have a request to table Site Plan 51-2021. This is the West house and guest house, Site Plan 51 and 52 of 2021 to the December meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: TABLE SITE PLAN 51-2021 WEST MAIN HOUSE AND SITE PLAN 52-2021 WEST GUEST HOUSE TO DECEMBER 16, 2021 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the application has to go back through the Zoning Board of Appeals which would occur th on December 15. So that’s why this application could be tabled to the December 16rh meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any discussion or questions about that tabling? MR. SHAFER-I have a question. Laura, in the previous iteration that project got disapproved by the APA. Do we have any expectation that that would happen in this case as well? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know at this time and I haven’t heard anything from the APA and typically they don’t provide a comment too early on. MR. SHAFER-It will go to them after we approve it? MRS. MOORE-Right. Only, it’ll only go to the APA if the Zoning Board approves it. It’s not, it’s dependent on the Zoning Board. Those are the only items that are provided to the APA because we have an approved land use plan. MR. TRAVER-Any other discussion? Let’s see, did you make a motion? MR. DEEB-I will. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) Applicant proposes to demo the existing home and construct a new home of 5,722 sq. ft. footprint with patio area of 1,800 sq. ft. The new floor area is 9,199 sq. ft. and a 500 sq. ft. barn is also proposed adding to the floor area. The project includes site work for new landscaping of shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, driveway area, a covered walkway between the main home and a proposed home on the adjoining parcel. The applicant proposes a 375 sq. ft. porte-cochere and an attached garage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief is sought for setbacks, height, permeability, second garage and floor area. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 51-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the December 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next we have a discussion item. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. I’m going to ask. I apologize. Did you say both Site Plan 51? MR. DEEB-I only did one. MRS. MOORE-You only did one. So we should do the second one. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I didn’t notice that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 52-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST Applicant proposes construction of a new home with a 3,741 sq. ft. of floor area and 2,990 sq. ft. footprint. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home. Site work includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings, new septic and new line for drinking water. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability, floor area and access from adjoining lot. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 52-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the December 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right, and next under Administrative Items is Richard and Lisa Spoerl. This is a Discussion Item 7-2021. (RECOMMENDATION) DISCUSSION ITEM 7-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I (TOWN BOARD). RICHARD & LISA SPOERL OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: 311. LOCATION: FARR LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO AMEND THE APPROVED APRIL 12, 2000 INDIAN RIDGE PUD. TO COVERT EXISTING 1 ACRE PARCEL 295.20-1-4.2 FROM A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED LOT TO A RESIDENTIAL LOT. THE PARCEL OF LAND IS THE LAST LOT WITHIN THE PUD AND WAS SOLD IN A TAX AUCTION; THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THE INDIAN RIDGE PUD WAS APPROVED WITH 75 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ONE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL LOT. PER SECTION 179-12-060, CHANGES IN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD), THE PLANNING BOARD DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THE MODIFIED IS STILL IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT OF THE LOCAL LAW CREATING THE PUD BY NOTIFICATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. SEQRA CONSENT FOR TOWN BOARD TO ACT AS THE LEAD AGENCY. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 51-1999 (PUD). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: (TOWN BOARD) SITE INFORMATION: INDIAN RIDGE PUD. LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 295.20-1-4.2. SECTION: 179-12 PUD. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) RICHARD SPOERL, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So at this time the applicant has approached the Town Board which had referred this back to the Planning Board for a recommendation. The Town Board is also asking to be Lead Agency. It’s not really a project. It’s actually really more of a paperwork effort at this time where they would like to change one lot that was designated as commercial to a residential lot. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know if there was anything else that you wanted to add. MR. SPOERL-I was just going to answer questions if you had any questions. MR. TRAVER-Yes. If you would please come up and state your name for the record, introduce yourself for our minutes and tell us about your project. MR. SPOERL-I’m Richard Spoerl. I live on Aviation Road now. This is a request to change a commercial lot from Indian Ridge PUD to a residential. It would increase the number of residential lots approved from 75 to 76. The property was in the developer’s name and he held that through the whole development of that project. At the end of the project that lot was foreclosed by the County due to taxes. So that was set up as a community center back in 2000 in the agreement and through the Town Board in meetings and discussions starting I think in ’96 actually when it was someone else’s property. It went back and forth as to whether there or not there was going to be duplexes in there or common areas, parks, etc. and the agreement had 75 single family lots and this commercial lot, the lot behind it it went to the School, and some areas that were donated for Rush Pond area and things like that. So this lot was earmarked for, as a community center, thinking like a child care, a daycare, medical facility, deli, a rehab center, something like that was the thought, and the discussions that that community would be aging in place. Well that community is not aging in place. They’re young and vibrant. We actually lived in that neighborhood at 189 Farr Lane until our kids graduated school and we downsized. . We sold to a young family and there’s still kids that play hockey and are very active in there. So when this lot went up on the auction block, one of our thoughts was that we would buy it and hold it and take the risk that we could or could not build a house on it, but we didn’t want anybody going in, putting a Chik Fil A thing, traffic or something like that. All the uses that are listed in the PUD are nearby. Moreau Health was on Manor Drive and that’s now incorporated into West Mountain Building 2. We have a deli, in the back of Stewart’s you have professional offices. We have daycare. Everything in that community that was labeled for that site is there. So we wanted to take this lot that is essentially deemed unbuildable, do a residential lot so we could build a house on there. We talked to probably 60% of the community of that neighborhood in person and there’s other ones that are part of the, I guess they started a Facebook group. They started a Facebook group they’re all in. We haven’t found anyone in opposition yet. So the first step of this was to see if we could change it to a residential use and go from there to meet the requirements of the rest of the PUD. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-So is this coming to the Planning Board for an advisory opinion to the Town Board? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Yes. They would be Lead Agency, or they’re asking to be Lead Agency. So we would, Number One, we would accept their establishment of Lead Agency and they’re also asking us for our thoughts, our recommendation on the question being posed by the applicant. MR. VALENTINE-Is there governing regulations through an HOA? MR. SPOERL-There is no HOA in that neighborhood. MR. VALENTINE-Nothing to change with governing documents. MR. SPOERL-No, there is not. MR. SHAFER-Will we eventually see the Site Plan? MRS. MOORE-Most likely not if it’s just a residential unit. MR. SHAFER-So there’ll be no Code violations? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. If the applicant were to subdivision as this lot could be eventually based on the lot size allowed, that would come back to this Board, but at this time I don’t believe that that’s the case. I think there’s just one single family dwelling proposed. MR. VALENTINE-Is there a demolition involved? Is there an existing building on there? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. SPOERL-No. MR. VALENTINE-So there was never a community? MR. SPOERL-No. MR. TRAVER-You made comment in your initial presentation that this was not a considered a buildable lot? MR. SPOERL-Excuse me? MR. TRAVER-Did I misunderstand you or did you say at some point this was not a buildable lot? MR. SPOERL-At this point it’s not listed as a buildable lot. It’s assessment is $9,000. So it’s used and buildable. It’s viability as a commercial lot is negligible. MR. TRAVER-But it’s not unbuildable from an engineering standpoint. MR. SPOERL-No. Definitely you can build on it. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. Usually when we hear unbuildable lot it refers to wetlands or steep slopes or whatever, which I was not aware was on this location. So I was a little confused by that comment. Okay. So, Laura, the procedure for us, then, would be to, Number One, to accept the Town Board as Lead Agency, and then, Number Two, to make any comments or recommendations we would have for the Town Board on this item. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Right. It’s either provide a positive recommendation or a negative recommendation. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let’s take it one step at a time. Does anyone have any objection to the Town Board assuming Lead Agency on this? Okay. So, let’s see, do we have a draft resolution to that effect? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Why don’t we do that first. MR. DEEB-All right. We’ll do that. RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENT RICHARD & LISA SPOERL Whereas the applicant proposes to amend the approved April 12, 2000 Indian Ridge PUD. To convert existing 1 acre parcel 295.20-1-4.2 from a commercial designated lot to a residential lot. The parcel of land is the last lot within the PUD and was sold in a tax auction; the applicant intends to develop the property for residential purposes. The Indian Ridge PUD was approved with 75 residential lots where the applicant proposes one additional residential lot. Per section 179-12-060, changes in Planned Unit Developments (PUD), the Planning Board determines whether or not the modified is still keeping with the intent of the local law creating the PUD by notification to the Town Board. SEQRA consent for Town Board to act as the lead agency. MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR THE RICHARD & LISA SPOERL/INDIAN RIDGE PUD. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we get to the request itself, and the change of this one lot from the Planned Unit Development as originally designed to be that of a residential lot. How would the Board members feel about that? Does anyone have any initial objection to that? MR. VALENTINE-Any deed restrictions that exist on this lot? MR. SPOERL-There are. There are setbacks that are, I guess, not as constraining as the residential lots, but we’re far going to exceed those. I think the side setbacks are 15 feet instead of a total of 30 minimum of 10. Twenty is still on the back and thirty on the front, but those setbacks are not going to be approached. Also there’s some leniencies or some availabilities f that lot for like signage and things like that that we’re not going to need that. So I would suggest maybe if we do change it that we converted that to whatever the rest of the residential lot restrictions are. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, Laura, if you could clarify that. If this were to change from commercial to residential, the requirements would change as well, right, setbacks? MRS. MOORE-It goes with the property itself. So it’s not necessarily going to change the setbacks. So it’s the property itself. So I agree that as part of your recommendation it maybe a good recommendation to include that it revert back to a residential requirement. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Good. MR. SHAFER-Question. Is the residential code for a PUD different from a conventional residential code? MR. VALENTINE-Well, yes. MR. SPOERL-As far as? MR. SHAFER-Setbacks and anything else that’s governing. MR. VALENTINE-It a has to be specific to the PUD. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s what the PUD will do. They can set all the limits. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So if we include in our referral to the Town Board a recommendation that should this ultimately be approved, that the conditions, including setbacks and all the other conditions for this lot be changed to residential, standardized. MR. SHAFER-My question was whether the standard residential code is different from what was agreed to in this PUD. MR. VALENTINE-This man just said that they are. MR. SPOERL-I see what you’re asking. You’re asking is a lot in Indian Ridge have different setbacks than say Smoke Ridge or some other, Burnt Hills or something like that. I wouldn’t know that. I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-Again, we could include in our recommendation that they be standard, they could adopt the codes for Town wide. MR. SHAFER-Consistent with the other 75 lots. MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly. MR. SPOERL-And the side setback is the only difference. The maximum heights, the setbacks, things like that, they’re all the same, except for that one side lot. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-This property that you’re proposing, it’s one acre, and the resolution we have in front of us has the condition of a minimum lot size of two acres. Is that going to be an issue. MR. DEEB-I noticed that, too. MR. DIXON-Is that a concern that we should address now? MR. MAGOWAN-That’s what the PUD does. The Town will make those decisions. MR. TRAVER-The Town as Lead Agency is going to have to look at the environmental concerns and as they change this to residential, that would be one of the factors that they would ultimately consider. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. VALENTINE-But that would be something, as Mike points out, it might be something worth in a resolution as an advisory to the Town Board that they consider that. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I don’t think that should be in there. MR. DEEB-Take it out? MRS. MOORE-Take it out. MR. DIXON-So you’re just testing us. MRS. MOORE-I am testing you. MR. DEEB-I saw that, too. I had it highlighted. MR. MAGOWAN-I think it’s a great project. It’s a nice lot. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So no minimum lot size, Laura, is what you’re saying. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. SPOERL-There is a minimum lot size in that PUD of .4 acres. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but this is already an existing defined lot. MR. DEEB-Correct. This is an acre lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. I did not catch that one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? Any other concerns or recommendations, discussion items that we want to forward? MR. DIXON-I just want to throw out a comment. So that’s all part of the runway that used to be out there as well, too. Part of that property probably has old parts of the runway to the airport that used to be out there. MR. SPOERL-I lived out there and there were some things out there I wondered what they were. That would make sense, but I don’t know exactly. MR. DIXON-Pretty much the whole school was. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The old airport. MR. DEEB-I remember the runway, the airport runway. MR. DIXON-Interesting history out there. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have a draft referral. RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: RICHARD & LISA SPOERL MOTION TO PROVIDE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR THE RICHARD & LISA SPOERL/INDIAN RIDGE PUD. Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption; Said lot to revert to the residential zoning requirements per the PUD. th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Now we move to the next section of our agenda which is under Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item is Judith Dooley, Site Plan 69-2021, SEQR Type II. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 69-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JUDITH DOOLEY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2964 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW DECK CONFIGURATION FOR THE UPPER, MAIN LEVEL LANDING AREA FACING THE SHORE. THE PREVIOUS DECK SYSTEM IS 305 SQ. FT. MAIN FLOOR, 156 SQ. FT. LANDING/DECK, AND 15 SQ. FT. STAIRS FOR A TOTAL OF 476 SQ. FT. PROPOSED DECKING IS 60 SQ. FT. UPPER DECK, 300 SQ. FT. MAIN FLOOR, 24.5 SQ. FT. LANDING AND 38 SQ. FT. STAIRS FOR A TOTAL OF 422.5 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING HOME’S FOOTPRINT OF 1,141 SQ. FT. REMAINS, ONLY DECK CONSTRUCTION CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: AST 355-2019 BOATHOUSE & SUNDECK, AV 73-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .16 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.20- 1-8. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010. JUDITH DOOLEY, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a new deck configuration for the upper main level landing area facing the shore. The previous deck system is 305 square feet, 156 square feet of landing or deck and 15 square feet of stairs for a total of 476 square feet. The proposed deck for the upper level is 60 square feet. The main level is 300 square feet, a change to a 24.5 square foot landing and a 38 square foot stairs for a total of 422.5. The stairs will go down to ground level. There are no other changes proposed on the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. DOOLEY-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Would you state your name for the record. MS. DOOLEY-Judith Dooley. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tell us about your project. MS. DOOLEY-It is a house, and the deck was built we think in the 1980’s and it was not built with treated lumber. So it is deteriorating and we would like to replace it. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we see with the photographs that you enclosed with us, you can see the deterioration in the wood. So you’re actually, the total of what you’re proposing would actually be a slight reduction in square footage of the deck. Correct? MS. DOOLEY-Yes. This deck has had many lives that we’ve seen through old photographs. There used to be lots of different levels and apparently they called one part the birdcage. There was a round section. There were parts that trees went through, and we really just want to simplify this deck, because the deck is the way we get out of the house. There’s sliders and we kind of need a deck to get out and then stairs down to the water. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and what you’re here for tonight is because you’re going to be going before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variances that you need. All right. So this evening what we’re looking at is a referral to the ZBA with regard to the variance which is setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-You’re pretty much sitting on the same footprint and making the deck smaller. Correct? MS. DOOLEY-Correct. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-That’s what I thought you said. MS. WHITE-So it’s not an expansion of a non-conforming. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a replacement of, MRS. MOORE-Right. So it is, technically, if they’re removing it completely, which they are, and reconstructing it, that would be an expansion of a non-conforming structure. Because the existing, yes, it’s a technicality. MS. WHITE-Sorry. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s a bit of a technicality. MR. MAGOWAN-It sounds worse than it really is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, let’s hope so, right. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-The setback. Will the new deck be closer or further away from the lake than the old one? MS. DOOLEY-It will be farther away from the lake because it’s going to be a little bit smaller. MR. DEEB-The setbacks are all the same or less. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s sort of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure basically. Okay, and the other question of course we normally deal with with these projects is the landscaping and the shoreline buffering. We do have some photographs that were included in the packet that seem to show considerable vegetation along the shoreline. Could you describe the shoreline buffering, plantings and so on that are protecting the lake from the stormwater runoff and so on. MS. DOOLEY-What is there now is just what’s in there. We just took over ownership of the house just in January, and we haven’t touched any of the landscaping. So it’s just kind of brush and trees. That’s what’s there now, and until this deck is done we have no plans for any kind of landscaping changes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Do folks feel comfortable moving forward with a recommendation? Okay. I’m not hearing any specific concerns going to the ZBA. So I think we can go ahead with a motion to that effect. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 73-2021 JUDITH DOOLEY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a new deck configuration for the upper, main level landing area facing the shore. The previous deck system is 305 sq. ft. main floor, 156 sq. ft. landing/deck, and 15 sq. ft. stairs for a total of 476 sq. ft.. Proposed decking is 60 sq. ft. upper deck, 300 sq. ft. main floor, 24.5 sq. ft. landing, and 38 sq. ft. stairs for a total of 422.5 sq. ft.. The existing home’s footprint of 1,151 sq. ft. remains, only deck construction changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2021 JUDITH DOOLEY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021 by the following vote: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MS. DOOLEY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item also under Recommendations is Francis & Erin Steinbach, Site Plan Modification 70-2021. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 211 ASSEMBLY POINT DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE AN EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. HOME FOOTPRINT TO INSTALL A FULL BASEMENT WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,550 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REMOVAL OF A 444 SQ. FT. REAR DOCK TO CONSTRUCT A 356 SQ. FT. DECK; SITE HAS PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR 154 SQ. FT. ADDITION. THE FRONT DECK OF 22 SQ. FT. IS TO BE REMOVED TO CONSTRUCT A 458 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 1,949 SQ. FT. INCREASED TO 2,786 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA I A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1995 ADDITION, SEP-0657-2019, SP 15-2020, AV 74-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-18. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179- 6-065. FRANCIS STEINBACH, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to raise an existing house and to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 square feet. The project includes removal of a 444 square foot rear deck to construct a 356 square foot deck. The site has a previous approval for 154 square foot addition. The front deck of 220 square feet is to be removed to construct a 458 square foot square foot deck. The existing floor area is 1,949 square feet increased to 2,786 square feet. The relief is for setbacks to the north property line and then also for the front deck, south property line setbacks as well as the west property line setbacks and I believe that was the front setback, and then the house foundation is to be 22.2 feet from the front, 3.2 feet from the south, 2.4 feet from the north, and that’s due to the installation of the full basement. The floor area relief requested, or the maximum allowed is 2,010 square feet. The permeability is being decreased to 67% where 75% is required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Can you come up to the table, introduce yourself and tell us about your project please. MR. STEINBACH-My name is Francis Steinbach and basically what we’re doing is we’re lifting the house and staying within the same footprint and just putting a new foundation under it. The existing structure has failed. The back wall of the house has caved in and they built a second wall inside that. In fact the house doesn’t even have a foundation under it at present. It’s just my wife and myself living in this house. We plan on retiring there. It’s our dream home, if you would. MR. MAGOWAN-Floating dream home. MR. STEINBACH-Floating dream home, but, yes, so we’re just trying to correct things and the reason why rd we’re trying to put a full foundation under it is right now about a 1/3 of the house is foundation and the rest is crawl space, and of course as I get older it’s going to be a little difficult to crawl underneath and make any changes or repairs to the house. So that’s why we’re looking to do that. Also we have, we’re not putting any access from the upper level to the basement. It is only for storage, storage and parking. Right now we only have two small spots in front of the house for parking. The only other parking that there is is on Sunset Lane. Sunset Lane is only six months out of the year. They don’t want you parking on that road during the winter months. So it really restricts us from having friends and family over because of the limited parking. I don’t know what else I can tell you . I’ll leave it up to you to ask any questions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Thank you. So tonight what we’re going to be doing is looking at the variance requests, not the site plan review per se. MR. STEINBACH-Right. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Because we’re making a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals who you’ll be chatting with tomorrow evening. MR. STEINBACH-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So it appears from the variances, and correct me if I’m wrong, but since you’re not changing the basic footprint, the various setbacks are really, they’re pre-existing and they’re not changing. Correct? So what you’re doing by adding another floor in effect to the house, in addition to a repair and doing the repairs, is you’re increasing the floor area ratio, because you’re adding that square footage to the overall size. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I have one. This house looks familiar. Were you in for? MR. STEINBACH-I was here last year. Yes, for the expansion. AJ Architecture did the design or did all the paperwork for us and they did all the paperwork for us this time as well. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks nice. I know because it was in the front of the house, and then a little something on the back. MR. STEINBACH-Right. What we were doing is we were building an 11 x 14. MR. TRAVER-Like a mudroom. MR. STEINBACH-In the back, yes, for a laundry and things like that because right now we have no, it’s only four bedrooms upstairs and a kitchen and one bathroom. We were adding a second bath and a laundry room upstairs because again as we get older we don’t like climbing up and down stairs to the basement to do laundry. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically you’re just raising the house. MR. STEINBACH-Basically we’re raising the house and getting a foundation under it. MR. MAGOWAN-How is the rock ledge? MR. STEINBACH-Well, last year when we did the excavation, there were some big rocks, but nothing major. I mean they dug up one that’s referred to as the potato rock, which is sitting in our backyard now. MR. DEEB-I’m noticing here on the setback requirements, required 30, existing is 19.4 and the proposed is 10. From what I can see that is the only really change in setbacks from what you have now. MR. STEINBACH-I believe so. MR. DEEB-Is that because, when you raise it up? MR. STEINBACH-We’re building up the front deck. MR. DEEB-All right. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s really the deck that’s. MR. DEEB-And the permeability. The permeability is pretty hefty. MR. DIXON-When you raise this house up, are you planning on changing the grade? It’s more of a site plan question which we’d get into later on, but what I’m thinking in terms of do we approve a variance or not, are you looking at changing the grading of the land? Anything you’re excavating. MR. STEINBACH-Anything we’re excavating is basically going back the way that it was. When we lift the house, Larman Brothers, they’re doing the lifting of the house. MR. MAGOWAN-They’re a good outfit. MR. STEINBACH-They are. They’ve been lifting homes for quite a few years, and Chris Crandall’s the one that’s doing the excavation. Of course he’s familiar with the Point. He’s been out there for years. They plan on going through the front of the house because they can’t do anything in the rear of the house because we had to have the septic re-done within that year timeframe. That being said we can’t come through the back anymore because the septic tank is there. Our leach field is there now and of course we went with the enhanced system, the Claris system. So now we have two tanks back there. So there’s really no place to put it. Now we’re restricted as for what we can do. Chris Crandall is going to have to 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) remove everything from the Point and then bring it back. So now we’re incurring additional costs because we had to get the septic done in that timeframe. MR. DIXON-I appreciate that explanation and we spent a great deal of time on the project last year. MR. STEINBACH-Yes, and my wife and I are looking at additional costs, but we feel that it’s worth it because we love it out there and, again, it’s our retirement home. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? With regard to the referral to the ZBA, do we have any concerns or specific recommendations that we want to make? All right. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 74-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. home footprint to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft.. The project includes a removal of a 444 sq. ft. rear dock to construct a 356 sq. ft. deck; site has previous approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The front deck of 220 sq. ft. is to be removed to construct a 458 sq. ft. deck. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. increased to 2,786 sq. ft.. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a non-conforming structure. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. STEINBACH-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is William Mason, Site Plan 73-2021. This is also for a recommendation to the ZBA. SITE PLAN NO. 73-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM MASON. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15 TUSCARORA DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 768 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. ONE STORY HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 16 SQ. FT. NEW PORCH LANDING ENTRY AND A SMALLER ACCESS LANDING TO THE EXISTING PORCH. THE HOME HAS AN EXISTING ONE BEDROOM AND THE SECOND FLOOR WILL ADD THREE MORE BEDROOMS.. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONNECTION TO THE TAKUNDEWIDE COMMUNITY SEPTIC AND WATER SUPPLY FROM THE LAKE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010, SITE PLAN FOR AN EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING AND A NEW FLOOR IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. WILLIAM MASON, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a 768 square foot second story addition to the existing one story home which is also 768 square feet. The project includes a 16 square foot porch landing area and a smaller access landing to the existing porch. The home has an existing one bedroom and the second floor will add three more bedrooms. Variance relief is sought for setbacks, floor area, and permeability and again this is a project that’s located in the Takundewide development which has an HOA. There’s an existing 18.7 acres in common area. In addition the master plan indicates the 18.7 acres is to be considered during the request for a housing expansion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MASON-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So as opposed to the previous application where they’re adding a basement, you’re adding a second floor, if I understand it correctly. MR. MASON-I’m William Mason. I’m representing the applicant who’s Lisa Paplanus. Her husband David has passed away so she’s on there I think because of the deed. Those of you who’ve been here a while have seen very similar ones that we’ve done before. It’s in keeping with anything else that the owners of Takundewide have done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MASON-It’s simply adding a second story. The basement, there is no basement. It’s a crawl space, full foundation, and they’re just adding, doubling the size by adding a second story, but it’s still a very small building, 1500 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the variance is for permeability, setback, floor area and expansion of a non- conforming structure. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Somewhere in the papers we got it talked about the house being hooked up to the homeowner’s leach field septic system. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. SHAFER-It is not now hooked up to that? MR. MASON-This one, it’s one of the original, it was built in the early 60’s. I was trying to think, probably I have it in here when the house was built. It’s got a, I’m a shamed to say it’s still got a metal septic tank with an unknown drain field, but it’s far away from the lake. It’s like 400, almost 500 feet back from the water I believe. So I don’t think there’s any concern and we’ve never had any problems with the septic system failing, but it is old and in desperate need of doing something. It’s located right in the center of the property, though. So to put in a system at this point it would have to be elevated with a good separation distance. So they’ve agreed to join the community system which is not that far away. It’s a fairly easy dig for her and they’ll be of course putting in, and I expect it would be a 1250 gallon concrete tank, but whatever the Building Department sizes appropriately for this number of bedrooms and so on, that’s what she’ll be putting in. MR. SHAFER-Do we know how many other buildings there are in Takundewide that are not hooked up to the HOA? MR. MASON-There are currently eight buildings hooked up to it. Out of 32 homes there are, we are doing work on it right now to figure out what the actual capacity is. It was designed originally for 11 homes, but it was also designed for, I think it was 11 three bedroom homes and different people, we’ve got some two bedroom homes hooked in and we’ve got some four bedroom homes hooked in and we to base it on that. I’ve been talking with Tom Hutchins and he’s working right now on the actual amount of flow that we’ve had over the past 10 years to tell me what the actual capacity is, because with the Transfer law we’re all of a sudden getting some other interest in people joining the community system. We want to know where we stand, how many we can add, and then we’re talking about what do we do to expand our capacity to get more in. Because I’m expecting, I don’t think that we’ll ever get all 32 homes, and Takundewide has 21 acres with a lot of depth, and we’ve got homes that are back 900, 1000 feet from the water, and it doesn’t really make sense for them to join this when they’ve got good land, they can put in a good traditional system is what I’m being told, but we’re trying to expand it so that we’ve got that capacity and anyway, I keep talking. Did I answer? MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. MASON-I did want to point out the narrative also says something about the Takundewide water system. It’s already hooked up. All of Takundewide is hooked up for Takundewide water systems. It’s community water and it will be hooked to a community septic system. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. VALENTINE-Are there more homes that could be built here? MR. MASON-No. At Takundewide? Not without, the original application I was involved in back in 1986. We agreed with the Town on the numbers that we had and that that was the end of it. The Mason family no longer owns a majority of it. So that would be up to, I’ve thought about this through the years. The homeowners association and the existing ownership may at some point decide that they want to do something like that. I can’t imagine it, knowing the people that are there right now. They like the numbers. They don’t want to expand ever, but they would of course have to come back, I think they’d have to come back in front of the Town Board, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board and get the blessings of everybody if they were ever to do something as radical as that. In our master plan we agreed that we would not be expanding it. So I don’t anticipate that at all. MR. VALENTINE-There are other homes, other than this one, who could go for expanded living area. MR. MASON-Yes. There are others that are this size, the 24 by 32 foot homes, single story, and as time goes on, I’ve been there since the start. I didn’t really think that they’d all end up being this, but I kind of do at this point now, and I’m looking at, there’s like 10 left, I think, 10 or 11 lots that have not expanded, and I think that, you know, 50 years from now or 100 years from now they will all, but it will take a while to get there. MR. VALENTINE-But the same argument will come up for a calculation of floor area ratio. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-With anybody else who wants to do that. MR. MASON-Sort of. It’s the same 18 acres of common property. Actually when you do the math, I mean I’ve included that sheet, I’ve done that sheet every time I’ve come in front of these Boards. We actually are the underdeveloped area in Cleverdale, at least. Our neighbors have much smaller lots with much bigger rd’ homes. We’ve got like 2/3s of an acre per home at Takundewide and I don’t expect that to change. MR. MAGOWAN-You’ve done a beautiful job over the years. It really is, it’s a nice lake community. MR. MASON-Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a big family there, and stay on Tom Hutchins to get those flow rates. I mean you’ve got enough land where you can expand on to it, but the other option is maybe we can start that sewer district that you want up there. MR. MASON-We’re all working on hat now. I’m on the Park Commission. So I’m dealing with the sewer inspection issue as well. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? Do people feel comfortable moving forward with a referral? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 75-2021 WILLIAM MASON The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 768 sq. ft. one story home. The project includes a 16 sq. ft. new porch landing entry and a smaller access landing to the existing porch. The home has an existing one bedroom and the second floor will add three more bedrooms. The project includes connection to the Takundewide community septic and water supply from the lake. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010, site plan for an expansion of non-conforming and a new floor in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a non- conforming structure. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2021 WILLIAM MASON Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. MASON-Thank you very much, and one last thing, let me apologize for my rude discussion with my friend there. I hadn’t seen him since COVID and I didn’t expect to see him tonight. MR. TRAVER-No need to apologize for the discussion. It’s just that it can interfere with the discussion that we’re trying to pay attention to in the meeting. So just, you know, if you can have it in the other room around one of those tables. Okay. Thank you. The next section of our agenda is New Business. The first item under New Business is Joseph Gross, Site Plan 72-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 72-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JOSEPH GROSS. OWNER(S): SILVER CIRCLE LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 27 SILVER CIRCLE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO 16,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH A 2,000 SQ. FT. COVERED LOADING DOCK ON AN EXISTING PARCEL AND TO IMPROVE ONSITE PARKING AREA. THE PROJECT SITE HAS 4 EXISTING BUILDINGS AND THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THESE STRUCTURES. SITE WORK INCLUDES MAINTAINING EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN A COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 6-2004 OFFICE/STORAGE, SP 18-2009 MODIFICATION, SP 62-2013 LOT LINE ADJ & 3 NEW BLDGS., SP 14-2015 LOT LINE ADJ & 2 NEW BLDGS., SP PZ 140=2016, AV PZ 138-2016. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. LOT SIZE: 9.38 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-17.2. SECTION: 179-3-040. CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct two 16,000 square foot warehouse buildings with a 2,000 sq. ft. covered loading dock on an existing parcel and to improve the onsite parking area. The project site has four existing buildings and there is no change to these structures. The site work includes maintaining existing stormwater management. This was previously approved under a different application, and items that I thought the Board might ask for additional information include landscaping and buffer area, building lighting, floor plans and the orientation of the elevations might need to be updated. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Great. Thanks, Laura. Good evening. MR. KEIL-Good evening. Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership. We’re here on behalf of the applicant. I know if he were here he’d be excited to tell you that expanding these operations will bring in new jobs through Gross Electric. Since this project was almost master planned, in 2016 the original Site Plan Review showed all of these buildings. I think at that point the applicant wasn’t ready to move on that. So we kind of removed the plans. So now, at this stage, he’s ready to expand. So we’re just kind of moving that process forward, using some of the existing stormwater infrastructure, essentially the same way that was thought of back then. So I’d be happy to answer any questions about the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Well it’s good to see the anticipated projects coming to fruition. They were, I do remember the discussion about these potential buildings. So questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-I have one. What would be the primary access? How would a truck get into these new buildings? MR. KEIL-From Silver Circle. There’s that cul-de-sac to the north. So if you come in from the north past the office. At the north end of the site where it touches Silver Circle. So there’s access there. Trucks can by-pass the office into the interior of the site. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. SHAFER-So they’d have to go by three of the existing buildings to get to the ones in back. MR. KEIL-Exactly. And that area in the back that’s being developed it’s actually currently gravel. So the impervious surface is a slight decrease. MR. TRAVER-There are some updates that need to be done on the plans, the covered loading dock. There’s an open bay that appears to be suggested by the plan that needs to be clarified, and as Laura commented in her Staff Notes we should also be looking at revising the sheets for vegetation areas and clarification on the buffers. MR. KEIL-Yes. Those comments were all noted and we do, we are holding that 30 foot side yard and rear yard setback where it is where it abuts an adjacent use. We’re keeping that vegetation, but we’ll note that. MR. TRAVER-There’s also a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? Yes, sir. We do have one gentleman that would like to speak. If you could come up to the microphone, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID BOGUE MR. BOGUE-Good evening. My name is David Bogue and I received a notice about tonight’s hearing. I own 74 and 79 Eagan Road which generally abuts this proposed plan. I don’t have any issue with the proposed plan. I just heard a question asked and answered. I’d like a little further just clarification because Eagan Road, I used to also own 84 Eagan Road, which really abuts the property. So I’m very familiar with the property. My real question has to do with current or perhaps future access to this facility as it relates to Eagan Road. Now technically Eagan Road ends right on the corner of my property at 70 Eagan Road. From there on it continues to a dead end on a cul de sac, but that’s a private road, yet Town maintained. So anywhere along there there will be a potential for access into this property and that’s just what I’m trying to seek clarification on. Is there an internal plan, and I think part of that was answered on how this building is going to be accessed through Silver Circle, but is there any provision to stipulate in the design that there will not ever be access via Eagan Road into this through the back end? MR. TRAVER-So your concern is that there should not be access on Eagan Road. MR. BOGUE-Well, no, because if you look at the nature of the intended use of the property, it really looks like it’s going to be for heavy trucks and we’re a residential neighborhood. So you don’t want big trucks. You’ve got a loading dock. You don’t want 18-wheelers coming through there and even during the construction phase, for most of us, you know, this is all private residences. So, yes, we have occasional delivery trucks. We have occasional need to have repair work done, but it isn’t a constant flow of traffic even during construction or after it’s opened up. That’s the real concern. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll see if we can get clarification on that. Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-Can you tell me where you are on there? I’m trying to go by the plans and pick up your last name and see what, the lot where you’re referencing and the impact. MR. BOGUE-So you see where the corner of that rectangle is? MR. VALENTINE-The one where the hand is right now? MR. BOGUE-Go down to the corner at the very bottom. MR. MAGOWAN-The end of Eagan Road. MR. BOGUE-Come, yes, the end of Eagan Road, the corner on the bottom, no, the other picture was better. MR. TRAVER-I think if you move the mouse to the left, Laura. There, that lot. MR. BOGUE-That lot. MR. TRAVER-Move the mouse left and up a little bit. Now up, to the left one more. Okay. Now down at the lowest point. MR. BOGUE-Right there where the cursor is, that’s my lot, and the one next door to it is my lot, and prior to about three years ago now we sold Mr. Gross the front of that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. VALENTINE-All right. That’s why I noticed the Gross name on it, on the lots. MR. BOGUE-Where that arrow, where that bubble is, the stick, the lollipop, we used to own that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So he’s adjoining those two properties, which we were fully aware of. I mean we had those conversations and there’s no issue. All we’re trying to make sure of is that as you come past that corner, Eagan Road technically ends right there. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BOGUE-And the rest of that road all the way to the end is shared among all of us as a private drive, and it’s a shared access driveway. MR. VALENTINE-So when I’m kayaking there, that bend in there, you’re in those houses that are looking right out? MR. BOGUE-Yes. I own four of them down there on that spot you’re talking about. Actually I don’t even want to get into that because that’s beyond the rectangle. MR. MAGOWAN-So you don’t want people driving past that corner point across the base of that property. MR. BOGUE-It’s not a question of people. It’s just. MR. TRAVER-Heavy equipment. MR. BOGUE-Heavy equipment, construction equipment. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we understand. MR. BOGUE-Yes. I mean we certainly all have guests and we all have friends and people invite and have parties. That’s not the issue. The real issue is planned ingress and egress to that industrial complex. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BOGUE-Actually the Town maintains that road for us, which we’re grateful for, especially in the winter when it snows., but it isn’t your typical road construction. They came in several years ago and they threw some stone and oil down and you have some pavement there which is plowable, but, you know, it won’t last forever. MR. MAGOWAN-Not with heavy equipment on it. MR. BOGUE-No. MR. MAGOWAN-And that’s a pretty windy road to get all the way back in there anyway. MR. BOGUE-It’s brutal. MR. MAGOWAN-So chances are the heavy equipment and tractor trailers aren’t harmful but it would be nice to put it out there that that not be an access point. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We’ll clarify that. Thank you very much. MR. BOGUE-Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment in the audience on this application? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, but I did want to identify that there was an engineering comment. I don’t believe that it had enough time to get to the Board members or even possibly the applicant at this time. So there are engineering comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-A lot? MRS. MOORE-Three pages, but five comments. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-And we would have had similar comments back when we looked at this two years ago. Right? MRS. MOORE-Probably, and I think a lot of it is just re-reviewing the existing stormwater plan and then clarification from the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Well we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is an Unlisted Action under SEQR. So we do have a SEQR review that needs to be conducted. MR. DEEB-There’s no landscaping proposal. Is that something they’re going to need? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant has identified, and this should be on the updated plans if it were to be approved, that that 30 foot buffer, that vegetation is around the entire 30 foot. That should be on the plans. MR. TRAVER-We did ask that earlier and the applicant has clarified that they will do that. MR. DEEB-There’s also another comment. Plans should be revised to indicate building light fixtures and locations. That has to be done. MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns under SEQR with this project? Would this be a reaffirmation of SEQR, Laura, or was that not considered back in the original? MRS. MOORE-I want to say that the SEQR regs had been updated. So over 4,000 square feet is reviewing the SEQR regs at this point. MR. TRAVER-Good point. Right. Okay. MR. DEEB-Well, before we get to that, too, we have plans should be updated to show the covered loading dock between the buildings. So that’s on there, too. All right. MR. KEIL-Yes. MR. DEEB-So, do we feel comfortable moving forward under SEQR with this application? We have a draft resolution, I believe, for that. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP # 72-2021 JOSEPH GROSS The applicant proposes to construct two 16,000 sq. ft. warehouse buildings with a 2,000 sq. ft. covered loading dock on an existing parcel and to improve onsite parking area. The project site has 4 existing buildings and there is no change to these structures. Site work includes maintaining existing stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction of new commercial buildings in a commercial light industrial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 72-2021 JOSEPH GROSS: Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-And with that, we look at the Site Plan itself. Do members of the Board feel comfortable moving forward? Okay. We have a draft resolution for that. MR. DEEB-Do we need conditions to show updated? MRS. MOORE-Updated information. MR. DEEB-Do you want me to list them or just put what’s in the Staff Notes? MRS. MOORE-You can do it as identified in Staff Notes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 72-2021 JOSEPH GROSS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct two 16,000 sq. ft. warehouse buildings with a 2,000 sq. ft. covered loading dock on an existing parcel and to improve onsite parking area. The project site has 4 existing buildings and there is no change to these structures. Site work includes maintaining existing stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction of new commercial buildings in a commercial light industrial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on November 16, 2021 and continued the public hearing to November 16, 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 November 16, 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 72-2021 JOSEPH GROSS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted –no waivers were requested. The applicant has provided information on g. site lighting, h. signage(no signs proposed), j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) Site Plan to provide updated information as identified in Staff Notes (landscaping/buffer area, building lighting, floor plans, and orientation of elevations) th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. KEIL-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item under New Business is Hoffman Development Corp., Site Plan 71-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 71-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. AGENT(S): FRANK PALUMBO, CT MALE. OWNER(S): 919 STATE ROUTE 9. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 919 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,750 +/- 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 ROUTE 9 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, DISC 5-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-42. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-040. FRANK PALUMBO & MARTY ANDREWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the application proposes a 5,750 square foot car wash building with associated access drive and queuing lanes and 18 self-serve facility 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 an existing traffic light, access on Weeks Road, sidewalk on Weeks Road and associated site work for landscaping, lighting and stormwater and in regards to information that I think 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) the Board might want to include in additional discussion would be the stormwater information, the type of lighting, the landscaping and the additional work for the interconnect and sidewalk and signage for the building and site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening/ MR. PALUMBO-Good evening. Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male Associates. I also have representatives here from Hoffman Carwash. MR. TRAVER-Before you begin, I wanted to discuss with the Board, we have, the information with this application is actually incomplete and we’re still awaiting some traffic details and so on. So we anticipate a recommendation at some point that this application be tabled to I believe Laura we discussed the February meeting? MRS. MOORE-February. Yes. MR. TRAVER-And so there also is a public hearing on this application. So just to alert members of the audience that may be here to generate public comment for us, since we have not received information on traffic yet at this point we will be re-hearing this application in February. We will keep the public hearing open until then. So there’ll be opportunity for public comment at that point in time as well, and, sir, you may begin. MR. PALUMBO-So I guess the only thing that surprised me is I didn’t expect that we would get tabled to February. We would have hoped that we would have been on sooner than that, because we think that the items are down to very small items. We received Chazen’s comments just tonight on the stormwater, and I see nothing exceptional in their comments. In fact probably half the comments are just things that are very small. We left out a decimal point on one that’s 591 instead of 5.91. So I don’t see anything very significant on the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Well one of the issues, of course, is this is an Unlisted Action and we have to consider the environmental impacts and since we have incomplete information. MR. PALUMBO-I understand that, and I understand your schedule is very loaded up, but I do think, and we’ll still hear what the public has to say if anything. MR. TRAVER-We’ve also had discussions on this before as a discussion item. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. Again, I understand the schedule. I also understand the closing on the property and everything. That’s why I’d certainly like to come back sooner than February. Again, we came in with a sketch plan application so that we could see what the Board’s thoughts were on the plan, and I think overwhelmingly, not that the Board was very much in concert with the ideas and the concept of the plan, I think we’ve been doing a lot of very good things including the addition of a sidewalk which is not for our project but for the benefit of the area. I think we’re doing a lot for Weeks Road there where we’re eliminating two drives, going down to one and making the connection out with Route 9. Yes, we are behind on the traffic analysis. Just like you’re facing a lot of projects, there’s a lot of projects out there and it seems like the traffic studies are getting bottlenecked, but I did a commitment that the report would be st done by December 1, and we could have that back in. The preliminary analysis from VHP who’s doing that study is that they are not witnessing, some of the numbers that they’re generating, anything that they think is going to fall into the serious condition type of action. The peak hour p.m. peak they’re looking at numbers like 78 trips during that p.m. peak which is 39 in and 39 out. One thing that we explained at the sketch plan meeting is that Hoffman’s has this down to a pretty fine science. It’s funny on the way up here I was listening to a show talking on marketplace talking about queuing analysis and I was like that’s exactly what they do, knowing exactly how people come in and go out of the site. So we’re not afraid of anything that’s going to come up an we’re actually excited that the traffic is going to function very well and so I guess just the nature of the comments, I think we can have that back and would certainly appreciate it if we could have some re-consideration on the schedule of that of the timing of coming in for another meeting because I do think that we’ve covered most of the items that are necessary to make your decisions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DEEB-That’s not up to us, though. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean with regard to information to make the application complete and scheduling and so on, that’s something you want to direct to Laura’s office and the Planning office. She will assist you. I mean the more communication you have with her and her staff, the better off you’re going to be. MR. PALUMBO-So at this point I think I’ve pointed out the primary essentials and you’ve seen this before. As I said it’s very consistent with what we came in with, with the site plan on the last time and we did, 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) again, Laura, a lighting plan. We’ve had a quick discussion on that. That was just a turn in and we’ll work on any adjustments with that. The quick conversation that we did have, e-mail exchange, was that we have, she thought that the light intensity was a little more than was necessary for the standard commercial sites. I guess the Town looks for like an average of 2.5 foot candles. I went back, Laura, after getting your e-mail and looked at it. What we do have is for the entire site, which includes everything off to the, for the entire site. If you pulled out all the average, you know, all the points, we’re at an average of 1.5, but that does include that large area over to the left where the apartments are. We specifically, and to meet Code, maintained a 50 foot buffer there and there’s at least 35 feet where nothing has been impacted. So the light levels, if you take them and the way the light level reading was done or design was done, you’ll see, maybe mid-way between those, a point of .30, but it’s never really going to reach there in the actual condition. That was assumed that there was just a flat surface there. One of the reasons that in our development area that we do have a little bit higher intensity is because we were trying to, in the case of the lower part of our site there, trying to get some light spread over to where the sidewalks are. So in order to have enough intensity to get the light to the sidewalk which we’re putting in, we want to make sure people are safe on, we have a little bit higher intensity in where we have the lights where we need them for our functions. So it is a little bit higher. It’s at 4.5 average instead of 2.5. We can look and see how we can maybe manipulate that a little bit more, but we do think that some of the places where we had good reason to be above are things that we can discuss with the staff, rather than just holding to well it’s a 2.5 average or it’s a 4.5 average. I think there’s some good reasons why we have some of the intensity that we have. MR. TRAVER-But it is important that we consider the lighting code such as it is. Light pollution is a real concern in the Town. So, yes, anything you can do to bring it into compliance, that effects SEQR and everything. That is not an insignificant issue if you’re nearly doubling the limit. That is very, very bright. MR. PALUMBO-Right, and then I guess it’s just the application of that, the code. Does the code specify the area of development or the entire site? If it was the entire site we’d be below. It would be at the 1.5. MR. TRAVER-Again, it sounds as though you’ve been in discussions with Planning Staff on that and I encourage you to continue to do that. We will certainly look at that photometric plan when it comes in. MR. ANDREWS-Marty Andrews, Hoffman Carwash. So we’ll have some of these lights going off after eight o’clock at night. So that will reduce the light pollution or foot candles. We operate from 8 to 8. We like to have light a lot during operating hours. I mean there’s cars, people are trying to shine their cars, come out and they wipe them down vacuuming, but at eight o’clock or shortly after that, nine o’clock, a series of lights are turned off through our computers. And the whole vacuum area will only have a couple of lights on because that vacuum area closes at eight o’clock at night. MR. TRAVER-Well, again, when we see the photometric plan, you know, we do have guidelines that we like to follow. So just do your best to be in compliance with that. Have discussions with Staff. They’ll assist you with working on a plan to try to make that compatible and we’ll look at it. MR. PALUMBO-The other items, so there was lighting, stormwater comments that we have from Chazen, and as I said we can address those. The lighting I think we can come to a very swift conclusion on. The landscaping, Laura, I wanted to ask about the comment, because it said that we’ve addressed the landscaping in that area of the design, but not in the buffer area, and as you can see that buffer area is fully wooded. So we did not intend on doing any landscaping in there. Are you looking for supplemental landscaping in there? MRS. MOORE-So it looks like in one of the plan sheets that it wasn’t clear whether it was remaining or being cleared. MR. PALUMBO-I think the limit of the clearing is certainly, I think I noticed that it was 30, the requirement was to keep the pavement away 50 feet. MRS. MOORE-The buffer is typically a 50 foot buffer. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MRS. MOORE-So that’s the discussion with the Board whether you actually have a buffer of vegetation of 50 feet or whether you have a combination of a buffer of a certain, you know, a vegetation buffer of a certain distance and a fence or something like that. That’s a discussion with the Board, and I just couldn’t, I guess when I was looking through the plan sets, it just wasn’t clear what was happening. I know we had discussed it but it didn’t show clearly in the plans what was happening. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, I think what we ended up needing to do is just the minor amount of grading. Most of that area is flat where the vacuum parking is, but even just a minor amount of grading to get in there for construction. I think we have probably about five feet of cut outside of that, and we can certainly replace some. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MRS. MOORE-I just want to get to the landscaping plan because it doesn’t show, so if you look at this landscaping plan, I don’t see, there’s no notes on this particular area about what happens here. MR. PALUMBO-Right. So we can clarify the limits of the clearing. It is much more consistent with the plan that you saw there with the trees that are existing that we used on the lighting plan, and we can touch up the grading and tighten that up as much as possible and show. MRS. MOORE-I guess just make a note that this vegetation area is to remain and not be cut at any time. Something to that effect that the only time that trees or vegetation are to be removed is like dead and dying and things. So that sort of notation that is clear to the Board and clear to anybody who looks at the plan. MR. PALUMBO-That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-Clarification I think is all we’re looking for. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. We had another project in one place where they actually wanted us to go into the woods and do some supplemental landscaping where they found some clearing. So I didn’t know if that’s where you were going. I’m glad to hear that it’s not. MR. TRAVER-It doesn’t sound that way, but we’ll know better when we have the full plan. MR. PALUMBO-So that was the landscaping, lighting, storm and the traffic. We’ll have that all completed. So unless you want to do the public hearing and then you can go and see what any other comments that the Board may have. MR. TRAVER-We are going to open the public hearing and we will leave it open. So that when we see the full application, and anyone interested in making public comment will also have access to that same information that we are awaiting. Then we will actually hold the public hearing when you come back. MR. PALUMBO-Right, but we’re still holding the public hearing. I know there’s one gentleman who’s here to speak. That’s why. So we’re still holding the public hearing tonight. It will just be tabled . MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-There’s also, the applicant to provide supporting information to complete the interconnect work. MR. PALUMBO-And I think that’s one of the things Mr. Nichols is here representing the adjacent landowner. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-From our standpoint the interconnect work is at that point where the former Outback Steakhouse, when that project was approved, the Board had left on the plan a requirement to allow for the cross connection inter development. So we had talked with Mr. Nichols and he wanted to ask us any other questions and get clarification and make some points. So we’ll continue that dialog, but we do believe that is what the Board intended at the previous time. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-What was the status of VHP? MR. PALUMBO-VHP? They have all the field work done, Mike. They have the preliminary analysis and they think it can be done right after Thanksgiving, the first week of December. MR. VALENTINE-Do you know how many intersections did they pick up? MR. PALUMBO-I know that they talked more. Alana told me that she talked with you about which ones. MRS. MOORE-She did, and I don’t recall which specific intersections they had picked up. So that’s not, I know that she said all the data came in. MR. PALUMBO-I’ll be honest with you, Mike, I don’t think that we conditioned it really had to be many more than this intersection, just because. MR. VALENTINE-You say this meaning one? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. PALUMBO-Yes. The Weeks, or not the Weeks, the intersection that’s right out at Route 9, I can’t think of what the name of the road is across. MR. ANDREWS-Sweet. MR. VALENTINE-But Sweet’s signalized. Right? MR. PALUMBO-Sweet. Sorry. Sweet is signalized with the exit driveway, entrance, exit driveway for the former Outback Steakhouse. That signal is now functioning. We’re adding the trips that we would be sending out there now, and so that’s what I was referencing. MR. VALENTINE-That was my question. Were your trips going to pick up anything that is going to have to do anything to the signalization? MR. PALUMBO-That’s exactly what’s being studied right now and when you said how counting the intersection, we did not envision this as one where the, once you got outside of that intersection, we did a signalized intersection. We did not envision that that was going to have a cumulative impact down because of the number of trips we were seeing during the peak out. We didn’t see it was going to have a negative impact on those, but we’ll let VHP’s final report specify all of that. MR. VALENTINE-I was just looking at three of them as probably being in, Sweet, and Weeks and then also where Weeks comes back out onto 9. I don’t think anything heading westward, coming from the apartments to there, your trips are headed somewhere else. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So, Mr. Chairman, I know I have one public comment that’s here. I know there’s, Mr. Nichols. I don’t know, it would almost be helpful to hear some of those comments tonight, but that’s up to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Yes, no, that’s fine. We will open a public hearing, and is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this application? Yes, ma’am. MRS. MOORE-Before you speak, Claudia, are you also repeating the same comment, or is that a different one? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-I won’t repeat it word for word, but I’d like to take a moment if the Chairman doesn’t mind, if the Board doesn’t mind. I won’t read my comments word for word. We did submit a letter from my firm. I’m Claudia Braymer, attorney from Braymer Law, representing Whispering Pines Associates, LLC which owns property in close proximity to the proposed project, and I know the Board already knows you have seen this one time before in the Sketch application as was mentioned, but this is the first time that it’s come before you. It’s a brand new application and we do ask that you take your time on this. At the Sketch application meeting I thought you were pretty clear that you had asked for traffic information. I think that they weren’t necessarily agreeing to a full traffic study. That’s what we would like to see, but I think you were pretty clear that you wanted to see that traffic information. As was just mentioned on the intersection with Sweet Road and 9 and the entrance and then at Route 9 and Weeks Road and then the other one is at Weeks Road and the side entrance that they are proposing. The reason that we are concerned is that in addition to my client’s property which contains an apartment complex on Weeks Road with approximately 260 residents, there is another apartment complex, Roberts Garden North, and a number of condo units also located on Weeks Road. Among these three residential communities there are hundreds of people who live on this dead end street which is Weeks Road. So in addition to those there are also the entrances to Wal-Mart and the new commercial complex on Weeks Road that is in the process of being constructed. It was recently approved by the Planning Board. I think that was last year and the entrance to that is directly across from the proposed driveway for this on Weeks Road. It’s right next to Monty’s. The foundation is laid but it’s not been built yet, but that entrance will be right there. So there are serious concerns about traffic congestion and safety, including safe ingress and egress for the hundreds of residents who live at the end of Weeks Road. These concerns will be exacerbated by the proposed car wash at this location with the proposed entrance and exit on Weeks Road that they are proposing. This Board has already recognized that the Hoffman’s Carwash on Quaker Road in the Town routinely backs up onto the road at that location. There is the potential for that type of traffic backup to happen here, either onto Route 9 or Weeks Road or both, and as was mentioned, this Board also knows that there has been a lot of traffic studies and potential mitigation reviewed for the area near where Great Escape is and then even further up near the Outlets. So this is an important, this is obviously an important 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) traffic corridor. The applicant’s comparison in its materials to traffic from the historic carwash on this site is inapplicable because that was a whole different type of carwash operation and moreover it was shut down over 10 years ago. The traffic that’s there now is not the same as it was 10 years ago. I may be stating the obvious again but the applicant needs to supply information about the traffic impacts, including traffic counts and projections, and its consultations with DOT before this Board takes up review of the proposal. The applicant also indicated that it would provide an analysis of the Town’s sewer system capacity and ability to accommodate the project. Neither of these items were addressed in the applicant’s latest new submission. The Planning Board should not review the proposed project or conduct SEQR until the applicant provides a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts, and we thank you for tabling the application until this further information is presented and also thank you for keeping the public hearing open. Thanks for your consideration tonight. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board tonight on this application? Yes, sir. JOSEPH NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-Thank you. My name is Joseph Nichols. I’m an attorney. I represent a neighboring property which is Queensbury Holdings. They own what was the Outback Steakhouses property. I was contacted recently by my clients and their primary concern is that they wanted to have some guidance on the interconnect issue and my understanding, you know, as an attorney I went and I did some research regarding easements and right of ways and what not and I didn’t find anything. I had a conversation with Mr. Palumbo earlier today who indicated to me that at the time the original subdivision application was submitted, which at the time we called this both the Outback Steakhouse and the Red Roof Inn. They were combined in one subdivision. At that time apparently there was an interconnect, a proposed interconnect that was shown on the map and that proposed interconnect, as I would looking at the map shown earlier, is, when you come in at Route 9, my client’s property veers to the right and it’s basically straight ahead that it would connect into Hoffman Development. So I guess what I’m really doing is ‘m asking his Board if you could to educate me on how that interconnect would have been approved back at the time or suggested as being part of my client’s, or the predecessor in title’s responsibility to have that done. Because my client is looking for some guidance as to what their responsibility is and how is it that there’s an interconnect on property that they, ultimately they bought it in a foreclosure sale. So I think this is kind of coming up to them a little unexpectedly. So they want some guidance on how that transpired. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. Well, what I would suggest, again, and you’ve heard me mention this earlier tonight, is I would contact the Planning Staff as they have access to all of those prior documents and plans and they could provide you with any and all information you need regarding the history of that, the details of exactly what was approved, minutes, if necessary, of the various meetings and that should answer any and all of your questions and if not, when this project returns, the public hearing will remain open, if there’s any unresolved issues, and I understand from the applicant’s presentation that they are also working on this issue of this interconnect and hope to have it resolved by then, but certainly your role would be to clarify that history, which it sounds like you’re really concerned with, and you should be able to access that information relatively easily. MR. NICHOLS-Certainly, and the interconnect I would presume we would be contacted in order to coordinate that in some fashion, if in fact it were adjacent property. MR. TRAVER-That would be my expectation, yes. MR. NICHOLS-The issue of traffic, Attorney Braymer addressed that issue and maybe if you think about it, it’s a double-edged sword for my client. The more traffic they have, the more likely it is that they’re going to have patrons into their restaurant. On the other hand, if the traffic’s backed up onto Route 9, it may dissuade people from coming in. So again, I’d be interested in seeing how that traffic study comes out. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s a significant concern and not only from the planning standpoint, but also from the State Environmental Quality Review Act standpoint. So we’ll be looking at all of that. MR. NICHOLS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? And, Laura, you noted that you had written comments. MRS. MOORE-I did, and I’m not going to repeat it. I believe it was from Claudia’s office and it stated the same thing that she spoke of tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and they are part of the record, and as we mentioned this public hearing remains open and any additional comments will be subject to our availability at that time as well. Okay. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. PALUMBO-If I could make sure I understood things correctly with regard to one of the comments. So the only statement we made about the comparison, that I realize if we put something in our narrative that made it sound otherwise, the only comparison we made about the carwash is the existing carwash had two entrances on Weeks Road and we were going to reduce that to a single entrance. We weren’t by any means trying to represent or say that the traffic volume would be comparable. We fully expect that the traffic volumes for our new facility will be greater than what would have been there at that time. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. Sure. We’re not going to be concerned with what was or what might have been. MR. PALUMBO-I just didn’t want it to sound like we were misrepresenting something. MR. TRAVER-No, not at all. MR. PALUMBO-And the fact, you know, no one wishes more than I do that the traffic study had been done in the timeframe that it should have been, and that the delays had not occurred, but we are giving you a full traffic study and, yes, Mike, I didn’t understand at first, but the number of intersections, yes, you’re right. The signalized intersection at Sweet, the intersection at Weeks Road and Route 9 and at the intersection at the driveway. The existing volumes in the whole area of what’s going in and out of there is part of the existing conditions. So people that use the Wal-Mart entrance at that point will be factored in, even if that intersection isn’t detailed with the same level of detail that we’re putting on those three intersections. As I said, I know that VHP had contacted the planning offices before they went out and did the counts to say is there anything else we should know about. So we think we’ve done it and at least right now that it’s been done in a manner that’s consistent with the traffic analysis and we’ll get the results to you. That’s our job to get those to you. The only thing I would ask is could we do it sooner, because I do know when that report’s going to be in. I think it could be handled in time to possibly be on the January meeting or something, and that was the only thing I was pushing for, but we know all this has to be in and we think we can have it in very quickly. As I said, I don’t see anything significant in the stormwater analysis that’s going to cause a site re-configuration because I don’t see that, and with respect to the sewer flow and a sewer study, on the plans we did submit connections of how that’s going to be connected and we gave in the engineer’s report, narrative what our gallons per day were going to be. That was submitted. Does only Chazen only look at the stormwater? MRS. MOORE-At the moment they only look at the stormwater. Information about the sewer, water connections would have been directed to Chris Harrington. I have not heard from Chris. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So I don’t know. MR. PALUMBO-Well we made the submission, and it would be, or were we supposed to submit that directly to Chris? MRS. MOORE-Chris has an opportunity to ask for information. I have not heard from him. That’s what I’m saying I haven’t heard from him. He typically speaks up and says I need information about this particular application. MR. TRAVER-He will certainly be aware of those concerns. MR. PALUMBO-Right. It’s not, it’s a pretty set. They know how many gallons they use per day and what they recycle and what goes out and what is allowed to go out, but we’re not, if we hear from the sewer department that they think there’s something excessive and they need more information, we’ll get it for them. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Understood. MR. ANDREWS-Marty Andrews again. I reached out both to the sewer department and water department and had conversations with both. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very Good. MRS. MOORE-So in regards to having additional, or moving this project into January, I guess I’m just concerned that, one, I do have numerous projects that are in at the moment. Probably the better half of the beginning of the new year are projects that didn’t make it into the Year 2021. MR. TRAVER-That was my understanding as well. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MRS. MOORE-So in regards to this project it doesn’t mean that the applicant can’t forward information in response to engineering and get that completed in regards to stormwater and get that resolved so that when you do return to this Board that that information has already been resolved. MR. TRAVER-And that would be an advantage. If you can get the Town engineer signoff that would be a big help. MRS. MOORE-Right. In regards to transportation, at the moment we don’t have anybody that reviews that information other than requesting something from Chazen to take a look at that. At that point that has not been done. So in regards to obtaining that information and then having an opportunity to review it, that’s where I think the crux is, that I think Staff wanted the opportunity to take a look at that and then determine if that needed additional assistance with review. Right now I think that’s a big step because you have multiple things going on. You have DOT. You have an interconnection and you have a traffic study. MR. TRAVER-Right. And of course we might actually need some time as well to look at of this to make sure that we’re thoroughly briefed, to save your time and ours. In the long run, with all the factors involved, it may actually speed the application process for you to make sure that we have everything in and we are ready to go in February. MR. PALUMBO-Well, we will get all the information to you in short order because I know that it’s been committed to now that I will get it in that first week of December. That one report is going to address the intersections, the signal. DOT will have to review that. They will run their report through DOT. Because it’s the same information that they’re looking at. MR. TRAVER-I mean we’re actually fairly familiar with traffic studies. MR. PALUMBO-So all of that that was sounding like three items was really all handled in the one, knowing that that is going to be getting done. I know we can have it to Laura and the Department. MR. TRAVER-Good. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, when should we ask questions about the Site Plan? Tonight? MR. PALUMBO-We would love to hear any questions that are here, if we can. MR. TRAVER-Although the information is incomplete. I would suggest that it would be better to wait until we have all the information and we all have a chance to process it.. MR. SHAFER-I have suggestions for some additional information. MR. TRAVER-Sure. If you feel there’s information missing that isn’t already part of the discussion for February. MR. SHAFER-I haven’t seen it. The last step in the carwash process is the blowers and the driers? MR. ANDREWS-Correct. MR. SHAFER-I’d like to see some addressing of the noise impact on the apartments to the west, if there is any, and if there is, is there any mitigation possible. Number Two, is there any rationale for 18 vacuums in this facility, or is that just pulled out of the air? I’d like to see some basis for the 18. That strikes me as an awful lot of vacuums, and then lastly the blue color. Are you wedded to that horrible ugly blue color? MR. VALENTINE-Well, why don’t you phrase that question. What do you really think, John? MR. ANDREWS-Blue is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-I may not be here. I may not be here, so I’d like to throw something in, because in January I’ll be under the knife. Frank, and then for the company. This is a question that I’ve had as I’ve, at any locations now, where you’ve now taken three lanes of traffic coming into, you’re taking one off the road and you’re bringing them in and you’re separating them into three lanes. When we talk about the instances of traffic backing up, whether it’s at the Wilton site or the Queensbury site or you’re now down in Ballston Spa, backing out onto the road. It’s taking the traffic from three channels, bringing it in, funneling all of them into one, and expecting them to move faster because they were preceded by two lanes. They don’t go through the wash area any faster and they still wind up with the backing up there because they’re not going any faster. I don’t know if, and again, this is your own plans. Is there any look at that saying, maybe there’s something that works differently that can move those cars. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. ANDREWS-Well one of the reasons we go to three lanes is to get more cars queued onto the site. MR. VALENTINE-They only get queued as far as they enter into the line to get washed. MR. ANDREWS-And then we still, at this point, with the automated tellers, the process is faster. We don’t have any human interaction. Now it’s straight through into the building and on our busy sites we’re running at 160, 180 cars an hour. That’s the track. That’s now how many cars we’re actually putting through, but that’s the track speed. Because you can only get so many cars in and out. MR. VALENTINE-I’m talking about the release. MR. PALUMBO-So, Mike, if I could, since you mentioned Wilton. First off, so these latest versions and even the one in Queensbury, these latest versions have all of the automated tellers, all of that. I know Wilton more than I know the one over here. In Wilton, you know, just think of what the differences are if there are no automated tellers. It’s a single lane all the way around and that lane even holds the people that are going to the Jiffy Lube as well as the car wash. So this is now down to a much more science of the movement of those through because they know they can adjust the track speed and how the cars go through the car wash at a certain rate. So when they have higher volumes they can do that. So you have the first control, and so what we can do is at the tellers, the automated tellers, we know what the stacking volume is behind that then we can say, all right, once they get through there, how, when they go around that corner and they go into the facility, we know exactly how that is going to process. Once they get in there, we know when they’re coming out. So it’s much more articulated than some of the older sites where they were not developed in that fashion. Wilton, as I said, two uses there. We’re not going to have that here. A long wraparound on a site that is all single lane. We can do the comparison and tell you the difference of the numbers there when you line them all up. So these are newer facilities and they have all of that more factored into it now than the older ones did. MR. TRAVER-And we had some discussion of this during the sketch. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. ANDREWS-And we no longer spray down your car. There’s not somebody spraying your car. So now we’ve gone to a touchless type entry. So you’re loading onto the track, you automatically go because nobody’s spraying your car down. So automatically we have high pressure spray right away. So that helps speed up the process. MR. MAGOWAN-But who’s going to guide you onto the track. MR. DEEB-I’ve noticed it at the one on Quaker Road. It’s embarrassing but, it takes you a while to read the notes on how to put your credit card in to get your, which one to choose, because you’re always trying to upsell everybody. Are you sure you don’t want the next one up. So that does take a couple of minutes, but I did notice that you do have people there that do help, and I find that to expedite the entrance procedure greatly. I mean they came over and they see the deer in the headlight look and then they just push the buttons for me, but after a couple of times I got it, but it took a while, but anyway, are you still going to have those people there to help out with that? MR. ANDREWS-Yes. MR. DEEB-And then the idea of not spraying, I noticed once you got into the lane, those cars move through that car wash quickly. Very quickly. I was just amazed at the operation. So it seems you’ll be more efficient in this one here is what you’re saying. MR. ANDREWS-Yes. We went from an old store over here on Quaker Road. We’ve re-vamped it with those tellers, but now you have to drive in that building over on Quaker Road before you get onto the conveyor. So you’re in the building, right? So this conveyor is right at the edge. So right when you get to the door, you’re going right on the conveyor. It’s a much easier loading. It’s a quicker process. Just to help your situation out, you can always become an Unlimited member. MR. TRAVER-Listen, you talked me into buying the three pack the last time I was there. MR. MAGOWAN-I have one question. We talked about Weeks Road before and I think I asked for the study looking at right in, right out. What’s going to concern me is that you have cars coming in from both areas and then they’re going to line up. Now occasionally you see the cars backed up into the queue, and what I’m afraid of is that they’re going to see Weeks Road as really the main entrance. MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s what the traffic study hopefully will give us that information. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I just want to see that because I kind of asked if you looked at a right in and a right out. My concern is the people going back out onto Weeks, but really if the traffic do back up, cars do back up, are they going to back up down Weeks Road? Because that means they’ll have to go down and turnaround and come back and get in line or I’d really like to see the traffic come in off of Route 9. MR. ANDREWS-And so would we. That’s our main goal to have them come in. When we were here the first time we talked about cross traffic from the Wal-Mart, what’s more comfortable? Having those people pull into a car wash here and going back out on the road and then not at a light and turning in. So it’s one of those catch 22’s here. Most towns we go to they like to have cross traffic without that traffic going back out onto a major road. So we’re trying to accommodate that, and you have all these people that go down the road, but if they want to come to the car wash, say they just want to use the vacuum, they have to go all the way back out onto the road and you make that left, make another left. MR. MAGOWAN-Well do you think that people are going to come from Wal-Mart to wash their cars or wash their cars and go to Wal-Mart? MR. ANDREWS-There’s all kinds of analytics out there that tells us where people come from, where they shop before they came to our car wash, where they shop next. MR. PALUMBO-You mentioned the site over on Quaker Road. I would bet any one of you would guess if I just finished or I went into Lowe’s and didn’t have lumber in the back of my vehicle and just picked up something n the car, and said, oh, look, I’ll go over, if I’m an automated user, regular user, I’ll go through and I’ll run through now. That kind of cross connection, if people don’t go out on the road necessarily to go to the car wash. They’re out on the road, doing other things like shopping at Wal-Mart, other, you know, lots of businesses along there that they can be going to, and then saying in my trip I’m going to go through and get that done. Yes, there’s times you know your car is dirty and that’s where your destination is. I’m not saying it’s never that, but they know that there’s a lot of cross volume traffic. MR. VALENTINE-One of the missing things at Quaker is the cross connection from Lowe’s. It doesn’t exist. MR. VALENTINE-I have five other questions for you, Frank, but that’s all right. We’ll let them go. MR. MAGOWAN-My question is, what about a right in from Weeks for people that might come from Wal-Mart. MR. PALUMBO-Well, the people would be coming from Wal-Mart, they’d be turning left in. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you’re right. They’d be coming left in off of Weeks. MR. PALUMBO-Right. So assuming they come out down the road, down Weeks, and exit Wal-Mart, they would come down and make that left and into the site. That’s what Marty was talking about, if you don’t have that left available, they go down, turn at Weeks, which we don’t want them turning left there. That’s why we want to have our exiting traffic going out at the light. If somebody’s going to make a left out, we’d prefer they get used to going out to the light and making the left. You have all the different movements and the traffic analysis will show this, which cars are coming southbound on Route 9 and turning right into the facility and coming around and going around and are they going to go back out and make a right to continue on down Route 9? MR. MAGOWAN-That may be beneficial. You’ll get more people from Wal-Mart wanting to wash their car because they’ll say, you know what, I don’t want to go to Weeks and make a left. While we’re here at Hoffman’s why don’t we just go get our car washed and then we’ll go out at the light. MR. PALUMBO-We can’t say until the traffic study. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. We’ll wait for that traffic study. MR. PALUMBO-We’ll wait for the traffic study to give us the numbers. MS. WHITE-So you mentioned that we’re going to have less people. So what are your employee projections? MR. PALUMBO-Employee projections? MS. WHITE-Did you include that? I didn’t see anything on that. I know that’s like a future question for site plan, but I just figured I’d throw it out there since you’re saying there’s not as many employees there. MR. ANDREWS-We’ll have between eight and ten employees there, and that’s basically what we have everywhere. I mean we’re just like everybody else. We’re having a hard time keeping employees. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) MS. WHITE-But that’s your intention. MR. ANDREWS-Eight to ten, maybe twelve at peak in the wintertime. MR. VALENTINE-One last one from Ms. Braymer. She asked a question about consultation with DOT and I had a question. When you’re going through this, Frank, and VHP is really putting stuff together, handing it to you, on behalf of the applicant and it’s going forward, but are you going to be consulting with DOT about the, or is VHP going to be asking them to look at options, alternatives if possible? MR. PALUMBO-The general process is VHP for us, you know, they’re sending it to me for Marty, and we’re analyzing their results and saying, the first step is they come up with the test. They try to identify the existing area that needs to be studied. They do the counts. They do the analysis. They run models through. They give that to us, and they tell us why the signalized intersection is functioning at an A, a B, a C, a D, you know, whatever it is. The unsignalized intersection is analyzed somewhat differently, but it’s still the same thing, what happened, what’s the safety factors, you know, they have the turn lane there, how quickly can they make the turn. They’ll also, within the modeling they can start to do the predictive type of stuff, saying when does that become such a, like somebody who would be turning on Weeks for any other reason, they have to make that left. That’s what they’re doing, but if they’re going to the car wash and they have to make the left they may start to get into that habit of going up to the light and saying, hey, the first thing I have to do is to wait for the signal to allow me to turn. So all that happens and we come to a conclusion. We do sort of a review and I ask those same type of questions that you are. MR. VALENTINE-That’s why I’m asking that, Frank, is because of the fact that the Chairman started off, probably rightly so, to say, I don’t want to put a crimp on the discussion, but that there was not a need to go into the depth that we’ve already gone into. So the point is, now that you’ve heard enough right here about traffic that we weren’t going to go through, you’re going to carry this back to. MR. PALUMBO-Right. That’s why I wanted to hear it, because those are things that you’re thinking of that we may not be thinking of. Claudia Braymer, her comments are ones that we can now go back, when we’re looking it over with VHP and say, how much did you get? Did you see what was happening there? What was your witnessing of that? Because we know it’s an important aspect. Whether or not they have detailed counts on it, I don’t know that. Whether or not they’ll say we better go back, I don’t know that yet. That’s when the study comes out, but hearing these types of comments are the ones that we can then vet the report. Once we have it to where we think it is the credible report and sending it in to the Department that’s probably at the same time that we’re going in and presenting it to, getting an audience with DOT to say, here’s our report. This is what we want you to see. We need your comments. The Town is interested in knowing what your comments are. Let’s just say the report called for signal improvements by changing, not changing the signals but changing the timing, adjustments. That’s something that we know, if that’s something that will keep us at a B Level of Service to adjust the right hand out at the intersection there at the light and right now there’s a 15 second timer on the left hand turn and we say it needs to go to a 30, DOT is going to want to, probably have some questions about that. So it could be that we’re saying everything is functioning well and we think that the way that it is working is functioning well, we don’t have to ask, we don’t have a big ask of DOT. We’re not asking them for improvements, physical improvements. We’re not asking for timing adjustments. If that were the case I’d be very happy. I don’t know what that’s going to be until we get the report, and you don’t either, but I’m very happy to have heard those kind of comments. MR. ANDREWS-We have traffic lights right in front of our car wash in the Town of Greenport, we just put a traffic light right in front of a car wash. So it is for our car wash and for the road across from them on a major road on Route 9 and it’s worked out. MR. VALENTINE-Just one last one for me. Then we can go home and watch whatever’s on at nine o’clock. I remember going back and looking at the Wilton site 12, 15 years ago. The big thing there was recirculation of the water, screening, using it again. Has there been improvements here that are going to help this as far as what goes into the sewer system? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. ANDREWS-Again, we build car wash equipment and we’re going to build our own re-play system. So every year it’s just like everything else, everything improves on how the quality of the water is and it can be re-played and it just improves all the time. MR. TRAVER-All right. So, Laura, refresh my memory. What was our target date, February? thnd MRS. MOORE-So the meetings in February start with February 15 or February 22. MR. TRAVER-All right. Why don’t we try for that. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2021) th MR. DEEB-When is the information due by, January 15? th MR. TRAVER-January 15. thth MRS. MOORE-Yes, it’ll be January 17 because the 15 falls on a Saturday. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 5,750 +/- sq. ft. 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. Project includes site work for access onto Route 9 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Tabled to the February 15, 2022 Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting with information to be th submitted by January 17, 2022. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. PALUMBO-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-I do like the design of the building. It looks very nice there. MR. TRAVER-Let’s see, so before we entertain adjournment, just a reminder we will be coming back on Thursday to complete the November applications and please take a look at the proposed calendar for 2022 so hopefully we can approve that on Thursday and with that, is there anything else? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER TH 16, 2021, Introduced by Jamie White who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 32