Loading...
05-19-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAYI9TH 2O22 INDEX Site Plan No.51-2021 Brett&Pamela West(Main House) 1. FURTHERING TABLING Tax Map No.226.15-1-17 Subdivision No.5-2022 Jeffrey&Joanne Mann 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.265.-1-23.1 Freshwater Wetlands 7-2022 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No.4-2022 Jeffrey&Joanne Mann 5. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.265.-1-23.2 Freshwater Wetlands 6-2022 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 32-2022 Town Fair Tire 7. MODIFICATION Tax Map No.296.17-1-34 Site Plan No. 30-2022 Joseph Gross 10. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2 Site Plan No. 31-2022 Kasselman Solar/Loreen Harvey 15. Tax Map No.266.3-1-25 Site Plan No.19-2022 Geoffrey Hoffman 1S. Tax Map No.27S.-2-9 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 05/19/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 19TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER JACKSON LA SARSO JOHN MOLLOY BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Thursday May 19`h,2022. This is the second meeting for the month of May and our 11`h meeting so far this year. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency, those are the emergency exits. If you have cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interfere with our proceedings should you get a call,we'd appreciate it, and also aside from any public hearings that we have on projects,if in this room if the audience could remain silent,we'd appreciate it. We do record the meeting and minutes are taken. If you want to have a conversation about an application or whatever, please feel free to go to the outer room and have that discussion and we'd appreciate it, and with that we'll move on to our agenda. The first item is a tabled item that we have for Brett&Pamela West. This is Site Plan 51-2021. TABLED: SITE PLAN NO. 51-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRETT &z PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE). AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 106 BAY PARKWAY. (REVISED I/1812022)APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2 STORY HOME WITH A 5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO, INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREAS, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,670 SQ. FT. WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 8,687 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE,SEPTIC,STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 53-2017 SEPTIC VAR.;AV 47-2007&z SP 39- 2007— BOATHOUSE; SP PZ 89-2016 &z SP PZ 210-2016 &z AV 95-2016 — ADDITION; SP 37-2009; AV 57-2021; SP 52-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021, FEBRUARY 2022 (STORMWATER DEVICE). SITE INFORMATION: APA,CEA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.91 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040;179-6-065,147. MR. TRAVER-And I understand we're tabling this again,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Sothis application is to be tabled to the first meeting in July. They've identified additional reviews that need to occur. So we're going to move this item so that they can prepare those materials to submit by June 15`h MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we will leave the public hearing open for this. So that will resume when they return on the first meeting in July,July 19,2022. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. TRAVER-Is there any discussion prior to considering a tabling motion? I guess we're ready for that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#51-2021 BRETT&PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE) Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new 2 story home with a 5,436 sq.ft. footprint with a garage. Also,included is installation of permeable pavers for patio and driveway areas, a 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 5,670 sq.ft.where the maximum allowed is S,6S7 sq.ft. The project includes site work for newlandscaping shoreline and residential house, septic,stormwater management.Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline are subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 51-2021 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE). Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Tabled until the July 19,2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by June 15,2022. Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is recommendations by the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item on that part of our agenda is Jeffrey&r Joann Mann. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 5-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 7-2022. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 5-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 7-2022 SEQR TYPE: APA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. JEFFREY &z JOANNE MANN. AGENT(S): LUCAS DOBIE (HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR3. LOCATION: BAY ROAD AND PICKLE HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5 LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 35.23 AC. PARCEL. THE LOT SIZES INCLUDE — LOT 16.91 AC., LOT 2 — 595 AC, LOT 3 —7.77 AC.,LOT 4 — 3.63 AC.,LOT 5 — 11.57 AC. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE APA AND THE SITE INCLUDES APA AND NWI WETLAND AREAS. THE PROJECT AREAS INDICATE THEY ARE WITHIN 5 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. THE PROJECT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION OF 5 LOTS, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF WETLAND/SHORELINE, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF DESIGNATED WETLAND (WETLANDS PERMIT— LOT 4 WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE WETLAND NWI POSSIBLE OTHER LOTS) . APPLICANT REQUESTS WAIVERS FOR STORMWATER, EROSION CONTROL AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION PLAN,CLEAR PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183,194 SUBDIVISION AND WETLANDS WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH, STORMWATER DEVICE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (S) 14-2020, AV 18-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 35.23 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.265.-1-23.1. SECTION: 183,94. LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOO RE-The applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of a 35..23 acre parcel. The lot size includes Lot One at 6.91; Lot Two at 5.95; Lot Three at 7.77; Lot Four at 3.63 and Lot 5 at 11.57 acres. The project site is located in the APA and the site includes and NWI wetlands. Project areas include,there are houses to be developed within 50 feet of 150/o slopes. The project would be considered a major stormwater. There are several variances in the sense that,due to the constraints between the wetlands and stormwater device requirements,as well as some of the lot configurations due to those wetland locations. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.DOBIE-Good evening,Board. Thank you,Mr.Chairman. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. I'm a professional engineer and partner with the firm. With me in the back row are my clients, Jeff and Joanne Mann. I want to thank Laura also because we did a lot of work to get this submission in. She was very helpful, and so we're glad to be here tonight. There's a lot of new members of the Board,so I'll just give you an overview that we were here in the fall of 2020 for sketch plan phase of this 35 acres. Subsequent to that we've done a lot of work with the Adirondack Park Agency because we're a Class A Regional project because of the subdivision of the wetlands and there's one major stream through the parcel which has fingers of wetlands around it and that's where the main revision came from our layout over the last two years was the Park Agency did not want us crossing that main stream. We even talked about putting in a bridge,but that would be cost prohibitive. So I moved the driveway for Lot Three further to the east and had to take a little bit of acreage out of Lot Two so that's where we now have 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) deficient road frontage on Lot Two. We don't have the 400 feet anymore where we did on the original design. So that's our variance request,just that lot width and the road frontage for Lot Two. We have plenty of density for this five lots because of the 35 acres in a three acre zone, and like I said we've been through two rounds of revisions with the Park Agency and they're pretty much satisfied, other than our full stormwater design which leads to the second round of variances because of the proximity of wetlands, streams throughout the site,it's impossible to hold the 100 feet of horizontal separation for all stormwater devices. It can't be done because of the site features. So similarly with a little bit of higher groundwater table, the DEC standard, which the Town applies, is three feet of vertical separation of storm device to groundwater we propose to be two feet which is standard for the Lake George Park Commission. So as many of you know the Park Commission updated their standards last summer to allow storm devices at the setback of 35 feet for all projects. So that's what we're proposing for this and anticipate the Town will adopt that into the stormwater regulations,probably over the next year or two. I just need to get out in front of it before I spend thousands and thousands of more dollars on a full design just to get that as a first comment from the Town Engineer,why aren't you at 100 feet. Go get a variance to do that. So we're trying to get out ahead of it, and if we're successful with our variance then we'll do the full SWPPP design,re- submit to the Park Agency, and re-submit to you for Preliminary and Final. Still have a lot of work to do, but this is a big step if we are successful with our variances. MR. TRAVER-So,and to that end,instead of going right to the ZBA,following our review,you're going to prepare some additional materials before going to the ZBA. Is that my understanding? MR. DOBIE-We are here tonight to ask for your recommendation of the variances, and then we're on the Zoning Board next week with the same set of plans and we'll have the same discussion with them. If we're successful we anticipate we believe it's a reasonable request. Then we'll do the full design,which is a lot more work, and then come back to you for Preliminary approval. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And to the APA? MR. DOBIE-Concurrently. MR. TRAVER-So,questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Kind of like putting a jigsaw puzzle together,isn't it? MR. DOBIE-It is. There's six lots. It's a lot of work and it's constraints but we're comfortable with the design and meet all the zoning setbacks,which we believe is a positive. MR. DIXON-Which lot do you feel is most problematic,Lot Two? MR. DOBIE-For the variances,yes. Lot Two and Lot Three. Lot Three crosses a smaller stream with a culvert crossing. So that's, and that has a fair amount of wetlands to it, and then Lot Five is a mountain lot which is,there's no wetlands up there. It's a typical longer mountain road,building a higher. MR. DIXON-Is there a potential of removing Lot Two from the project? MR.DOBIE-No,we do not propose that because Lot Two is actually a field,presently an agricultural field. So that's an easy building lot. So I misspoke. Lot Two is not the most difficult because that has its own road cut on Pickle Hill Road and it's sand. It's Lot Three with the stream crossing and the wetlands that would be the more difficult,but it's still a nice woodland area once we cross the stream and get up to it. MR. DIXON-And last year when we were looking at this, so timing for everything, if I was to go to that property late summer,is it really a strong wetland, or is it more of a seasonal wetland? How would you classify that? MR. DOBIE-That is, and we had the APA biologist there twice, and what it is,it's not a heavy growth of cattails. It's adjacent to the stream where it's lowlands. In the summer you'd certainly walk there without going up to your ankles or knees. It doesn't,because they put their spade in the ground and look at the soil. If it's heavy organic soil to the surface and it's less than a foot to the groundwater table, then they consider that as wetland. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. LONGACKER-Have you done any perc tests,just to the deep holes you've done? MR. DOBIE-We did them in the sand area in the field, and we do have to do a little bit more work, some on Lot Three I believe. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MR. LONGACKER-It seems pretty sandy. It's Oakville so it's probably pretty quick draining sands. I don't know if you're going to have a problem with lowering the stormwater management area because it's pretty good I would imagine in that sand. MR. DEEB-You still have to go to APA. MR. DOBIE-Yes,we're on our second notice. MR. DEE&We've done projects where they had to go to the APA after this, and even if we approve the project,if the APA didn't that overrode us. So really it doesn't hinder us at all whether you've gone to the APA or not. MR. DOBIE-Right. They typically don't want to run rough shod over the towns if you will but they are the ultimate review agency on it and they like to see the town approvals on it as well.. MR.TRAVER-Other questions,comments? This is a referral to the ZBA on the variances. So our question this evening is,you know,do we have any information or concerns that we want to pass along to the ZBA as they consider the applicant's request for these variances? MR. DEEB-I don't. MR. MAGOWAN-The only thing I'd like to say is, Lucas, I really appreciate you working with the landowners and you came in with a sketch. We did talk about it. I have seen the for sale signs up there for a while and unfortunately I haven't seen a sold on them. So I know the Manns are looking to retire. Just so many years of hard work I imagine being a concrete man. I really appreciate the due diligence, along with trying to save some money,but,thank you. I really liked what I read and obviously listened to you. You put a lot into this. So thank you. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-You have a lot more to come. MR. DOBIE-I'm six months behind where I want to be. MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we're ready for that resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#IS-2022 JEFFREY&JOANNE MANN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 5 lot subdivision of a 35.23 ac parcel. The lot sizes include- Lot 16.92 ac, Lot 2-5.95 ac, Lot 3-7.77ac, Lot 4-3.63 ac, Lot 5-11.57 ac. The project is located in the APA and the site includes APA and NWI wetland areas. The project areas indicate they are within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes. The project would be considered a major stormwater project. The project is subject to subdivision of 5 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetland/shoreline, work within 100 ft. of designated wetland (Wetlands Permit- Lot 4 work within 100 ft. of the wetland NWI possible other lots). Applicant requests waivers for stormwater, erosion control and sediment control, construction plan, clearing plan. Pursuant to Chapter IS3, 194 subdivision and wetlands work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for Road frontage, Lot width, stormwater device. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 18-2022 JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN (5 LQT J Introduced by Michael Dixon 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. Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MR.TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA with that one. And then next on our list and yours is Jeffrey and Joanne Mann Subdivision Preliminary 4-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands 6-2022. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 4-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2022 SEQR TYPE: APA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. JEFFREY &z JOANNE MANN. AGENT(S): LUCAS DOBIE (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR3. LOCATION: BAY ROAD AND PICKLE HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 17.1 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOT SIZES INCLUDE — LOT 6 OF 3.8 ACRES,LOT 7 OF 4.1 ACRE AND LOT 8 OF 9.2 ACRES NEAR TO THE MANN 5-LOT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON A SEPARATE PARCEL. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE APA AND IS NEAR TO APA AND NWI WETLAND AREAS. THE SITE INFORMATION INDICATES THERE ARE AREAS WITH 15% SLOPES. THE PROJECT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO A SUBDIVISION FOR 3 LOTS,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF WETLANDS/SHORELINE — POSSIBLE DRIVEWAY AREA, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE WETLAND — DRIVEWAY AREA. APPLICANT REQUESTS WAIVERS FOR STORMWATER, EROSION CONTROL AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION PLAN,CLEARING PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183,194 SUBDIVISION AND WETLANDS WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH, STORMWATER DEVICE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 19-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 17.1 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.265.-1-23.2. SECTION: 183,94. LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This application is a three lot subdivision of a 17.1 acre parcel. Lot sizes include Lot Six of 3.S acres; Lot Seven of 4.1 acres and Lot Eight of 9.2 acres adjacent to the five lot proposed subdivision. Again this project is located in the APA and has APA and NWI wetlands on it. There is also areas of 150/0 slopes and variances include relief sought for road frontage,lot width,stormwater device, and that's it. MR. TRAVER-That's it I think. Okay. So this is the other component of the project. MR.DOBIE-Yes. Thank you,again,Board,for the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and my clients Jeffrey and Joanne Mann are in the last row with us tonight as well. A little project history. We started with you all in the previous project and we were going to leave the 17 acres,which they also own, leave that for a future date. Once we got into it,Adirondack Park Agency said that this is part of the other project as well because it had common ownership once upon a time. So we said if we're going through the process of the five lot subdivision and they wanted us to approve a building lot on this 17 acre piece, let's go big or go home was the thought. We certainly comfortable that the layout is the best building spot as far as all the way in so that spot,what we call Lot Eight,it's a beautiful spot. Lot Seven is a nice spot, as is Lot Six. So we looked at doing a private road in there with a shared driveway to access all three lots to help offset the cost, quite frankly, because it's a big undertaking to build that much driveway and electrical. So if you can divide that by three it makes it much more economical. We certainly feel that there's three good building spots on this parcel. The challenge with this is there's a stream to the west of the proposed driveway in between their old house which is now,which they sold two years ago. There's wetlands along that as well which we had the Park Agency there to flag those. So again, similar to the previous project, we can't hold 100 feet to the wetlands storm devices with the driveway that we're building in close proximity to it, within 50 feet. It would be even closer in some spots. I feel we can mitigate that and do a nice comprehensive stormwater plan. So again we ask for the 35 feet for a storm device to the wetlands or stream and two feet from seasonal groundwater to the bottom of our devices, and the because of the geometry of the parcels,we need road frontage relief because Lots Six and Seven do not have road frontage on a public right of way. So we're going to have zero road frontage and then Lot Eight will own the road. So that'll keep the flag part of it,or the flagpole part of the flag lot. So that's our variances on that. We had the Park Agency there and the soil scientist. The soils are pretty good on the hillside there. We're well above the wetlands for the building site. So we're comfortable with the design and we're here to ask for your recommendation and hopefully we're successful next week and we'll do a comprehensive plan of the whole project, so the full SWPPP and storm design. Thank you for having us and we'd be happy to answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I have a comment. So since this is a subdivision, I thought we had on the books, as far as Town Code,having future access to other properties. So on this one,although it's not associated with the variances,to the west of the main road that's coming in,should there be a deeded right of way? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MRS. MOORE-I'm thinking that it's more of a commercial interconnect,but I'll look at that and see if it's associated with residential. I'll look at the Subdivision Regs to see if there's supposed to be some sort of interconnect for future connection. MR. TRAVER-I'm sure Lucas will look into that as well. MR. DOBIE-I would think that would be more for if there was a Town road,if you were adjoining vacant land and left a little stub or something,like a 50 foot right of way to undeveloped land possibly. The parcel to the west does front on Bay Road. So a big piece of that used to be part of the YMCA or something back in the day. MR. DIXON-For what you're here for tonight that was really just a question about the variances themselves. MR. TRAVER-That's something to consider. MR.DIXON-The Fire Marshal,just a heads up,you already know the Fire Marshal is going to have to sign off on that. It looks like you have the turnaround already earmarked if he has to get in there. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions? Do members feel comfortable with the variances? Do we have any comments that we want to share with the ZBA as they look at this? MR. DIXON-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#19-2022 JEFFREY&JOANNE MANN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision of a 17.1 acre parcel. The lot sizes include-Lot 6 of 3.S acres, Lot 7 of 4.1 acre and Lot S of 9.2 acres near to the Mann 5-lot propose subdivision on a separate parcel. The project is locate in the APA and is near to APA and NVVI wetland areas. The site information indicates there are areas with 150/o slopes.The project would be considered a major stormwater project. The project is subject to a subdivision for 3 lots,hard surfacing within 50 ft.of wetlands/shoreline—possible driveway area,work within 100 ft.of the wetland-driveway area.Applicant requests waivers for stormwater,erosion control and sediment control,construction plan, clearing plan. Pursuant to Chapter IS 3, 194 subdivision and wetlands work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for Road frontage, Lot width, stormwater device. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 19-2022 JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN (3 LOT ,Introduced by Michael Dixon 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. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. DOBIE-Thank you for your time,Board. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business,and the first item is Town Fair Tire. This is a modification to Site Plan No. 32-2022. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 32-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED — REAFFIRM SEQR. TOWN FAIR TIRE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SITE PLAN WITH AN UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLAN, PRIMARILY FOR THE SOUTHS IDE OF THE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO A RETAINING WALL. THE PLANS CALL FOR REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION INCLUDING SOME TALL PINE TREES. THE PRIVACY FENCE OF 8 FT.AS PART OF T E ORIGINAL APPROVAL TO BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPERTY LINE AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. THE PLANTINGS TO BE INSTALLED INCLUDE TH E PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OF SHRUBS OR TREES TO REPLACE THOSE REMOVED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20- 99, SP 39-2019, SP 32-2021, AV 30-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: ROUTE 9. LOT SIZE: 1.24 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-34. SECTION: 179-9-120. JON ZAPPER&STEVE VUKAS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-The applicant proposes to modify an approved Site Plan with an updated landscaping plan, primarily for the south side and some of the western side of the property in relation to a retaining wall. The plan calls for removal of existing vegetation including some tall pine trees. The privacy fence of eight feet is part of the original approval to be installed on the property line as previously approved. The plantings are to be installed include the previously approved as well as additional plantings of shelter trees to replace those removed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.ZAPPER-Good evening,everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Steve Vukas of Bohler Engineering and John Wypychoski from Town Fair Tire is with us. We were here about a year ago when we received the approvals. The site development is now underway and a lot of the discussion was about buffering neighbors and trees last time. The contractor,Bast Hatfield,came out to the site and said that eight of the tall pine trees that have no understory are not safe to keep. The neighbors really want all of them out, because they came out to the site. I think Laura received a letter from one of them. So we've got the eight foot fence that you mandated and we've got a whole bunch of plantings which Steve will show you we're proposing to put in new pines that will have an impact on the view because the tall ones without the understory don't really do anything. Everyone's afraid with a good wind that these trees will go on either the new building or on the residents'houses. So we think what we've done is sufficient for buffering. MR. VUKAS-So what we had previously approved was 50 pine trees,50 white pines, along the western and southern perimeter for that buffer that we had, and we also had proposed 50 holly plantings in there as well. With the condition that the contractor pointed out, with those taller trees that are already existing in there that need to be taken out,what we propose to do is add a tree for each one we're removing. So now there'll be a total of 58 white pine trees in there,plus 50 hollies. Standard those trees are to help increase the buffer. They're along with the hollies, and this will enhance the buffer in our opinion to the neighbors. MR. TRAVER-That should help with the sound as well,which I know was one of the concerns,too. MR.VUKAS-That's right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-As long as you replace a tree for every one you take out,I'm happy. MR. DIXON-Are most of the trees in close proximity to ones that are being removed? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. DIXON-As I recall last time on the southern area,the adjacent homeowner was seeing. MR. ZAPPER-The X's are the ones that are coming out,on the south,and the staggered are pretty close. MR. DIXON-All right. I'm good. Thank you. MR. ZAPPER-You're welcome. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MR. TRAVER-The replacement trees,as you pointed out,Jon,being lower probably also would help with the sound, as compared to the big trees. All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board in regards to this application? Laura, do we have written comments? MRS. MOORE-We have one written comment. "My name is Bradley Patch, and I own the property adjacent to the Town Fair Tire property. I cannot make the 5/19/2022 meeting due to my work schedule. At the first meeting(5-19-21)we were shown a site plan that included removing part of our existing buffer and retaining wall. It also said nothing about raising the existing grade about two feet. I had to go to the Building Dept. to find this out, and the removing of all the retaining wall. I now have a buffer of S to 10 feet. Why were we not notified of this change? Now the buffer is almost gone,I am left with 50 foot tree trunks that buffer nothing. All I can do is wait for them to fall on my property! So now I have no objection to removing these tall pines. Also the fence shown on their plans is not a solid stockade type fence that we required last year. I would suggest a solid vinyl fence due to the termites in that area. Another item is the planting of 7 foot trees behind an S foot fence. We also said no white pines at last year's meeting. Eight to nine foot trees would be acceptable. Sincerely,Bradley Patch" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we'll close the public hearing,then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-The response? MR.ZAPPER-Yes. Brad is wrong. The retaining wall is exactly where it was on the plan. The fence was exactly what was on the plan. MR. TRAVER-Which we approved. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Part of our process this evening is we did have a SEQR review on the original application. So this calls for a re-affirmation of the SEQR Negative declaration that we gave this project as first proposed. Do any members of the Board have concerns regarding the proposed change to the Site Plan that would trigger some environmental impacts? Okay. MRS. MOORE-So I'm just going to let you know, we accidentally did not do a SEQR form last year. So that's why it's in there as a Site Plan Modification,but it's a full SEQR resolution. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. MR. TRAVER-All right. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP#32-2022 MOD. TOWN FAIR The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan with an updated landscape plan,primarily for the south side of the property in relation to a retaining wall. The plans call for removal of existing vegetation including some tall pine trees. The privacy fence of S ft. as part of the original approval to be installed on the property line as previously approved. The plantings to be installed include the previously approved and additional plantings of shrubs or trees to replace those removed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120, modification of an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 32-2022 TO WN FAIR TIRE.Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Are we comfortable proceeding with the Site Plan Modification? Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD#32-2022 TOWN FAIR TIRE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan with an updated landscape plan,primarily for the south side of the property in relation to a retaining wall. The plans call for removal of existing vegetation including some tall pine trees. The privacy fence of S ft. as part of the original approval to be installed on the property line as previously approved.The plantings to be installed include the previously approved and additional plantings of shrubs or trees to replace those removed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120,modification of an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 5/19/2022 and continued the public hearing to 5/19/2022 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 5/19/2022; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 32-2022 TOWN FAIR TIRE, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: modification to the buffer on the south and west property area for the retaining wall. The plans for the south retaining wall require the removal of trees in that area as noted the applicant will plant one tree for every tree removed in the south retaining wall area; 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. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everyone. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Joseph Gross, Site Plan Modification 30-2022. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 30-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED—REAFFIRM SEQRA. JOSEPH GROSS. AGENT(S): EDP (CHRIS KEIL). OWNER(S): 27 SILVER CIRCLE LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 27 SILVER CIRCLE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR ALTERATION TO THE BUFFER AREA TO INSTALL A BERM AND FENCE. THE PROJECT WORK WOULD BE TO REMOVE HAZARD PINE TREES ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY. IN ADDITION, SITE WORK FOR PREVIOUS GRAVEL AREA TO GREEN AREA. PROJECT FOR NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS NAD COVERED LOADING AREA REMAINS THE SAME AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SITE PLAN FOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 72-2021,SP 14-2015,SP 18-2009,SP 6-2004, SP 62-2013. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. LOT SIZE: 9.38 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-17.2. SECTION: 179-9-120. NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;JOE GROSS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-The applicant proposes to modify a previously approved Site Plan for alterations to a buffer area to install a berm and fence. The project work would be to remove hazardous pine trees along the southern property boundary. In addition site work for previous gravel area to be converted to green area. Project for new warehouse buildings and covered loading area remains the same and currently under construction. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership. Here with the applicant Joe Gross. We're here tonight requesting Site Plan Modification approval to a previously approved Site Plan at 27 Silver Circle. The applicant wishes to remove several tall pine trees along this southern property line, as well as provide more effective screening with a six foot vinyl privacy fence on top of a two foot berm. There are some concerns about these tall pines, and if there's a strong wind load, there's a hazard of them falling over and damaging these buildings or any of the equipment that's stored out in the gravel lay down areas,as well as they don't really provide a very effective screening as they stand now, and we feel the two foot berm and the privacy fence will provide a much better screening for the residential property owners along the southern boundary of the site. There's no other changes to the building. Stormwater management remains the same. With that I'll turn it over to the Board for any questions or comments. MR. TRAVER-So questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.MAGOWAN-I understand on the trees,and like I said that was pretty dense forest there at one time, and you start taking down those trees and everything goes together, that's fine,but once you take down those trees, there's no root structure. We just had it in the application before. It was the same thing. They become dangerous. MR. GROSS-They might not come my way,but they may come the other way. MR. TRAVER-Yes,you never know. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-And I appreciate Mr. Gross'putting that berm up there and getting that fence a little higher. I like,some businesses do that,but you only get so much out of six feet,but you put a berm there and you dress it up and it really kind of stands out and looks nice. You've done a great job over there. MR. GROSS-1 want to be a good neighbor,those people in the back,I want to be a good neighbor to them. That's why I,if you notice the way we're positioning it,we're putting it a ways off the line as well. When we berm it,they won't feel like the fence is right on top of them. To stay a good neighbor. We do store all our equipment out there. MR. DEEB-How many trees are you taking down? MR. GROSS-I never did count. You see how there's like no cover. The low stuff we're going to try to leave it wherever we can fit it. Those top ones, in a high wind storm they're just like, they could hurt somebody. MR. DEEB-When you take a tree down, I always like to see another one put up. It's just, if you could replace them. You couldn't replace all those. Is there any chance you could replace a few of them? MR. GROSS-We could put some small stuff along the bottom,but the fence is going to give them a better solid buffer than anything. MR. DEEB-I'm talking about aesthetically pleasing. MR. GROSS-I don't even know where I'd put them. Do I put them on their side,my side? MR. TRAVER-On your side. MR. DEEB-I guess you wouldn't need them on your side. MR.GROSS-And if I put them on their side,if it grows on their side,next thing I know ten years from now they're saying hey your tree's growing over my property. So I'll do whatever you want.. MR. DEEB-No,you make sense. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,that's just one row of pine trees there,isn't it? MR. GROSS-It's those old,what they used to call white pines. MR. MAGOWAN-I call them scrub pines. MR. GROSS-Scrub pines. There's no value to them. MR. MAGOWAN-They are weak and they're up there and like I said that was all dense at one time and they were all there. MR. GROSS-It's funny,if you look,there's one tree on my neighbor's property out of all those properties, because they've got, everybody gets rid of them because of the acidity it kills your yard. So I would like to think when it's done that they'll be like wow, the backyard all of a sudden gets sun and it doesn't have all these pine needles in it. MR. MAGOWAN-Also they drop a lot of pine on hot days,pine pitch. It ruins a lot of cars. MR. GROSS-I just think once I put the building in it's going to be more difficult to do, more expensive. So I figure they're going to start digging,if I can get the permission I can get this done. Of course I'll order the fence. That'll go up from AFSCO. They said they can do it but I'll be on the list. It will be a few weeks. MR.MAG OWAN Joe,on those trees,that tree line there,where's that berm going to go? Because if you're going to be putting in a berm and all,you're going to be losing some of your smaller stuff. MR. GROSS-We will. We will lose some of the smaller stuff back,just to make the berm. I mean we could not put the berm and I was just trying give them, I got the dirt, figured I could give it a little more height. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,what I'm going to maybe suggest is that,you know,when you're removing,once you get your line and your berm and that,if you have to remove some of that natural growth that's there, you have a big enough ball out of there, and then plant them on the neighbor's side and maybe flip flop them back and forth so they're not,so you get a little. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MR. GROSS-I have no problem with that. We'll do the best we can. We've got the equipment. We'll try to take the smaller. We've been pretty successful on other projects and I'll look for feedback from the neighbors. Again,no one asked me to do it,but it's a$30,000 fence,unfortunately because of the way the plastic is. I figured I'd put the vinyl since it's more residential looking. We border the Town property, too. If you went up there and saw it,they put up a fence. The Town does what the Town wants to do. They put up the old wooden picket fence that's all falling down. I figured if I went for that vinyl, that residential look,that white plastic,double good sided. It will hopefully last longer so I won't have to touch it. It's white industrial. The box trucks that we have, the beep, beep, beep. If I could just give, a good neighbor is a fence between you. Hopefully I can take some of that burden away. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? I did see a hand raised. So if you could give up the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDREW BUGENIS MR. BUGENIS-My name is Andrew Bugenis. I'm a property owner at 50 Eagan Road which is,I'm used to seeing those pines in the photo from the other side. I thank you for the concern that you put in as far as the berm and the fence and such. I do just want to repeat the notion that I would like to see at least some trees be planted when the others are taken down. It is,as you've noticed,kind of sparse in there and as some of the thicker trunks get taken down,maybe just aesthetically between the fence and such. I just did want to repeat and enforce that. As one of the neighbors I would like to see at least some trees. MR. DEEB-What side of the fence do you want them planted? MR. BUGENIS-I would be fine with them on our side of the fence. I'm actually not positive where the property line is in that buffer,but if they were on our side that's fine. If there was some staggered as was a possibility,that's fine. MR. DEE&Would it be on your property? MR. BUGENIS-I'm not positive where the property line is in that buffer zone, but if they were on my property in that buffer area,I am fine with that. MR. DEE&Would you take responsibility for them? MR.BUGENIS-I would. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, he says he wants to be a good neighbor. He said he was going to be talking to the neighbors anyway. MR. ZEGLEN-We'll work with them. MR.BUGENIS-That's my comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR.BUGENIS-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this project? I'm not seeing anyone else. Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There's one written comment. This is addressed to Shauna. "I wish to report with your kind help I have reviewed the Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan proposal submitted by representatives of Joe Gross. I live at 5S Eagan Road and border the subject property in the very back corner. I wish to confirm that my wife Catherine and I approve the proposal as submitted. Sincerely,Richard Mclenithan" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is that the only written comment,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-You can return to the table. You heard the public comment. We heard you, away from the microphone, stating that you would reach out to the neighbor and discuss with them a planting plan 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) to cover as they wish or as much as you can as they wish, similar to what they commented on,if you have any comments on that for the record. MR. GROSS-For the record I'll work with them, whatever they want to do, plant some trees there and we'll put them on their side. We could scoop up there and if we've got to pick up a few small trees and put them in and let them mature over time. What I don't want to do is give them a stark white fence. So I'll talk to the neighbors. We're going to do the work ourselves. MR. TRAVER-Good. MR. DEEB-So are you going to relinquish ownership of the trees if they're not on your property? MR. GROSS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN Joe,have you thought of a different color,like a beige or something,that would blend in? White's pretty stark,and then,too, a lot of times with the pines you get a lot of acid and then you get a lot of the green growth,you know,moss. MR. GROSS-I'm open. I'll talk to the neighbors. I'd like to have it all be the same down through. MR. TRAVER-The fence company might have a recommendation,too. MR. GROSS-Yes. I could ask them. I'll be honest, lately all I've seen is that it seems to be the popular thing is that white vinyl, white on both sides. There's an economics to it. It looks pretty good. The wood,I think any time I've ever seen color I think when you get into the plastics and you put any color on them the heat. MR. MAGOWAN-Like the vinyl siding will bleach out. MR. GROSS-It really fades out. MR. MAGOWAN-It was just something I was thinking. The white would look beautiful. MR. GROSS-They are beautiful residential homes along there. So I thought the white would complement it. MR. DEEB-It's a good color. Very popular. MR. GROSS-It's popular. MR. TRAVER-Well I'm sure you'll work, between the neighbors, the fence company and your own thoughts,I'm sure you'll work out something. MR. GROSS-For sure. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments for the applicant before we consider re-affirming the SEQR? MR. MOLLOY-I just want to say it's not every day that neighbors come before this Board and get along. So I just appreciate that. Thank you. MR. GROSS-My apologies. I didn't reach out to him. Two out of three,I missed him. My apologies. MR. TRAVER-Well,you have now. So we evidently did perform SEQR review on this application in the first go around last year,and so this evening we basically just have to look at whether this proposed change triggers any environmental impacts that were not considered the first go around or can we re-affirm the SEQR resolution. MR. DEEB-I think we should re-affirm it. MR. DIXON-There's not anything new that's being presented. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well,we have a draft resolution then. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP MOD#30-2022 JOE GROSS The applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan for alteration to the buffer area to install a berm and fence. The project work would be to remove hazard pine trees along the southern property boundary. In addition, site work for previous gravel area to green area. Project for new warehouse 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) buildings and covered loading area remains the same and currently under construction. Site Plan for modification of approved site plan. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120,modification of an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted a Reaffirm SEQR Resolution on 11/16/2021, adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms 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 REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 30-2022 JOSEPH GROSS. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And so next we consider the Site Plan Review resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD#30-2022 JOSEPH GROSS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan for alteration to the buffer area to install a berm and fence. The project work would be to remove hazard pine trees along the southern property boundary. In addition, site work for previous gravel area to green area. Project for new warehouse buildings and covered loading area remains the same and currently under construction. Site Plan for modification of approved site plan. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120, modification of an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 5/19/2022 and continued the public hearing to 5/19/2022 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 5/19/2022; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 30-2022 JOSEPH GROSS, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) 1) Waivers request granted:Buffer waiver for 6 ft.versus 50 ft.; 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. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Applicant to work with adjacent southern neighbors to provide tree planting appropriate for the lot. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. GROSS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business,is Kasselman Solar/Loreen Harvey. This is Site Plan 31-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 31-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. KASSELMAN SOLAR/LOREEN HARVEY. OWNER(S): BRANDY &z JEFFREY TENNYSON. ZONING: RRS. LOCATION: 1631 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 2 PANEL GROUND MOUNTED RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PROJECT. THE AREA TO BE USED IS 971.59 SQ.FT. THE SOLAR MECHANICALS WILL BE LOCATED ON AND INTERNAL TO THE EXISTING GARAGE. THE SCREENING IS ALREADY EXISTING WITH TALL VEGETATION AND THE EXISTING RESIDENCE. THE PANEL ARRANGEMENT IS STATIC AND WILL BE ANTI-REFLECTION TECHNOLOGY. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-140,GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PROJECTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. LOT SIZE: 9.47 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-25. SECTION: 179-5-140. LOREEN HARVEY,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-The applicant proposes to install a 42 panel ground mounted residential solar project. The area to be used is 971.59 square feet,that's with the panels laying down. At any rate,if they're laying down they might be a little bit larger. The solar mechanics will be located on and internal to the existing garage. The screening is already existing with tall vegetation and the existing residence. The panel arrangement is static and will be anti-reflection technology. Site Plan Review is now required for residential ground mounted solar and in reference to the surface below the panels themselves,it is going to be grass. It's not going to be gravel. I noted in my notes it was going to be gravel. That's incorrect. It's grass. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. HARVEY-Good evening. I'm Loreen Harvey. We're proposing installing a single solar array,six by seven,generally behind the residence on the parcel. Ask whatever you need to ask me. I'm not sure what you would like me to focus on. Other than maybe the ground screws issue. MR.TRAVER-Yes,and these are fixed and they're anti-glare. Glare is one of the concerns we have because of aircraft. One of the things that we wanted to discuss,too,is the decommissioning process. MS.HARVEY-What would you like to know about that? Other than typically within 30 days they would be removed,if possible. Obviously there's site logistics involved in that once that happens. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MR. TRAVER-Is there somewhere a written plan or would there be some kind of something that could be submitted to the Town to document that there is such a plan? MS. HARVEY-I could do that,yes. MR. DEEB-I think that you have to have one. MS. HARVEY-We stated it on the Site Plan. I wasn't asked for one specifically but I can, I have one drafted. MR. DEEB-There's a 30 year lifespan? MS. HARVEY-They tend to be 20 to 30. MR. DEEB-Do yours rotate? MS. HARVEY-No. MR. TRAVER-Actually what I've heard is that the technology is evolving so quickly that they're often swapped out before they reach their age. Nevertheless there needs to be,it needs to be planned for. We don't want to,you know,the solar panels are relatively new in the Town for an approval process, and we don't want to end up with a bunch of ones that are out there and not functioning and so on. So the decommissioning plan is an important part of the process and we appreciate your help with that. MS. HARVEY-Certainly. MRS. MOORS Just a note. The applicant provided a link to how you installed the ground mounted solar array. Do you want to take a quick look at it? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MS.HARVEY-I actually remember when you guys would allow us to do roof mounts with no permits. It's really nice to see them without the panels on them,because then you can really get an understanding of what the structure is. MR. DEEB-It's great that you're going with renewable energy. MR. MAGOWAN-How many panels are there? MR. TRAVER-That's a lot more than what you're proposing,right? Yes,you're talking,what,40? MS. HARVEY-Forty-two at six by seven. I do have a spec sheet. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan 31-2022? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have to consider SEQR on this application as well. This is an Unlisted Action. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman,are you going to close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-I did not. I will close the public hearing. Thank you,Maria. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So we need to consider a SEQR resolution. Does anyone have any concerns regarding environment al impacts with this? Are we comfortable moving forward with SEQR? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP#31-2022 KASSELMAN SOLAR The applicant proposes to install a 42 panel ground mounted residential solar project. The area to be used is 971.59 sq. ft. The solar mechanicals will be located on and internal to the existing garage. The screening is already existing with tall vegetation and the existing residence. The panel arrangement is static and will 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) be anti-reflection technology. Site Plan review for residential ground mounted solar. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-140,ground mounted solar projects shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 31-2022 KASSELMAN SOLAR/LOREEN HARVEY.Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next we consider the Site Plan resolution. MR. DIXON-And before I read that motion. MR. TRAVER-We have the one condition that a decommissioning plan be submitted in compliance with regulations. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#31-2022 KASSELMAN SOLAR/LOREEN HARVEY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to install a 42 panel ground mounted residential solar project. The area to be used is 971.59 sq.ft.The solar mechanicals will be located on and internal to the existing garage. The screening is already existing with tall vegetation and the existing residence. The panel arrangement is static and will be anti-reflection technology. Site Plan review for residential ground mounted solar. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-140, ground mounted solar projects shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 5/19/2022 and continued the public hearing to 5/19/2022 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 5/19/2022; 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 31-2022 KASSELMAN SOLAR/LOREEN HARVEY,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted:g.site lighting,h.signage,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping,n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal where it reasonable to request as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 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. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) A decommissioning plan to be submitted per Town regulations. Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 19`h day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MS. HARVEY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Geoffrey Hoffman,Site Plan 19-2022. SITE PLAN NO.19-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GEOFFREY HOFFMAN. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 1234 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE EXISTING 600 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND 120 SQ. FT. PORCH FOR A RETAIL STORE - ARTISAN BOUTIQUE. THE BUILDING WAS A ONE ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE FROM 1805. THE PARCEL IS AN IRREGULAR SHAPE WITH ROADS ON TWO SIDES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A GRAVEL PARKING AREA FOR 6 SPACES WITH ACCESS TO BAY ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA, TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: .2 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.278.-2-9. SECTION: 179-3-040. GEOFFREY HOFFMAN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-This application is to re-use the existing 600 square foot building and 120 square foot porch for a retail artisan boutique building. The building was a one room schoolhouse from IS05. The parcel is an irregular shape with roads on two sides. The project includes a gravel parking area for six spaces with access to Bay Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.HOFFMAN-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MR. HOFFMAN-Well, I think it's an ideal use for that schoolhouse in that area. It's a rare kind of historical structure like that still remains,without getting razed,heavily modified or added on to. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Is it not on the register of Historic Places? It is? Okay. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MR. HOFFMAN-It is, and I talked to, went the State route with a high recreational content. The other artery that brings in local neighborhoods, providing local goods, giving local craft an opportunity and a venue. I think it's ideal. I'll brand it as a schoolhouse as it remains,old school, with a cupola and a bell on the roof. It has no adverse impact that I can see,no modification to the building other than bringing in it up to Code. So I think it's a great use for it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board. MR. DEEB-I've got to tell you,I've got to tell you,I've driven by that building a million times and I had no idea it dates from IS05. MR.HOFFMAN-It was replaced by the burnt structure in 1510,and it sat there,and I actually had it under contract to purchase before I realized that it was, it was actually a cottage someone was living in, and I bought it to have control over the development because it's right in my views shed of my residence from my lot. So I opted to buy his loan out and restored it. I've restored it inside as much as I could like an old school. MR. DEEB-How far is the driveway from 149? MR. HOFFMAN-It's quite a ways behind. The driveway is where the State gave the curb cut. The curb cut,when they did all that modification,engineering to the intersection,the driveway actually came in to the side of the house which would not be optimum by any means. So what they did,they moved it all the way towards the back of their property line, as far from the intersection as possible,and they put the curb cut in at the time. MR.DEEB-You might need a lot more than six parking spaces,because if your place takes off,you're going to have zillions of people coming in. MR.HOFFMAN-Well,I think,you know,things like artisan soap,or aroma therapy,it's not a really,really high volume. It's a little bit more unique. MR. DEE&We hope you do a lot more volume than you expect. MR. HOFFMAN-I appreciate that. I can always expand with another application because I have the adjoining property and acreage behind it. MR. MAGOWAN-I've been driving by that and I never knew it was a schoolhouse, but I always, I just admired,because I said they're keeping is the same. Now how long have you owned it? MR.HOFFMAN-Ten years. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say,because it was about 10 years ago, there used to be a boat that sat there,but I've noticed the cleanup,ad you've really done a nice job. It's a beautiful corner,and when I saw the application,I saw, oh my gosh,because it's not a high traffic what you're trying to bring in,but I like the concept and the artisan soaps and the different aroma therapy. MR.HOFFMAN-It's absolutely in keeping with the Town's plan. Obviously,I just think it's great, and it will be more recognizable with the little cupola and the bell on the roof. I'll bring it together the rest of the way. MR. MAGOWAN-I noticed across the road,up a little bit,to the west,the artisan bread there,the bread store. It's a little shack. To me it was just so appealing. MR.HOFFMAN-I agree. I appreciate that. MR. MAGOWAN-I appreciate this project and I appreciate you keeping the nostalgia of the old home. MR. DEEB-Do you do online sales? MR. MAGOWAN-Will you do online sales? MR. HOFFMAN-No. No plan for it as of yet. That's what they're doing now,looking for the brick and mortar to work out of. MR. DEEB-Gotcha. MR.HOFFMAN-I have a good local following. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) MR.DIXON-Lighting. Is there any changes with the lighting or are you just keeping what's on the house? I didn't see anything in the plans,unless I overlooked it. MR.HOFFMAN-Well,we do have a light at each entrance that we're proposing. I have a light on my flag out front. MR. DIXON-All right, and being so close to an intersection, are you proposing any colored lights on the front, red open? There's another Town Code in there where you've got to be careful with that because you're close to the stop lights. So just be aware of that. MR.HOFFMAN-Certainly. No neon,no flashing yellows or reds. MR. DIXON-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment? All right. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing,then,on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a Type II under SEQR. So there's no need to do a SEQR resolution. Are members of the Board comfortable moving forward on this? MR. MAGOWAN-I just have one more comment. You're not going to have any South of the Border signs up? You're not going to have any neon lights. Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. I believe we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#19-2022 GEOFFREY HOFFMAN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to reuse existing 600 sq. ft. building and 120 sq. ft. porch for a retail store- artisan boutique. The building was a one room school house from IS05. The parcel is an irregular shape with roads on two sides. The project includes a gravel parking area for 6 spaces with access to Bay Road.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for a new commercial use in a neighborhood commercial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/19/2022 and continued the public hearing to 5/19/2022 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 5/19/2022; 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 19-2022 GEOFFREY HOFFMAN,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted:j. stormwater, k. topography,1. landscaping, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal where waivers requested are reasonable as the building is being reused and no other site changes are proposed; 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; 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/19/2022) a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 19th day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DEEB-And good luck to you. MR. HOFFMAN-Thank you so much. I would also like to put on the record Laura helped me greatly, nurturing me through the process. Thank you all. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? MRS.MOORE-So next week Tuesday is called Grievance Day. So we,as a Planning Board,are not allowed to have our meeting that night because this whole room is taken over by the Real Property board. So that is why it is on Thursday next week. MR. MOLLOY-Okay. MR. TRAVER-If there's no other business,we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 19TH 2022, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 19`h day of May,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 22