Loading...
07-19-2016 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 0'7/19/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2016 7:00 P.M. Site Plan PZ 149-2016 RAN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-28 Subdivision No. 22-2005 Townhouses at Haviland HOA, Inc. 4. Subdivision Mod. 3-2014 Tax Map No. 290.17-2-39 Site Plan PZ 171-2016 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 9 Tax Map No. 302.9-1-43 Site Plan Mod. PZ 174-2016 Omall Family Limited Partnership 13. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-13 Subdivision Prelim Stg. PZ 185-2016Warren County DPW 16. Subdivision Final Stg. PZ 186-2016 Tax Map No. 297.20-1-2/297.16-1-1.1 Site Plan PZ 182-2016 Tim Barber 18. Subdivision Mod. PZ 183-2016 Tax Map No. 300.-1-40.3/300.-1-40.2 Site Plan PZ 166-2016 Heidelberg Inn/Kindred Group, LLC 22. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-87 Site Plan PZ 169-2016 J&D Marina, LLC 27. Special Use Permit PZ 170-2016 Tax Map No. 240.5-1-31.23 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE DAVID DEEB THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, July 19th, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have several public hearings scheduled later on the agenda. First we have approval of minutes for May 17th and May 19th, 2016. If anyone would like to move those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 17, 2016 May 19, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17TH AND MAY 19TH, 2016, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 149-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED RAN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) NDC REALTY ZONING CLI LOCATION 235 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW RETAIL BUILDING, 22,200 SQ. FT. RECREATIONAL BUILDING FOR SKY ZONE TRAMPOLINE, INCLUDING A MEZZANINE AREA IN THE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. REAFFIRMING SEAR AND SITE PLAN RESOLUTION. WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2016 LOT SIZE 2.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2- 28 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSTY SAUNDERS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This project is back before the Board. There's two things that have occurred, and just for the record there is a public hearing that is scheduled for this evening. We were able to get out notices to those neighbors that were within 500 feet. The first item was in reference to the County taking action, and the procedure of the Planning Board not to take 2 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) action before the County Planning Board has made a decision, and unbeknownst to me their information about the entertainment center was not included in their previous packet. So now we have their decision and so the Planning Board can make their final decision, and in addition to that, the applicant has coordinated with the Town Designated Engineer and Warren County to change that access to a one access point only, and I have confirmation from both Chazen and from the County that they're acceptable to the new design. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Rusty Saunders the applicant. As Laura stated, we've changed to one entrance. We physically cannot locate that entrance directly across from Connecticut, but it's within the parameters of being close enough that the County agrees with the location of it. So we've eliminated the western entrance. We've converted part of that entryway into four additional parking spaces. We've shown the reserve parking spaces back along the eastside of the building. So now instead of 14 reserve spaces there are 10 required. We've modified the pavement area in the back of the building so the bus turnarounds can be accommodated. Essentially buses will come back along beside the trash container, back in and towards the entrance door, back entrance door to the building, and pull back out into the roadway. We've also shown where buses could stack while they're waiting for kids. We've shown a bus offloading area with a sidewalk extension out to it to allow buses to disembark their students. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. NACE-That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I want to thank you for your patience in re-drawing it again, and it looks wonderful. It's one of those things that was in a tough spot. So I like the addition to what you did. You gained another four spots and still keep some future spots if needed, and the bus terminal. That's wonderful. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree. It's much appreciated, and I assume it would be a better facility. MR. FORD-1 concur. It's a real improvement. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-We talked about everything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-There are no new written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received, and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-So with SEQR we have to just do it over. It's not reaffirming what was already done because it was incomplete. It was invalid. MRS. MOORE-You can proceed, re-do it again. That's fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We use the same people that made the motion? MRS. MOORE-You're going to make a new motion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there's any other questions or comments from the Board. MR. TRAVER-No. RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 149-2016 RAN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC 3 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) The applicant proposes a new retail building, 22,200 sq. ft. recreational building for Sky Zone Trampoline, including a mezzanine area in the building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 149-2016 RAN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; 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. 3. For Number Five on the Short EAF the Planning Board has said there is a no or small impact regarding traffic. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there's any other questions or comments, a motion for affirming the Site Plan would be in order. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING SP PZ 149-2016 RAN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for a new retail building, 22,200 sq. ft. recreational building for Sky Zone Trampoline, including a mezzanine area in the building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; 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 6/21/2016, and continued the public hearing to 6/21/2016, 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 6/21/2016; 4 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) 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 REAFFIRM SITE PLAN PZ 149-2016 RAN ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) 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. f) 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; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) 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. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans k) 10 additional spaces are to be identified on the plan for parking. I) That bus parking and turn lanes should be identified on the plan. m) Signage design to be provided and also to be Code compliant. ,,;-That a review�edriveway entran^Gand egress� to beTeviewedby the Town Engineer for design. o) Sewage design and management to be approved by the Town prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set again. MR. SAUNDERS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The next item of business is also under Old Business. 5 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 & SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2014 MODIFICATION RE-AFFIRM PREVIOUS SEAR TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC. AGENT(S) SANFORD SEARLEMAN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING PUD LOCATION BEEKMAN PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO ELIMINATE THE WALKING TRAIL AND GAZEBO/SITTING AREA. ALSO REQUESTED MODIFICATION OF PLANTING PLAN TO MAINTAIN CURRENT PLANTINGS AND REVISED PLANTING PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE HILAND PARK PUD LOT SIZE 2.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.17-2-39 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 SANFORD SEARLEMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant has been tabled to this timeframe, to July 19th. They have received a letter from the Conkling Center, their neighboring property, that indicated they have no objection to the removal of the walking trail and gazebo. They did revise their plan to show the plantings that are existing and what is to be proposed. Then anything that is currently on the site, that is to remain, and anything that was not currently planted that was from the previous approval they are not proposing to plant those items, and those are identified on that planting plan. That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SEARLEMAN-Good evening. My name is Sanford Searleman, President of the Townhouses at Haviland Homeowners Association. We're here tonight to hopefully get our request to eliminate our walking trail and gazebo affirmed. When we were here the first time the Conkling Center asked for the motion to be tabled, and it was. We have since met with them several times, and they have concurred, through a letter, I believe you have a copy of the letter, then they have stated in writing that they have, quote, no objection, unquote, to our elimination of the walking trail and gazebo. We also have a second issue that we'd like to bring up, modification of our plantings and landscaping. As you probably know, Amedores are no longer in dodge. They're gone, and they did not complete, entirely, the landscaping. So we've decided that we would take it over ourselves, and we have submitted a revised plan that I believe you also have a copy of, to finish it off. That's not exactly what they have, but because of the different contours and things that have taken place in the last year, we decided that this is what we wanted to do. So we've also submitted that as a proposal. At this point, I would like to submit those two items or three items I guess, the walking trail and gazebo and the revised plan, as a proposal for your adoption. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your patience and being willing to go back and have further conversations. I'm glad you were able to reconcile with your other neighbors. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. SEARLEMAN-And like I said, we met with them, and they did submit a letter. They had a board meeting, and they did submit a letter which you have a copy of. MR. FORD-The neighborliness of this and the way that it occurred is appreciated. I have a question, Sanford. Is there no longer a representative of the Amedore corporation serving on your Board? MR. SEARLEMAN-No, no. According to our documents, as the last unit was sold, they must leave the Board. They no longer will be our sponsor, and that was completed a couple of months ago. We now have 19 units, 38 residents, people living there, and so I have in my file an official letter from Paul Amedore resigning and our Board took action on that at one of our last Board meetings, and so they're completely out of the picture as far as we're concerned. MR. FORD-Congratulations. MR. SEARLEMAN-I'm not going to go there. That's enough said on that story. 6 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-I know at one point we were going to have the Town Counsel look into the documents and maybe contact Amedore's attorneys to see, you know, if there was any liability there. I mean, they were the ones that came in and got the site plan approved, and, you know, really left these people holding the bag, and I've got some real issue with that. I mean, this isn't against you. You weren't even here, but, you know, one of the selling points of this whole project was the walking trail and the gazebo, and, you know we bought it and now they're gone. You're left holding the bag, and we're left with a project that's really unfinished. MR. SEARLEMAN-Let me shed a little more light on that. After the houses were built, mine being one of them, and in looking at where their proposed walking trail was going to be, it literally would be in our back bedroom. It was probably from here to where you gentlemen are sitting. Maybe a little further, but basically that's where the walking trail was. So according to the plans, it looked good on paper like many things. It looked good on paper, but in reality most of us, or all of us pretty much didn't want it because when we finally saw where our houses were built, and where the walking trail was going to be, we said, wait a minute. That's not what we really wanted. MR. TRAVER-But you also made some valid points regarding maintenance and the expense associated. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. That was, that also came into it. Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-So that's a lot of trees there, trees and shrubs and everything. So how many more plantings do you have to do? Mike, could I ask you to come up. He's in charge of trees. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just trying to look at the map and trying to figure which is existing. MR. HUNSINGER-And, Mike, if you could identify yourself for the record. MIKE DEMAS MR. DEMAS-There is a section. MRS. MOORE-1 just pulled it up. MR. DEMAS-Along Haviland Road. MR. MAGOWAN-Mike, first, can you introduce yourself so we have it on the record. MR. DEMAS-I'm sorry. Mike Demas, Vice President of the Association, and Chairman of the Landscaping Committee. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-If you're going to go up and talk up there, bring the mic. MR. DEMAS-Right in this area, these trees were never planted, and these units really had no privacy from the road. So our plan is to, and I think there's probably about seven or eight trees in there. I can't really tell from this, and we did put a, extend the irrigation system, and that just went in yesterday. So now that that is done, we plan to, during the summer, add some of these trees as we can afford them in the budget, and then to landscape this area a little bit, and to provide some privacy. That is the main area. There is a spot over here, and I don't, I'm not sure if it's on there, kind of go this way a little bit. I think it's right in here, okay. We're going to probably put an island and some low bushes in there, just to balance this site out as it, to make the entrance look a little more attractive from Meadowbrook. MR. FORD-You say you may. MR. DEMAS-We are, we are, but again, finances are, it may have to be done over, two, three, four years. MR. FORD-And you also are encouraging members to do plantings as well? Correct? MR. DEMAS-Yes, you know, in the back, common area back in here, if they look out at it, and at their own expense if they would like to add additional trees, we encourage that. MR. FORD-Who will ultimately have responsibility for maintenance of those newly planted trees? 7 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. DEMAS-Well, that would be the person who planted them, and along with, this area here is the Glens Falls Lawn Care. MR. MAGOWAN-Do they do the whole complex? MR. DEMAS-They do the entire complex. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So they do the annual trimming and? MR. DEMAS-Yes. That's included in their contract to do that. MR. FORD-So to answer the question, the responsibility will be the HOA and the company that you hire to do the landscaping the trimming and maintenance of the trees and shrubs? MR. DEMAS-Right. That would be, the trimming of the shrubs would be, right now it's really been by homeowners, individual homeowners that live there. like this area right here, around this retention pond, is taken care of by, this one is taken care of by this person, and this person, husband and wife, are taking care of this area. They trim it and then planting more attractive bushes. MR. FORD-What I'm trying to do is get clarification so we can avoid future occurrences like we've just gone through over the last couple of years about who's responsibility is it or was it or will it be. MR. DEMAS-It would be the Association. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-So when we have to send out the nasty letter and come down on you, it's got to go to the Association, right? MR. DEMAS-Yes. Care of me. MR. MAGOWAN-Really, it looks beautiful, and I drive up and down Haviland all the time and I'm wondering why that hedge didn't go all the way across and now that I'm looking at it I can see the balance, and I understand the budgeting aspects as in today's society we've got to work with what we have. So I'm recommending that everybody spend, they kick in another couple hundred dollars a season there for the HOA, no. MR. SEARLEMAN-Can you make that part of the motion? MR. MAGOWAN-But, no, on a timeline, like I said, it's tough to, you've made the changes, now you're saying over three years, three, four, five years. I mean, the only thing I would say is, I do, I feel bad. I think it's wrong and, trust me, if he ever comes back for approval in this Planning Board and I'm sitting here, I'll make things a little difficult because obviously we can see that the honesty is not there, and I shouldn't be saying that on the record, but when someone says something to me they're going to do it, you do it, period. MR. HUNSINGER-It was approved. MR. MAGOWAN-But it was approved, and how it slipped through the, you know, it didn't get done is another story, but I'm thinking, you know, in all fairness of moving forward and how far you've come and thanks for your patience in going through all this, but maybe a timeline where it's not. MR. TRAVER-We might have to move to letters or credit or even escrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the ultimate is to not grant the final CO until it's done. It's that simple. MR. SEARLEMAN-I believe our intention is not to drag this out. Obviously that's where we live and we want to make it as nice as we can. So given the finances and so on and so forth, I suspect that within a couple of years we'll probably have it done. That's our intent. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, to me the thing that's most troubling is clearly the developer planned the cost of that landscaping, the cost of the trail, the cost of the gazebo, when he priced your 8 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird 9 /19/2918) houses, and when he priced the property and when he priced the project, and then to just walk away without having it done. MR. FORD-We bought it as well, but it cost you more money. MR. HUNSINGER-To me it's borderline criminal. MR. DEMAS-And one of the owners told me personally, who I had arguments with over that area that we were just discussing, and had promised that they were going to do it before they left and then did not and said that they never had any plans to do any of that, with the walking trail, gazebo. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a shame. MR. HUNSINGER-That's fraud, then, if that were true. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a beautiful area. I have to say, I have two nieces that live over there, and it really is, it looks nice, and you finish that up, and I wish you had some recourse and, you know, gobs of money to go after him and make sure he finished, but now that I heard your story, I feel a little bad. So maybe we could bump it back up to five years. Only kidding. MR. SEARLEMAN-We just want to move along. That's all we want at this point. Get going with something else. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I have to say, I believe you will do it, and, you know, I don't really, if it takes three years, you know, like I say, once you do out there on Haviland Road and it balances out, you know, I know you're going to follow through with this, but it's up to the rest of the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-If we approve this, what's the normal requirements for completion? MRS. MOORE-Bruce will go out and do another compliance check, and go through that. I mean, those plantings are on that plan. So that's part of the approval. MR. MAGOWAN-How long can they hold off Bruce? MRS. MOORE-If no one's talking about it. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-1 do have one comment. It was e-mailed on Friday, July 8th, addressed to Mr. Brown. "Good afternoon, Craig, I am Not in favor of TownHomes of Haviland reducing the privacy Landscaping, Walkway and Gazebo. I was sold property with an approved plan that showed a paved walkway and Gazebo. Without these in place our Property values have declined where the rest of the approved developments with walking trails have increased. I am asking that the town Planning Board NOT agree to let the Town homes of Haviland change a plan that was approved and Every Homeowner KNEW about the walking trails and Gazebo. I hate to see this brought into court plus the" he says AG, I'm assuming that's the Attorney General's Office, "AG office not making amendments to the offering plan that EVERY home owner signed. Do Not Approve the Removal of the paved walking trail and Gazebo! Please pass this to the operate people. Thank you. Kevin Knoblach" I don't know what his address is. MR. MAGOWAN-You obviously know him? AUDIENCE MEMBERS-Yes. We know him. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MRS. MOORE-That was it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll close the public hearing. 9 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-In this case, you do not need to do a reaffirmation of SEAR. SEQR was handled with the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. Yes. It's a PUD. Okay. All right. So SEQR is not necessary. Unless there's any other questions, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUT. APPROVING SUB. # 22-2005 & SUB. # 3-2014 MOD. TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved subdivision to eliminate the walking trail and gazebo/sitting area. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance any Modification to an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/25/2015, 10/27/2015, 11/19/2015, 12/15/2015 and 7/19/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION 22-2005 & 3-2014 TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford: 1) Waivers �lost grant ��eK�rreq�-g„�r,z eFl+ 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; C) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Right now there's no waivers being requested. So you can strike Number One. MR. HUNSINGER-The resolution will strike the reference to waivers. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. SEARLEMAN-Thank you. I would just like to say one more thing. I would like to thank Laura Moore for all her assistance in going through all of this. She met with us numerous times to make sure that we had all of our ducks in a row. So I really would like to thank her and thank the Board also on behalf of the Association. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN PZ 171-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) DAVID C. BRENNAN, ESQ., YOUNG/SOMMER LLC 10 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/10/20101) OWNER(S) CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING PR-42A LOCATION OFF I-87/AVIATION MALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE 12 PANEL ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT — SECTOR MOUNTS, REMOTE RADIO HEAD UNITS, A DISH ANTENNA, ON AN EXISTING 122.6 FT. WATER TANK. ANTENNAS TO BE LOCATED AT 108 +/- FT. LEVEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN EQUIPMENT SHELTER 11'6" X 16'. THE AREA OF LEASE IS 880 SQ. FT. AND INCLUDES 30 FT. EASEMENT FOR ROAD ACCESS TO THE SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-130(c) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ANTENNAS ON EXISTING TALL STRUCTURE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR EQUIPMENT SHELTER SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 60-2000 TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIP. ON WATER TANK (WITHDRAWN); AV PZ 178-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-43 SECTION 179-5-130(c) HYDE CLARK& BOB WATSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-I'll go through a quick description. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to place 12 panel antennas and associated equipment on the existing water tank. They're also proposing to install an equipment shelter and that, the equipment shelter is located 28 feet where it's supposed to be 100 feet. So the Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CLARK-Good evening. My name's Hyde Clark. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Young Sommer in Albany, here on behalf of the applicant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. As stated, this is a co-location application on an existing water tank owned by the City of Glens Falls. That water tank is about 122 feet high. We're proposing to co-locate 12 panel antennas at the 108 foot centerline, and along with that an equipment platform. That equipment platform is 11 and a half feet by sixteen feet, and as stated, we'll be seeking Site Plan Review and looking for recommendation to the ZBA for the Area Variance request. This is in the PR-42A zone. So it's a permitted use to co-locate antennas on an existing tall structure, and if the Board has any questions, I'd be glad to answer those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who owns the water tower? MR. CLARK-The City of Glens Falls. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Somebody's paying them. MR. CLARK-We have a lease agreement with the City of Glens Falls, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Now you call it co what? MR. CLARK-Co-location, as opposed to a new tower. Any existing facility will remain in place. It's a new site. Co-location just means that as opposed to building a new cellphone tower we try to use an existing tall structure and just co-locate or use an existing structure. MR. MAGOWAN-Well there's nothing up there now, is there? MR. CLARK-Correct. There's a whip antenna. MR. MAGOWAN-You're not co-locating, you're actually creating more location. The water tower's there, but they're going to be bumping it up higher. Who owns the towers up there right at the corner of Aviation Road, I mean Aviation Road up near Sears? MR. CLARK-That's AT&T. MR. MAGOWAN-That's all AT&T. MR. WATSON-Bob Watson. I'm the Site Acquisition Consultant for the co-location. So the tower that you speak of is actually a NiMo utility structure. AT&T is the carrier that's on that 11 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/10/2010) structure, and that was the first structure we looked to, but we were denied access to it by NiMo. They said that there was no space on it because of their utility lines. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't want antennas that close to the high power lines anyway. Do you? MR. WATSON-Well, that was the issue is they wouldn't extend the tower higher. There was no space above the AT&T array and to go below it you ran into the gooseneck high tension support structure. So it's really only, that utility pole has really only an extension for one carrier, and there is one carrier there. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but that's been there for a long, long time. Probably back when I spent $2800 for my first car and the horn beeped. Right? But this is the way society's turning and I'd rather see you use an existing structure, maybe make it look like a pine tree there so it looks like an odd pine tree in Cole's Woods. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Don't do that. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, scratch that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Personally I just can't say enough how much I encourage you. This is exactly what we want to see with cell towers is putting them on municipally owned property. We had encouraged Verizon years ago to consider putting a tower there. I can't remember the reason why it wasn't a good site, but I'm all in favor of this one. Really the only question I would add is the color, you know, that the color match the tanks so that they don't stand out. MR. CLARK-That's actually part of the lease agreement. MR. HUNSINGER-It appeared that way from the drawings. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Can you walk around the tower and get to the, it doesn't have a walkway on it, the water tower. MR. WATSON-When you say a walkway. MR. MAGOWAN-A catwalk. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, some of them are. MR. CLARK-Not around the tower. So they'll be flush, the panels will be flush mounted on the exterior arc of the water tower. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're not putting something on top and going higher. MR. WATSON-Three sets of four antennas for a total of 12. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was involved in one of the first ones you did about 20 some odd years ago, in the Town of Niskayuna, the water tower, Ball Town Road. They work great. Easy to maintain. People don't see them because the colors blend. It's a win/win. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a win/win. MR. MAGOWAN-Just don't drill too deep, okay. MR. DEEB-Just address the structure. You're going to build a 180 foot, plus or minus square foot, structure, 12 feet in height. MR. CLARK-Yes. MR. DEEB-This is part of the site plan, but it's going to be an open structure? You're going to store equipment in there? MR. CLARK-Well, it's a secure structure. There's a roof overhang, and then the equipment's secure inside that structure. MR. DEEB-Well, I didn't realize. How are you going to secure it? I mean, are you going to have, if it's open? MR. CLARK-That's fenced. 12 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird O7/19/2016) MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. CLARK-So there's an existing compound and we're doing a small fence enclosure. MR. DEEB-All right. Because I was a little concerned. There's a lot of young people that tend to go into those woods. MR. CLARK-Yes. MR. DEEB-You don't want to have your equipment subject to vandalism. MR. CLARK-Yes, no, we're doing a small fence. MR. DEEB-That was just a question. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, you can see that from the parking lot at the Mall. MR. CLARK-You won't be able to, I mean, you can look at the existing vegetation. The only thing that's really visible. C 2A in Tab 13 shows some of the vegetation proposed. On 11 there should be photos. So, I mean, you could imagine that even the water tank's not completely visible. S-2 in Tab 11 shows a view from the parking lot and you can see the tree line. MR. HUNSINGER-So it won't even be visible. MR. CLARK-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And how's that going to boost the signal around here? MR. CLARK-In Tab Seven we actually have our proposed plot. So if you go to the last two pages in Tab Seven, and propagation map. So the first propagation map that's Exhibit One in Tab Seven and the area that's white is where you would currently have a coverage gap, and then flip to the next Exhibit, the green is where we're going to be providing coverage to the area from the new site. MR. MAGOWAN-It's not going to hit my house. So sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Any concerns with the variance request? Any Staff comments that aren't in your notes? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There's no public hearing, and all we're doing this evening is making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 178-2016 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to place 12 panel antennas and associated equipment — sector mounts, remote radio head units, a dish antenna, on an existing 122.6 ft. water tank. Antennas to be located at 108 +/- ft. level. The project includes an equipment shelter 11'6" x 16'. The area of lease is 880 sq. ft. and includes 30 ft. easement for road access to the site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, antennas on existing tall structure, telecommunications towers, shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for equipment shelter setbacks. 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: 13 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird O7/19/2016) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 178-2016 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; 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 - Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CLARK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The next project is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Tim Barber's Site Plan PZ 182-2016. Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don't believe Tim's in the audience yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will skip over it and come back. After that is Site Plan Modification PZ 174-2016. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION PZ 174-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 102 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY SITE PLAN 20-2014 TO ADD A NEW ENTRY WAY 33' X 7' TO THE FRONT OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS COMPLEX. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE NEW SIGNAGE PROJECTIONS AND ENTRYWAYS ON SOUTH SIDE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9- 120 & 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK FOR NEW ENTRYWAY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 39-2013 RECONFIGURE INTERNAL SPACE & SITE ALTERATIONS TO ENTRANCES, PARKING, ETC.; SP 20-2014 MODIFICATIONS TO ALLOW 3 TENANTS; SEVERAL BP'S FOR SIGNS WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 SITE INFORMATION TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-13 SECTION 179-9-120, 179-3-040 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a new entryway. It's on the front side of Quaker Road, and it's to be 33 feet by 7 feet, and the variance requested is for required is 75 feet and the applicant proposes 44.69 on one corner and 43.75 on the other corner, the shape of the lot, and the request is for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RYAN-Good evening. I'm Dan Ryan with Vision Engineering here representing the applicant. I do have the owners here as well if you have any particular questions that might need to be addressed by them. I'd be happy to bring them up. We have been here. Two prior applications were approved for modifications to this existing site. In the last round the predominant modifications were related to parking and limiting the access point to this particular site to one ingress and egress location. If you're familiar with the lot at all, it currently has an entirely live paved area. Traffic kind of comes and goes pretty wildly throughout that area. There are a lot of people that do U-turns in that facility. So in the last application, which was approved I think was it maybe 2014 or '15, that was basically reconfiguring that parking area so that the parking was on the east side of the building with a small parking lot to the front northwest corner as well. Laura if you could pull up drawing C-3 I think that probably shows the changes pretty clearly. I can go through the changes quickly. Really this application is specific to modifying the front fagade of the building so that we have a main entrance 14 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/10/20101) appearance from the front that we can also add signage to. The entire front of the building is noncompliant for that front setback. So regardless of any type of improvement or modification to the front of the building, a variance would be required. As part of a prior application, because the parking is located on the east side of the building, there will be a main entrance, so to speak, for that front tenant on the east side as well. So that is Part Two of this application which is to provide two separate signs for that first tenant one, which is in the front. So basically we've eliminated one parking space on the side of the building for that side entrance and we're proposing the front entrance canopy structure that we provided diagrams for and sketches which depict what we want to do in that front. There really are no other changes other than some signage at the front entrance and losing the one parking space. Everything else remains as it was previously approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you actually have tenants? MR. RYAN-The front tenant will be, is that the re-location of the carpet store across the street? They'll be relocating to this tenant one location. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-You talked about signage quite a bit. I did notice, you know, the one spot that had the sign that indicated there was the carpet place there. That's going to be changed dramatically? MR. RYAN-No, in terms of the sign we're proposing, okay, so basically if you can scroll down to SK-1, I think that will give us a good elevation of the front there. So basically this'll be the new front view. The right side of the building being that two story tenant three space that's continued to be vacant until they secure a tenant there. So really the carpet store will be going in the left side of the building, the one story section. That central entrance, that structure is really the main primary focus of this project. There will be a sign proposed. It will be a maximum of 100 square feet on that main front entrance over that doorway. So that would be similar to that Carpet One sign, but this one would really just be lettering applied to the building face, okay, within that 100 square foot area. MR. FERONE-Is it lit? MR. FORD-Yes, will there be lighting? MR. RYAN-These are individual letters that will be lit. They're backlit. So there won't be any glare or anything like that. They're basically colored letters that would be mounted to the face of the building, and that would be specific to the front entrance. If you want to scroll down to the next sketch. As we move around the left side of the building to the east side, this is where we're getting into basically pre-fabricated back lit signage that would be very similar to their existing Carpet One sign that I provided in the packet, which is basically a rectangular sign structure that would be mounted to the face of the building. Because of it being on the east side at a right angle to Quaker Road, we do propose to skew those out at a slight angle towards the road by just building a structure on the face of the building to allow that sign to be mounted on a skew. That's basically a blow up of the front. So basically, you can leave it right there for a second, Laura. That's the lettering that will essentially appear on the front of the building on that building face. Again, they're just individual letters that get mounted to the front. So it's relatively simple. So we basically are here for a recommendation today. We'll be at the Zoning Board meeting tomorrow evening. We are seeking I think it's three variances. The setback from the front structure being non-compliant, the additional sign. Basically the Code permits each tenant to have one sign, primary sign. We want that front tenant one to have two so that we can designate that side entrance basically. So that would be variance, just the two variances. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well you added a parking space too. MR. RYAN-The parking space, we did reduce it by one, I think, from 52 to 51. In the prior application 52 was what was approved, and I don't know if that was less than required. Let me look at that. So in the original plan we had 45 existing spaces for the existing building. We were able to get 52 in the initial approval, and we've decreased by one ADA space in this round. MR. FORD-So as I look at that, the signage appears to be the same size. Is that accurate? As the current signage? MR. RYAN-Well, there's no sign on this building, but if we're looking at, you're referring to the Carpet One building that's there now? Very similar in size. I would say in terms of 15 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/10/2016) appearance, colors and they have changed the lettering a little bit, in terms of the configuration of the sign, but if you want to get a good depiction of the size and color, what they have there now is very similar to what would be installed in this location. MR. FORD-Well, when we talk about signage and size, very similar is up to interpretation. MR. RYAN-We provide maximums. I think the Code requires 100 square feet for these larger signs. We won't exceed that. So we would be, in terms of sizing, we are Code compliant. So it's really the variance is applicable to the fact that tenant one will have two signs rather than one. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-You say you're going to skew the signs on the side so that they angle out to Quaker Road? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. DEEB-How much of an angle? MR. RYAN-That's shown right there. So we've got, right there, see the plan view at the top of that page? You'll see that's the east side of the building. There's two existing masonry pilasters on the face of the building. So that 18 foot 6 inch section between them above that entrance we'll be creating a, basically a skewed fagade basically to match that existing face. I've got it basically one foot eight at one end, four feet at the other. So that's two plus feet over eighteen feet. That's pretty minimal. MR. DEEB-Do you have a visual of it? MR. RYAN-From the side view I don't have a visual of how much you would see that. No. MR. DEEB-I'm just wondering how effective, if it only comes out a little bit, I mean. MR. RYAN-Well, I think the owners feel that just providing that limited skew as you come into the parcel gives you some immediately visibility. That you may have similar visibility if it were flat, but they feel that that would be beneficial to skew it to some degree, just to provide basically a little bit more visibility. Most businesses, if you're not advertising, your signage on your building is a big marketing factor, and so giving that skew will just enhance that a little bit. MR. FERONE-It's only effective for people who are driving west. You're not going to see it. MR. RYAN-Yes, exactly. If you're heading the opposite direction, you don't see it at all unless you're looking behind you. Right. So it is people basically driving towards the west or facing, pulling into the lot. MR. DEEB-And that's going to be backlit? MR. RYAN-That would be backlit, yes. MR. DEEB-Two signs. MR. RYAN-Two signs on the side, one for the rear tenant and one for the front tenant. MR. DEEB-So the other carpet place is leaving? MR. RYAN-They're relocating across the street to this location. MR. DEEB-Four Star is in there now. MR. RYAN-Is it Four Star? Yes. MR. DEEB-And they're leaving? MR. RYAN-The answer is yes. 16 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Any specific concerns with the variance requests? MR. MAGOWAN-No. I think removing that overhang and, you know, bringing that flush to create a new entrance, that would look great along there. Nothing against your cedar shakes, but I think it's time for them to go. MR. RYAN-Yes. I don't even think Stewarts is putting them on anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no other questions or comments, we do have a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ-0175-2016 OMALL FAMILY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to modify Site Plan 20-2014 to add a new entry way 33' x 7' to the front of an existing business complex. Alterations include new signage projections and entryways on south side. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 & 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan and exterior alterations to a commercial building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback for new entryway. 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. 175-2016 OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; 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 - Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. RYAN-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Did Mr. Barber come in? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Subdivision Preliminary Stage PZ 185-2016 and Final Stage PZ 186-2016 for Warren County DPW. As an employee of Warren County I'm going to recuse myself on this project. Mr. Traver will Chair the meeting and John is going to sit in in my absence. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE PZ 185-2016 FINAL STAGE PZ 186-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WARREN COUNTY DPW AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) GEORGE SICARD & CHARON TRUST ZONING CLI LOCATION QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 25.45 ACRE PARCEL INTO 0.09 ACRE AN 25.36 ACRES. THE TOTAL PARCEL OF 25.45 ACRES IS A RESULT OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS WITH PARCELS ALONG QUEENSBURY AVENUE. PROJECT IS PART OF AIRPORT CLEARANCE ZONE ACTIVITIES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 56-90. SP 52-02 9,600 SQ. FT. SELF-STORAGE, SP 2-10 1,500 SQ. FT. OFFICE & 10,000 SQ. FT. REPOSSESSION STORAGE, SP 55-14 LAND 17 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) CLEARING FOR MARKETING, AV PZ 184-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 25.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.20-1-2/297.16-1-1.1 SECTION 183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 25.45 acre parcel into a 0.09 acre parcel and a 25.36 acre parcel. The total parcel of 25.45 acres is the result of a lot line adjustment with parcels along Queensbury Avenue, and the project is part of the Airport Clearance Zone activities, and the relief sought is for the lot size less than one acre. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves representing Warren County on this application. Laura has stated this is property that is on the easterly side of Queensbury Avenue, and if you have copies of the maps in front of you, if you look on the Board, County Line runs pretty much parallel to Queensbury Avenue, and as you go south you can see it branches off. What it creates is this little tiny triangle piece of property. What is actually happening is Charon Trust is conveying 67 acres, or 67 acres in total, 64 being transferred, and the 2.89 piece on the very northerly end is cross hatched up there is being retained. What that does is because of the fact that the County line runs through the property and I didn't really want to change where the County line was on my survey, it retains this little .09 acre piece, and then the rest of it is all still attached in Queensbury. So we're creating a .09 acre triangle that is 40 feet on the southerly end, comes to a point on the northerly end and is 207 feet along the road, and obviously going for a variance because we're creating that, the lot itself is actually 2.9 acres in totality, including the land in Kingsbury. So it does meet the requirements of what you consider to be a lot in the Zoning Code, but it does not in the Town of Queensbury. So obviously with the setback requirements it has to be merged in with the rest of the parcel. We have no problem with the description of that retained piece being in there saying it is obviously not a developable piece in Queensbury code because you can't meet any setbacks. So it just happens to be a situation where a municipal line, a County line, runs through the property. I'll leave it at that, and any questions from the Board. Again, it's a, the one area being retained by Mr. Chartrand, the Charon Trust, is 2.9 acres in that extreme northwesterly part of this project and it happens to be in two different counties. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that the short version? MR. STEVES-1 can get really lengthy, but I don't think I need to. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it does seem fairly straightforward. There really isn't anything else, there's no practical alternative. MR. STEVES-You see this a lot in the survey world. In the planning world you don't see it quite as often. For example we just did two surveys on Western Avenue where there's actually about a four and a half wide strip that is in the City of Glens Falls and the rest of the property is in Queensbury. Because of the fact that the Town line and the City line runs on the westerly bounds of Western Avenue most of the way, but where they actually built the road and dedicated it the northerly end up in Broadacres, they left a four foot strip in the City and the rest of the property is in the Town. So that particular property gets two different tax bills. One from the City and one from the Town of Queensbury, and the same here. In my opinion, and I appreciate the Board's comments that it's a no-brainer. There's nothing else you can do, but at the same time the County has approached Kingsbury and they said we don't want anything to do with it. You're signed off. They have a letter, and I advised my client that they should probably go to the Town and talk to them, and I've been in contact with Laura here in the last few months in saying it's the right thing to do to come here and know that we're leaving a little piece in the Town of Queensbury, but just to make sure that all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed we're here to get your recommendation and get that variance and then come back for our subdivision that nothing will ever happen with that .09 acre parcel. MR. TRAVER-Any questions or comments or anything from members of the Board? MR. FORD-1 have none. 18 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ-0184-2016 WARREN COUNTY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 25.45 acre parcel into 0.09 acre and 25.36 acres. The total parcel of 25.45 acres is a result of lot line adjustments with parcels along Queensbury Avenue. Project is part of Airport Clearance zone activities. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivisions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot size of less than one acre. 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. PZ 184-2016 ROSS DUBARRY, AIRPORT MANAGER WARREN COUNTY: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; 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 - Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to go back to the agenda for Site Plan PZ 182-2016 for Tim Barber. SITE PLAN PZ 182-2016 & SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION PZ 183-2016 TIM BARBER AGENT(S) THOMAS ANDRESS OWNER(S) JOSHUA INGLEE/JASON SANKEY ZONING RR-5A/LC-10A LOCATION 35 & 48 INGLEE MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT HAS STARTED/COMPLETED MAINTENANCE WORK TO IMPROVE AN ACCESS DRIVE — 20,600 SQ. FT. DISTURBANCE — PORTION OF DRIVE IS GREATER THAN 10%. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION INVOLVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 300.1-40.2 (SANKEY) EXISTING PARCEL 13.95 ACRES TO INCREASE TO 18.71 ACRES, THEN 300.1-40.3 (INGLEE) EXISTING PARCEL 12.23 ACRES TO DECREASE TO 7.47 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND 183, MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION AND DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES OVER 10% SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CHAPTER 183 — PROPOSED MODIFICATION CREATES A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT 3 TO CREATE A LOT LESS THAN 10 ACRES. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 28-13 POOL; 2003-680 SF DWELLING; RC 289-2016 1800 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE; SB 15-2002 CREATE 3 LOTS/BP 2010-076 SF HOME WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 ALSO — LAKE LUZERNE SITE INFORMATION APA, WETLANDS, SLOPES LOT SIZE 13.95 + 12.23 = 26.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.1-40.3/300.1-40.2 SECTION 179-6-060, 183 TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TIM BARBER, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant has started and completed some maintenance work on access drive. It's approximately 20,600 square feet of disturbance. A portion of the driveway is greater than 10%. That triggers a Site Plan Review. In addition, during the review of this portion of the application of the drive, the applicant and the neighbor to this applicant have discussed doing a subdivision modification that creates a parcel for this particular owner of a lot less than 10 acres and a lot that doesn't have road frontage. So that's why he's before the Board to get that recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 19 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ANDRESS-Good evening. Tom Andress with ABD Engineers and with me is Tim Barber, the owner of the property. Sorry about that confusion. I didn't have a copy of the agenda. I thought we were actually last on the agenda. So we appreciate being earlier. MR. TRAVER-You almost were last on the agenda. MR. ANDRESS-1 know it. This is a project that started out actually with an action by the Town asking Mr. Barber and his adjoining neighbor to come in to the Town to discuss some work that was occurring and a complaint by the adjoining owner. Unfortunately it lead to a lot of other things, but I think at this point everything is, the two owners are working together now and what we're proposing is we feel something that will work for both the owners and for the Town. This is a property that's been, I guess, in the Inglee family for many, many years. Mr. Barber purchased the parcel of land, sort of the green triangle on the right hand side, but that green triangle actually comes around, goes on the top and then comes down, all the way down to the main road. So it sort of loops around the land in between it. Mr. Barber also owns, the Town of Queensbury in Lake Luzerne is that straight line across the, two thirds of the way up the mountain, and you can see the dotted green area. That's another property that Mr. Barber owns in the Town of Lake Luzerne. What we're dealing with here is two items. We're dealing with an access drive that comes across lands, starts all the way down at the bottom, and it goes actually through, one, two, three pieces and then gets on to the land of Mr. Barber's and that goes through the Town of Queensbury land to the land that he has in Lake Luzerne. That's an access road/logging trail. Been there probably over 100 years. This property was logged way over 100 years ago and it has been logged since then, and there has been, at that point when they originally logged it, I was talking with Mr. Barber, there are some hemlock trees that are 36 inches in diameter in there. There's stumps that are still left from some of the original logging 50 years ago in there. That logging trail has been used by Mr. Barber for many years to access a cabin up on lands in Lake Luzerne. Unfortunately in 1999 1 guess it was, in 2000 the subdivision was done. They created three different lots in that subdivision. It showed a proposed lot that a house was built on. Subsequently from that point the Inglees sold that to another party, but that plan never showed the logging road. Probably more of a, not even an oversight by the surveyor, just because the logging road's a logging road, probably never even thought about showing it on the map, but we did provide to the Board aerial photography to show from 2004 on different images to show that that road was, unfortunately the imaging doesn't go back past 2004 without going through a lot of work, but we've always had a logging road through that area, the back area, and it's always been used by the owners of that land to access their property and the Town of Lake Luzerne. That's the first portion of the subdivision application, site plan application and variance application. Mr. Barber, this spring, did some improvements on that. Didn't bring in any new material, did bring construction equipment to level out some of the ruts in that road. Obviously through the years it gets rutty. So he leveled that out. He did some minor improvements to the drainage that existed on the side of the road, and at that point, because there was a dispute between Mr. Barber and the adjoining landowner, the adjoining landowner called the Town and resulted in the action taken against both parties. As it turned out the adjoining landowner had done some things that they had to come before the Board also for. So that's the first portion of it. Fast forward a couple of months, there's been a, I guess a calming of the ways between the two parties. They're in very good agreement now between everything they're doing and what Mr. Barber was proposing to do is to take a portion of the land he owns and give that to the adjoining owner, and that land. MR. BARBER-The portion of Lot Three that I own, it starts down here in Tuthill and comes up. It's this area here outlined with my finger. Comes down and around. This is all in Queensbury here. To satisfy a lot of commotion that's been going on up there with our neighbor, we decided, I said I'll take this, I'd like to take this Lot Three, do have an approved building site right here, which is next to Jason's home, and I bought this parcel with the intention of building this spec home, just as income property, and obviously that's not real conducive to his home. So to settle a bunch of old disputes with other owners and everything else, I said, look, I said, if we can do it, we'll take and I'll put a line right here where my logging road/driveway comes up through here, and this parcel in blue, which comes down to a very narrow strip, 20 feet along the side of his narrow 20 foot strip, which adjoins Tuthill Road, I said I'll give that to you, and then I want to retain this portion over here, because it's the mountainside and I can see it, and that obviously makes these two lots non-buildable. So it wipes out the Lot Three and the building lot. We have in here this can't be built on, and it just settles a whole bunch of disputes that were occurring before I got involved in buying the properties. MR. ANDRESS-All right. So as Mr. Barber had said, by taking that parcel and subdividing it sort of in the middle and giving that other land and adding it to Jason's land, it creates that 20 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2010) triangle on the right hand side that doesn't have any frontage on a public highway. So as part of the subdivision we need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals to ask for an area variance because we don't have any frontage and we also take that parcel and make it less than 10 acres. It's 10 acre zoning there. MR. BARBER-Also that triangular parcel, if you look at the smaller shaded areas on the right of the big map there, the lower one, the triangle parcel that I want to retain, that's, it's not buildable. It's very, very steep. It's mountainside and it's just all wooded, but from where I am up above I can see all that, and that's why I want to retain it. It's very steep. MR. ANDRESS-So that creates this situation we're in before this Board for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variance for lot frontage and for the area of the lot. So sort of a summary, we have the road, the existing access, logging road that was maintained by Mr. Barber. That is over a 15% slope. So that does trigger a review by this Board. There was an interpretation that it should have been on the original subdivision map. It wasn't. So we're modifying the subdivision map now to show that and as part of that we're making this additional transfer of land to try to settle the dispute between the neighbors in this area. MR. TRAVER-And as part of what you're proposing for the new subdivision map you'll note on there that that lot is not buildable? MR. ANDRESS-The lot to the left clearly will not, there'll be a condition, when Mr. Barber transfers it over, so it becomes part of Jason Sankey's, his property will only be able to have the single family home he has. He will not be able to then build another house on that. Mr. Barber is willing to put a notation on the triangle to the right that it's not a buildable lot because it's not a buildable lot. MR. MAGOWAN-That's quite the driveway there, 24%, 33%, 50%. It's amazing you don't have a helicopter pad up there. MR. ANDRESS-He drove me up in his car. MR. MAGOWAN-In his car? MR. ANDRESS-Actually I went up in a four wheel gator, but when I got to the top he had a Land Rover up there. MR. BARBER-It can actually go up those slopes. It's wide enough, and it's actually, for going up the side of a mountain, pretty smooth. It's just that you're on a pretty decent angle. MR. ANDRESS-They have all those new cars, those buttons for hill descents. MR. FORD-1 understand what you're giving. What are you getting? Other than peace? MR. BARBER-Peace. I mean, you know, trying to be a good neighbor, and Jeff Inglee is going to be my future father-in-law. So it gets him out of a little predicament, and Jason and 1, you know, we're going to be neighbors for a long time up there, and it really doesn't, you know, it's basically just peace, you know. Good will I guess. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't find that nowadays. Nobody gets anything for nothing. Now, with this project, how new is that house back there? Jason's. MR. BARBER-That was, I'm thinking 2004 or '05. That was originally Jeff Inglee's house, and that's where the dispute started, you know, Jeff sold to Jason and there were some issues or something. I don't know the whole history of the whole. MR. MAGOWAN-For some reason, I want to say that we've, has this ever been, have these lots ever been here before? Didn't we have something? MR. HUNSINGER-We did have. MR. ANDRESS-Yes, in '99 or 2000 you actually created the subdivision that created that buildable lot for that house on it. MRS. MOORE-The Board's seen it, the lower lot from Mr. Inglee for the pond and the wetland because he was doing projects. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. That's it. 21 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. BARBER-Right, down at the cab. MR. MAGOWAN-A lot of stuff goes on up there on the mountain. MR. BARBER-It does. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have a dedicated right of way for your driveway? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what you're getting in return, or is has that already existed? MR. BARBER-No, those have all been in place, and like I said, basically Jason and I have come to the agreement that it's just good for everybody there. It's good for both families, and there's just been a lot of nonsense, you know, prior to my engagement up there, and it's just a good thing to do for the future of both families. It's a pretty nice spot. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like a lot of effort to maintain a driveway up to a camp. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. ANDRESS-But when you do go up there the view is just, it's amazing. MR. HUNSINGER-So if you wanted to build something it would obviously be. MR. BARBER-In Luzerne. MR. HUNSINGER-In Luzerne. MR. BARBER-Yes, I have a cabin, way up in the upper left corner at the highest part. MR. DEEB-Do you have access from the other side? MR. BARBER-No. MR. DEEB-So all the access is from this side. MR. BARBER-Right. MR. DEEB-I'm trying to figure out how you get up to your lot. MR. BARBER-No, yes, that logging road, those are all deeded, well now we now the upper parcel, but it goes across Inglee's land and the Sankey land. MR. DEEB-So that's your right of way. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. DEEB-The logging road. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. I understand. MR. MAGOWAN-But they didn't like the fact that you brought machinery on it. MR. BARBER-Well, I think when I talked to Bruce, I think there was a, I don't think he realized that the clearing that was being done and such was in Luzerne at that point. So once I got, the letter went to the former landowner, then I got it. So I called Bruce and I said, yes, we're bringing heavy equipment up through there, and of course we were doing some of the maintenance on the road, but all the clearing and stuff, which we're fully permitted for, is up in Luzerne. MR. MAGOWAN-So you got an immediate cease and desist. MR. BARBER-We did, but it was unenforceable. 22 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird O7/19/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean with grades like that you've got to maintain that road somehow. Like you said it's going to get rutty no matter what. MR. HUNSINGER-So the big issue for us is the variance request for the frontage. Are there any concerns or comments about the relief? MR. DEEB-It's not buildable. MR. HUNSINGER-Not in Queensbury. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ-0187-2016 BARBER & INGLEE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant has started/completed maintenance work to improve an access drive — 20,600 sq. ft. disturbance -portion of drive is greater than 10%. Applicant proposes a subdivision modification involving a lot line adjustment 300.-1-40.2 (Sankey) existing parcel 13.95 acres to increase to 18.71 acres, then 300.-1-40.3 (Inglee) existing parcel 12.23 acres to decrease to 7.47 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, and 183, modification to an approved subdivision and driveway development on slopes over 10% shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Chapter 183 — proposed modification creates a non-conforming parcel. Variance: Relief is sought for lot 3 to create a lot with no road frontage and lot less than 10 acres. 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. PZ 187-2016 TIM BARBER & CARRIE INGLEE: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; 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 - Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. ANDRESS-All right. Thank you. MR. BARBER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 166-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED — REAFFIRM SEAR OF 4/28/15 HEIDELBERG INN/KINDRED GROUP LLC OWNER(S) JOHN WEBER SR. & JOHN WEBER ZONING CI LOCATION 352 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 840 SQ. FT. CANOPY TO COVER A 900 SQ. FT. OUTDOOR SEASONAL EATING AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 16-2015 & AV 13-2015 OUTDOOR PATIO AREA; AV 107-1989; BP 92731 (1992) STORAGE SHED WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 16,020 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-87 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9-120 JOHN WEBER, SR. & JOHN WEBER, JR., PRESENT 23 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant has completed the site plan application for the modification of the approved site for the installation of an 840 square foot canopy over the outdoor eating area at the restaurant. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. WEBER, JR.-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. WEBER, SR.-I'm John Weber, Sr. MR. WEBER, JR.-John Weber, Jr. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to just tell us what you want to do? MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes. So what we're trying to do is after we had the proposed area for outdoor seating we noticed that the way the sun comes around, around the side and the back, it got a little hot even with the umbrella. So to give a little more comfort to some of our patrons we wanted to put a canopy over the top for weather of rain or even sun. It helps prevent a lot of the sun from beating down on people. So you have, you know, a nice sort of evening time, and then by the time the sun comes around it's cooled down enough where it keeps it a nice temperature throughout the day. So we're trying to just basically make it a little more comfortable for our customers out there. MR. HUNSINGER-So would it stay up year round, or just seasonal? MR. WEBER, JR.-We would take it just like the outer edges of the canopy will come down because they'll get damaged in the wintertime. MR. WEBER, SR.-And we'll have a little bit more time out there because when it rains now we can't, the umbrellas aren't going to protect them. MR. WEBER, JR.-It gives us a little more opportunity to have customers out there. MR. MAGOWAN-You jumped the horse a little I see. MR. WEBER, JR.-We did. MR. MAGOWAN-I said what a great idea, and then I didn't see the tarp go up. MR. WEBER, JR.-We were told by the tarp guys that we didn't need any. MR. MAGOWAN-No, this is Queensbury. You need a permit to pull weeds, but, no, you have side curtains and that coming down on it, too? MR. WEBER, JR.-We currently don't, no. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want to add that on to your thing right now, because, you know. MR. WEBER, JR.-We would like to if we could. Because we didn't think about it. MR. MAGOWAN-No, because it's such a nice spot there, and it's such a small restaurant and your food's phenomenal. If you had the curtains, and then you could put the heaters out there and get a little extension, or on the hotter days you could get some fans. MR. WEBER, JR.-Well, it would help us on the far end, on the west side, because when the sun comes down it comes in underneath there. MR. MAGOWAN-I've driven up Quaker Road. MR. WEBER, JR.-I know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you change the canopy to make it fire retardant? 24 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. WEBER, JR.-It is. We took down the existing one and then talked to the Fire Marshal, and then we are in the process, if approval works out, we would like to get the fire retardant one for backup. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You guys are too young to remember Raymond Kelly and the famous picture as the circus tent comes down burning. MR. WEBER, JR.-Really? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. It always comes back to me when I see one of these. MR. WEBER, JR.-I bet. MR. DEEB-Can you comment, with the colors, I see a couple of different colors. Is it going to blend with the roof, or what kind of color scheme have you got? MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes, currently we're looking at the same color scheme as the umbrellas, the green, like a forest green. Because right now we have forest green umbrellas that are put throughout the space. MR. WEBER, SR.-There's not really a good picture of the umbrellas. They're not really different colors. They're just faded a little bit or the sun beat on them when we were taking the picture. MR. DEEB-The contrast between the roof and the color of the canopy is quite startling. MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes, the roof is like a brown. MR. WEBER, SR.-But we want to distinguish that we do have a beer garden. So we don't want to make them think it's one big room. When they go by the concept is of a beer garden concept, being able to sit out in the fresh air and have something to eat. MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Is this a plastic? MR. WEBER, SR.-It's canvas. MR. MAGOWAN-It is canvas. MR. WEBER, JR.-No, but it's a fire retardant material. MR. MAGOWAN-But it is canvas. MR. WEBER, SR.-It's not plastic. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, it is, this is the picture you got before you had to take it down? MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes, this is the older one. So this one is now in storage and will not be used. We had to install one that was fire retardant to comply with the Fire Marshal. MR. MAGOWAN-And you went green again. MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes, because we had the green, the forest green umbrellas that were there originally. There's about six of them and it kind of filled the whole space and it's green. MR. MAGOWAN-So you didn't get a designer to come in there and say, hey, let's get a multiple color, pull out your browns and your creams. MR. WEBER, JR.-Well, the problem is with brown it looks like the cheap kind of, you know, like the tarps you buy at like Lowe's. They only have a certain color scheme. So the only really good color schemes were like a forest green. There was a burgundy which would have kind of looked a little muddy as well, and then the brown looked kind of like what you see, the silver brown tarps that you see at Lowe's.. We didn't want that to look like we put up one of the Lowe's tarps. MR. MAGOWAN-And you're open here at the end? 25 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/10/2016) MR. WEBER, SR.-Yes. MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That's where you order a pizza comes across? MR. WEBER, SR.-Well, that's where we'd like to drop that down like you just said, which would be great, just to block the sun. MR. MAGOWAN-The Docksider has them where you can extend your season a little longer. MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes. It's pretty costly though, but I mean we would like to do that eventually. MR. MAGOWAN-Just think of all the extra money you make serving dinner. MR. WEBER, SR.-Well, we've got to get more of you guys over there. The main reason was because when I sat out there my hair's getting a little thin, it was starting to bake my head. MR. MAGOWAN-Don't you hate when that happens? MR. WEBER, SR.-Which you know nothing about. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I have to admit I did go to Laconia there and I drove around New Hampshire for many, many, many miles in the sun without a helmet and I went to go brush my hair the next morning and I'm like, it hurt. I got a little sunburn up there. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MR. FERONE-Yes. Questions. Do you plan on doing anything in regard to lighting being hung from this structure or I've even people put, you know, ceiling fan type things in there. Any of that going to go on? MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes. Lighting. We would like to put lighting in the top to illuminate the tables. MR. WEBER, SR.-Probably not any more than we had originally applied for, but, you know, because we're moving it now and it was there anyway and now we're just going to move it up and hang it from the. MR. WEBER, JR.-Yes, but we do need enough lighting so that people can see. So we'd have to adjust that, but we still are looking at just the bulb, simple bulb lighting that we had before. MR. WEBER, SR.-No fans. MR. FERONE-No fans. MR. WEBER, JR.-Well we have fans mounted to the building that will circulate the air, but we didn't think it was right to hang fans, for safety reasons. MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments, concerns from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Does anyone from the public wish to address the Board on this project? Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a draft resolution to reaffirm our SEQR finding from April 28, 2015. If anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING NEG. SEQR DEC. SITE PLAN PZ 166-2016 HEIDELBERG 26 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) The applicant proposes 840 sq. ft. canopy to cover a 900 sq. ft. outdoor seasonal eating area. 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 Resolution 16-2015, on April 28, 2015 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 PZ 166-2016 HEIDELBERG INN/KINDRED GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; In accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-They did request waivers. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 166-2016 HEIDELBERG INN/KINDRED GROUP, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes 840 sq. ft. canopy to cover a 900 sq. ft. outdoor seasonal eating area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9- 120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board 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 7/19/2016, and continued the public hearing to 7/19/2016 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 7/19/2016; 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 PZ 166-2016 HEIDELBERG INN/KINDRED GROUP, LLC; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 27 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird O7/19/2016) Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. WEBER, SR.-Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. WEBER, JR.-Thank you. SITE PLAN PZ 169-2016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 170-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED J & D MARINA, LLC AGENT(S) CARL B. SCHODER, PE, SCHODER RIVERS ASSOC. P C OWNER(S) THALIA CHASE/J & D MARINA LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 2585 STATE ROUTE 9; APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 2,615 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 10,000 SQ. FT., 3 DOOR, 25.33 FT. IN HEIGHT BOAT STORAGE BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING CLASS A MARINA FOR 50 INDOOR STORAGE AND TO MAINTAIN 75 OUTDOOR STORAGE. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING, NEW STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES, NEW BUILDING LIGHTS AND GRAVEL DRIVE AROUND BUILDING. BOAT STORAGE IS NOT STACKED, FLOOR ONLY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040(5) AND 179-10-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BOAT STORAGE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 56-2014 PERM. — BOAT SALES, SERVICE, STORAGE IN WR ZONE; BP 2009-099 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2016 SITE INFORMATION APA, WETLANDS LOT SIZE 11.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-31.23 SECTION 179-3-040(5)/179-10-040 CARL SCHODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LONI & THALIA CHASE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes removal of an existing 2,615 square foot storage building to construct a new 10,000 square foot three garage door bay building. This is in reference to storage of, interior boat storage and to maintain the existing 76 exterior storage of boats and trailers. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SCHODER-Good evening. Carl Schoder from Schoder Rivers Associates for the owners, and I have the owners with me, Talia Chase and Loni Chase, and we are here as a follow up to a project that we had presented in a Sketch Plan, if you will, or a sketch review, if you'll remember, I think this past April, and we've taken our project to a point where we have a design and are now formally requesting site plan review and the special use permit that we're going to need. Basically this project is pretty much the same as it was before. Would you like me to do an overall review for the benefit of the public? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHODER-All right. The purpose of the project. Currently there is existing boat storage on this site. The boat storage is set up under a Special Use Permit 56-2013, and it allows for 76 exterior boats and a total of eight interior boats to be stored in an existing building that has 28 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) several additions. It's an old garage on the site. There is a market demand and a definite increase among members of the boating public for interior boat storage and we are looking to be able to help and address that interest by way of building a bigger facility that they can have more boats in. The proposal in a nutshell is to remove the existing garage with those additions and to substitute for that a new structure built in approximately the same location as the existing garage. The new building would be used for the storage of boats only. A total of 50 boats would be proposed within that new building. The building would not be used for maintenance work. It would not be accessible to the public. Access to the building would be by marina personnel only. This building would be classified as a utility, miscellaneous utility structure review. We verified that with Dave Hatin from the Town, and basically what the structure is is a 10,000 square foot metal building that's proposed. Dimensions are approximately 125 feet by 80 feet with a total height at the ridge of 25 foot 4 inches. This would be an unheated building. There would be no water supply to it, no restrooms within it. There would be minimal interior lighting in the event that at night for some reason you had to access the building because there was a problem in it. The other power supply needs would be for some exit lighting that would have to be present within the structure by Code, and two exterior lights that would be downwardly mounted in the ceilings of canopies over two man doors. Specifically there would be no site lighting on poles or anything to that effect, nor would there be any site lighting at the access doors as they, the large overhead access doors for the boats because obviously there would be no need for that. The operation of putting boats in or taking boats out would occur during daylight hours. Building would be a metal siding, basically pre-engineered metal building type structure. We would propose that the walls would have two different colors, a lower and an upper panel with earth tone type colors, browns or grays or greens or something to that effect. There would also be a band on the west and the east walls along the eave walls of the building that would be a translucent panel to allow natural lighting to come in during the daytime. So when you're working in there, you're storing boats, you can utilize that lighting. Access to the building would be from the north end. There would be four overhead doors placed on the north end that would allow for boats to be backed in and backed out of the facility. Man doors would be provided for personnel access and one would be on the east and one would be on the south wall. These man doors are required by Code as a means of egress and of course obviously for personnel access, to facilitate personnel access without having to open the large overhead doors. Regarding the site, this building will be partially screened from Route 9L by way of an existing berm, and, Laura, could you get me to Drawing A-1? Just a second please. There is an existing berm, that's perfect, on the structure and where Laura's pointing right now at that lower elevation, what we've done, by way of trying to give you a sense of blocking of view, is we've taken the ground elevations of that berm, you're again looking at the view on that elevation as you would from Route 9L. That is the ground line that is shown there. The dip of course being where the driveway comes into the building. Other than that that driveway location that berm has vegetation that's growing on it. There are also several trees that are going to remain in front of the building. Those are not shown on the architect's elevation view at this point. So basically I guess what I'm trying to say is the building will be partially screened from 9L by way of that berm feature that was put in place a long time ago when the structure for this permit was originally set for the use of this site. Now this building will also, in and of itself, provide some screening. I know that's a bit of a twist, but there are boats that will be stored behind the building on the east side, and those boats would be, the visibility of those boats, of course, would be blocked by this structure. There is no proposal to put any exterior storage for boats between the building and Route 9L. So, you know, it does serve as a vision break for that. The access to the structure would be from the existing driveway. There would be no change as far as the roadway access off of 9L. The driveway as it comes in and passes the berm, would then transition to a gravel road. The gravel road would encircle the building to allow access to the east side for the exterior storage that I noted a moment ago, but also to allow access to the north side of the building for the ingress and egress of boats coming in and out of the structure. There would be an apron on the north side, approximately 60 feet wide that would, again, allow pickup trucks, pieces of equipment to be able to move the trailers. The building will be built on a portion of this site that is not over the existing former C & D landfill that was in place at that location. That's a matter of record from the existing site plan and from the existing special use permit that the history of this project, there were some items, C & D, that were buried there. They're trying very much not to impact that. What we did was held the building over where that garage was. The garage does not impact it, and we did several test pits to note the depth of bedrock and it's quite shallow. Now admittedly we're on the edge of this, but we are not building into it. So that was an important point as far as siting. Regarding stormwater management, a stormwater management system will obviously be provided to accommodate the drainage runoff from this. We'll be disturbing approximately 1.1 acres of the 11.15 acre site, overall site area. This throws us into the need for a SPDES permit, and obviously a SWPPP will be provided, has to be provided. The concept of stormwater management will be that the runoff from the new building, from other new impermeable areas, will be directed by way of shallow swales to an existing infiltration basin that's located, Laura, could you go back to, that'll do. Located to the southeast corner of the property. The basin 29 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) would be somewhat modified by way of creating a four bay to receive that runoff that's coming in on the shallow swale and to do some pre-treatment before it goes into the basin. I lost my train of thought. Sorry. Okay. The SWPPP is prepared and was reviewed by the Town Engineer and we received late last week a review letter from Sean Doty from Chazen. We contacted Mr. Doty with some tweaks to our SWPPP to address his comments. One of the things of note would be if you see the swale that's running along the east side of the road that serves the property or the building that will extend toward the north and partially up to be able to catch all of that runoff that's coming off of that pavement. So we're handling all impermeable areas. That will be one modification. We've also increased, because that's carrying a little bit more water in, we've increased the four bay. We'll be doing some minor modifications, as I've said, to the riser type within the basin. The basin itself appears to be sized appropriately. By way of coordination we've discussed this with Mr. Doty, and we will be submitting a revised SWPPP to them with a letter that would address the questions and obviously make any other changes that would need to be made in order to comply with his needs. We're also coordinating with Chazen and also with DEC regarding a requirement because of the SPDES permit. We did this on the first go around on the SWPPP, that we need to consult with both Threatened and Endangered species, natural heritage folks, and the SHPO. Now I would note that there is another project going on with this owner. Across the street at the marina proper there's a dredging project. We have done the chrys. We have done the research through SHPO, and determined, byway of that, that there are no archeological sites near. EAF mapper has also verified that. So from the point of view of historic resources and the like, I think we're in great shape. What we do have to do, and what we will be doing probably starting tomorrow is some coordination relative to the marsh or the wetland that is directly below this site, on the east side of basically the fill area from that former landfill. We are pushing stormwater down in that direction. We're not increasing flows, we're not increasing flow rates or logging or infiltrating. However, we are, by way of putting that cut off swale in, if you will, that's along the east side of this property, bringing a bit more water over to that basin which would change the location that the water would be entering into that basin. The check that needs to happen is are there indeed any threatened or endangered species at that location that could be impacted by that change in where the flows are going. My sense is no. My sense is that we are not increasing this in any significant manner, but we will be investigating that as the next or hopefully last item to address in Mr. Doty's letter. This project is going to require review by the Lake George Park Commission as well as this body. This is a Class A Marina and this is currently listed as storage area number two under the permit with the Park Commission. We are going to need your approval or your direction before the Park Commission will hear this and will be able to comment on it. So that will be the next step in our permitting process once we work through you folks and everybody is happy, we'll go to the Commission. One last point, there will need to be a modification of a previous maintenance easement to be able to access this pond, but I think the modifications will be relatively minor. The last agreement, or the last site plan showed a maintenance access for the Town to be able to get into that basin area. I've reconfigured that roadway slightly. As a result of reconfiguring the roadway slightly, and also as a result of including the four bay, the lines need to be moved a little bit, but the intent will still be there. So of course we would submit both a maintenance agreement to the Town and would submit the updated easement for the filing the deed. I hope I wasn't too lengthy, but that would be the project in a nutshell. MR. MAGOWAN-You're very detailed. I always like to listen to you, and the way you speak and your tone, but, I mean, you really do, you address things nicely. Like I say, I like how you say it, and knowing of your projects in the past, you've been around a little bit, it's very interesting. MR. SCHODER-Well thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-It's kind of a complicated thing you're doing here, but you kind of, well, we've got to do a little tweaking here, a little pinch there, but, you know. So you think you'll get boats in this fall? MR. SCHODER-1 hope. Thank you for that comment, though. I hope this is being recorded so my wife hears it. MR. HUNSINGER-She can listen to it any time she wants. MR. SCHODER-She might argue. MR. TRAVER-As I remember we had quite a lengthy discussion about this proposal in the spring. MR. SCHODER-Yes, sir. 30 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing IBoard 07/10/2016) MR. TRAVER-We had discussed many of these issues. We even, I remember talking about the access to the building with boats and other customers would be doing business. We thoroughly examined it. MR. HUNSINGER-Here's the question I have. You talked about the drainage swale at the edge of the gravel, and it runs around the building. How would the swale be impacted if you're driving boats across that on the lawn? MR. SCHODER-That's a good question. The swale is not a two foot deep ditch. It's an six inch or so, four or six inch deep by twelve foot wide gravel swale, very gently side slopes swale, for exactly the reason that you don't bottom out tractors, trailers, pickup trucks when you're driving across it and to be able to access into that lawn area. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, the concern is that over time the swale would become compromised because you're driving across it with boats and trucks. MR. SCHODER-I would hope not. It's in a gravely soil area and it's going to be covered with a Type II run of crush type material. Pretty strong material. Certainly if that does occur, and if there are breakouts in that swale as a result of that, that would be something that would need to be addressed. I don't see a lot of use of that area, other than you back it in, you pull it out. It's not a routine traffic. It's a one shot deal in the spring and one shot deal in the fall. MR. HUNSINGER-Times 76. MR. SCHODER-I'm sorry? MR. HUNSINGER-Times 76. MR. SCHODER-Times 76, yes, but unlike a road that could be times 100. MR. FORD-Mr. Traver mentioned it, and I recall it from the previous discussions. I just want to confirm that there will be no maintenance of any boat or vehicle on this site. MR. SCHODER-That is correct. It's stated as such on the drawing, I believe, and certainly is part of our presentation, and has been part of the application documents. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SCHODER-You bet. MR. DEEB-So you still need to hear from SHPO? MR. SCHODER-No, actually. In speaking with Sean, it would appear that since we are not on the EAF, the EAF mapper, that that was checked as a no on the mapper, we're good to go on SHPO. I also know we're good to go on SHPO because literally within, what would the distance be within the marina and this site, probably a sixteenth of a mile, it's right there. We did a chrys, full research on that for APA, DEC, Corps of Engineers, let's see who else we can add, in getting the dredging permit, and as a result of that chrys that came back negative. So I can't imagine a sixteenth of a mile. I offer that to you. I recognize that's not on the site, but it's so close to the site. MR. DEEB-Will you need a letter from them? MR. SCHODER-No, he's not requiring a letter. MR. DEEB-That's not a requirement. MR. SCHODER-That's correct. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. SCHODER-I didn't speak to him personally, one of my staff did, but I did ask my staff exactly that question and that was the answer I got. So if I'm wrong I'll blame them. MRS. MOORE-I can follow that up. If it's on the automated EAF mapper checked no, even for threatened and endangered species, the applicant's not required to submit a letter for that. 31 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/10/2010) MR. SCHODER-Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought was the case. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, you spoke fairly extensively about the stormwater and some of the other details. Do you have any concerns at all with any of the items in the Town Engineer's letter? MR. DEEB-There's quite a few of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because there's quite a few comments, and one of them I'll just highlight was his Item Four where he talks about the 100 year mitigation requirements. Will you be able to achieve those without a significant design change? MR. SCHODER-Regarding comment number four, and again, my staff here wrote this, but, pursuant to our conversation with Chad Severs, DEC Region Five, it was determined that in order to waive the downstream flooding requirements, and that's the 100 year, for the Town Code and DEC stormwater management, or stormwater design manual, a downstream analysis with wetland adjacent to the project site would need to be performed. Think about that. That's a fairly massive undertaking. Schoder Rivers will include the post development flow and volume requirements in their revised SWPPP calculations in lieu of performing the downstream analysis. That was an agreement with Sean Doty. So that would relieve us of that. As a matter of practicality, we're dumping into this wetland. The wetland is directly contiguous to Lake George. I mean, right around the corner it flows in. The level of the lake is the level of the wetland. So there is a bit of reason I think that is being applied by both Chad Sever from DEC and, and to answer your question, no, I'm not concerned with any of the others. There is a requirement on a 50 year event that's being met. Again, there's a little bit of tweaking that's going on in some of the design to get that extra piece of swale in there. MR. HUNSINGER-So the balancing act that we always have to consider is if we were to consider a contingent approval, contingent on satisfying engineering comments, if there's any design changes, then you need to come back anyway. MR. SCHODER-1 understand that. I don't really see a major. MR. HUNSINGER-So that's the context in which I ask the question. MR. SCHODER-Absolutely, and if there were a major design change, I mean, if that basin wasn't going to work with this philosophy, the ditch, the basin, the four bay, etc., became problematic, which it won't, based on the level of comment that we have here, one of the problems that we have with this basin is the question of infiltration. This effectively is an infiltration basin. The problem with that is it's effectively an infiltration basin and the first, on this site it was looked at as a detention basin, which under the stormwater regs currently don't exist, okay. Well it's not a wet pond, okay. So we can't call it that. It really is an infiltration basin. So this really does infiltrate. Now we located the basin where we did to get it such that it was away from that landfill area, such that if there is infiltration going on, it goes into the soil, flows downslope away from the area that was previously impacted by the burying of waste. I don't have any trouble with the fact that it's infiltrating. For that matter it wouldn't matter if I had trouble, it's going to infiltrate. The soil is porous. So the terminology there was something that, a bit. But we're there on that point I believe. I know that that was discussed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHODER-All right, and your point on a contingent approval. Contingent approval would help us out greatly. Remember we have another step to go, and that would be the Lake George Park Commission and I can't get there until I get out of here. MR. DEEB-That's the biggie. MR. SCHODER-Yes, it is. MR. FORD-Have you lived anywhere else other than on this site for the last three months? MR. SCHODER-Well, between the dredging project and this. MRS. CHASE-We see a lot of Carl. MR. SCHODER-Regrettably for my poor clients and their wallet, you are quite right. MR. MAGOWAN-And you guys are in the peak of your season. 32 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MRS. CHASE-Yes. MR. SCHODER-So they say, here, Carl, handle it. MR. MAGOWAN-You've been handling it a long time. MR. SCHODER-Yes. Actually on this site I was handling it back in, what was it, 2013, with that first SUP. Very familiar with the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have none. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there any, did you wish to address the Board, sir? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRANK MUNOFF MR. MUNOFF-Sure. Frank Munoff, I'm a neighbor. I live at 2626 Route 9L., a couple of houses down from the Marina. I would just like to say since they bought the Marina they've done nothing but make improvements on the property. They've made that place 10 times better than it was when they got there, and I have no objections to what they're doing. Everything they do improves our area. So they do everything top notch. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MUNOFF-You're welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. JOHN SHAFER MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment in the public hearing phase, not being a Planning Board member tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-This is on a fairly sharp bend of 9L, and I think you stated that there would be no increase in the number of boats that would be moved from the Marina to the storage area. I would agree with the previous speaker that you've made tremendous improvements there. I live right across the bay. Have you had any safety issues with 9L moving boats at five miles an hour in a 55 mile an hour speed limit area? MR. SCHODER-I'm going to defer that question to Loni who's the guy that's on the tractor. MR. SHAFER-I came across one the other day and the flashing lights were very visible. I was just curious if there had been any safety issues on that aspect of 9L? MR. CHASE-Not really. You get the occasional person, by that I mean teenager going 70 miles an hour, and it can be a little nerve wracking, but when you pull out of the Marina, there's really good sight distance all the way around the Pilot Knob Road, and then when you, you know, heading toward the storage barn. When you're leaving the storage barn taking a right, you can see all the way to the top of the hill towards Cleverdale Store. So there's really, really good sight distance to get out in either direction. MR. SHAFER-So you've had no close calls or accidents? MRS. CHASE-No. MR. CHASE-No. MR. TRAVER-And most of your movement is exactly opposite peak season. 33 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. CHASE-Right. MRS. CHASE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And most of the accidents are at the other end. They're not down where you are. They're up on the hill. MR. CHASE-But it is something we take pretty seriously. As you saw the flashers on the tractor, the reflector triangle. It's important. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you drive the speed limit you're all right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR action. The applicant did submit a Short Form. Are there any environmental concerns that the Board has that they have not addressed? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Any items that would qualify as moderate to large impact? Would you like to move the SEQR resolution? RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 169-2016 SUP PZ 170-2016 J & D The applicant proposes removal of 2,615 sq. ft. storage building to construct a new 10,000 sq. ft., 3 door, 25.33 ft. in height boat storage building associated with the existing Class A marina for 50 indoor storage and to maintain 76 exterior storage. Project includes grading, new stormwater control measures, new building lights and gravel drive around building. Boat storage is not stacked, floor only. 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 169-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 170-2016 J&D MARINA, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; 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. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 34 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird 07/19/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a draft resolution for a Special Use Permit. If anyone would like to move that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll pass. Let somebody else do it because I'm going to abstain because I missed a lot of the comments in April when I wasn't here. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 169-2016 SUP PZ 170-2016 J&D MARINA, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes removal of 2,615 sq. ft. storage building to construct a new 10,000 sq. ft., 4 door, 25.33 ft. in height boat storage building associated with the existing Class A marina for 50 indoor storage and to maintain 76 exterior storage. Project includes grading, new stormwater control measures, new building lights and gravel drive around building. Boat storage is not stacked, floor only. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040(5) and 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, boat storage 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 7/19/2016, and continued the public hearing to 7/19/2016 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 7/19/2016; 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 PZ 169-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 170-2016 J&D MARINA, LLC.; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) 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. 35 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird O7/19/2016) f) 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; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) 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. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 just have a comment. It's not three doors, it's four doors. So just, it's a clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, the introduction to the resolution. Thank you. I noticed that on your Staff Notes earlier, but I didn't catch that on the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a correction on the draft to read four doors instead of three doors. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. SCHODER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, Laura, you said you had an item to bring up? MRS. MOORE-1 do. You can adjourn if you wish to, and then I'll discuss it. MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MR. FERONE-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 19, 2016, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 36