Loading...
08-20-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20,2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 1. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8 Site Plan No.44-2013 C. Christopher Mackey 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.15-1-6 Site Plan No.41-2013 Michael Chrys 6. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-27 Site Plan No. 30-2013 George&Patty Pensel 10. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-76 Site Plan No. 33-2013 William&Pamela Roberts 14. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64 Site Plan No. 37-2013 Jeffrey&Sarah Merrigan 19. Freshwater Wetlands 2-2013 Tax Map No. 266.1-2-46 Site Plan No. 38-2013 Cover 3, Inc. 22. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-56 DISCUSSION ITEM Dollar General- 61 Main St. 24. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-57 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB PAUL SCHONEWOLF GEORGE FERONE,ALTERNATE JAIME WHITE,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Welcome, everyone, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday,August 20, 2013. For members of the audience,there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have public hearings scheduled on many of the projects before us this evening. First item is approval of minutes from June 18th and June 25th, 2013. Would anyone like to move them? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 18, 2013 June 25, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18TH & 25TH. 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-We have an Administrative Item this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SP 62-2012: KIRK ROBERTS-FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-There was a package in everyone's, or a series of e-mails in everyone's package that gave you the details and why they're looking for the tabling motion. Did anyone show a preference for one of the meetings in September, Laura? Does it matter? MRS.MOORE-This is to be tabled to October 22nd with a September 16th submission date. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to move it? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I did. So moved. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) RESOLUTION TABLING SP 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Tabled to the October 22, 2013 Planning Board meeting with a deadline date for submissions of September 16th. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-We have one item on the agenda for Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 44-2013 SEQR TYPE II C. CHRISTOPHER MACKEY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 15 WILD TURKEY LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING HOME WITH THE ADDITION OF A THIRD LEVEL LIVING SPACE INCLUDING BEDROOM, BATH &CLOSET AS WELL AS NEW ENTRY TO THE RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE A V 41-13, SP 22-11, SP 24-03,AV 5-03,AV 4-03, SP 46-99, AV 78-99 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2013 APA,CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 1.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 29.15-1-6 SECTION 179-13-010, 179-3-040 JON LAPPER&DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board in regards to the request for shoreline relief. The existing building is located 5 ft.from the shoreline where the addition will be located 17 ft.back and a 75 ft.setback is required. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record,Jon Lapper, Dennis MacElroy and Chris Mackey. I want to note,to start with,that Mr. Schonewolf didn't get the memo about blue shirts,but everybody else did. We were first before you on this project around 1999, and the reason that this was approved and the variance was initially granted for this re-development was that this was an existing footprint, existing home that was modified, and although this seems like a lot because we're asking for 17 feet from the lake in a zone that requires 75, what's being proposed is really quite modest but really significant. I know that you would have all been there in the Caravan and that access from the driveway to go down the stairs, imagine what that's like in the winter. It's not great in the summer, and that's a lot of what's going on here, but that also is indicative of what the problem is with the topography, and what's proposed, and Dennis will go through the details, but in general, it's still going to be 28 feet in height. So it's not, doesn't exceed the height limits, and it's no taller than the garage. This picture is pretty clear what's going on. This is what's existing, what you see when you drive into the driveway, and the existing garage is taller than what the addition's going to be on top of the house. It's a way to get in at that top level, which is just the level where you park, where the driveway is, a fairly modest size addition to get the house up to 28 feet, but if you compare this to putting it somewhere else on the lot to add square footage, anything that's higher on the lot would be much more visible from the lake. This is sort of in that bowl right at the bottom. It's a tricky lot because of the topography, but our argument is that this is the least intrusive place to put it,and there's virtually no disturbance of the soil because, except for that 300 odd square foot entrance, everything else is on top of the existing footprint, and it is back farther. Right now the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) edge of the building is five feet, and this is going to be, the top floor will be 17 feet. So for that reason we really don't think it's going to be very visible. You've got the boathouse and the vegetation that's there now that'll remain,but Chris will tell you,when Dennis and I are through, it's just very important for them, in terms of the utility of this small structure. They're certainly not trying to make this into any kind of mansion, but just to have a master bedroom with that entranceway. So that's my general argument to support the variance. Dennis,if you'd like to just go through the details. MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. Thank you, Jon. The proposal is shown. We've provided plans,which show the existing conditions and the proposed second floor addition. Now just in terms of terminology, there's a lower level which is a walk out. There's the main living level, which is where the current main entry into the house is, and then this proposal calls for approximately 1600 square feet of new living space in what could be considered a third level. As Jon indicated, it still meets the height requirements. We've established what the lowest adjacent grade point is, and the design has been done to accommodate that, to work within that. You noticed on the plan showing the proposed area, the hatched area is the new floor area. Lakeside of that you see a dashed line, and that's just an extended roofline. Dormers and eaves aren't really taken into consideration for setback, but in this case because it's sort of an extended roofline, that eaves line is really where the point of measurement is, and that's the 17 feet at its closest point to the shoreline, but again, as Jon indicated, it's setback from where the existing front side or lakeside of the building exists. From site components, site elements that you would be concerned about, there is just a slight increase in new impervious area, and that's based on the new entry and the walkway to the parking location. That's accommodated. Even though it's not jurisdictional, it is accommodated by stormwater management. If you've been to the site, you know that it is a, I would refer to it as a significantly vegetated lot, very well maintained and cared for. I think that we're going to relocate some of the plants that would be displaced in that back entry area. We're going to supplement a little along the shoreline. So, I think, from a site plan standpoint, it checks the boxes. We've covered the different things. It is the addition of some living space. It meets all the floor area ratio requirements easily and permeability as well. So, from a site plan standpoint,we are adding living area in an area close to the lake,but that's really dictated by the fact that the existing house is where it is. MR. LAPPER-Chris, if you'd just like to tell them how important this is and the practical issues for you. CHRIS MACKEY MR. MACKEY-I'm a year round resident at this home. I live here all four seasons with my son and I'm soon to be getting married,and my fiance will be moving up here with me full time. MR. LAPPER-Only if she doesn't have to go down those stairs. MR. MACKEY-Only if she doesn't have to go down the stairs. No, 12 years ago, when we originally re-developed the site, it didn't seem like a lot having those stairs, but after having done it for 12 years, and being 50 in January, I've lived through 12 or 13 winters there, and it's a bit of a saga getting in and out of there in the winter months. So those are the three most significant driving factors for my respectful request for this approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, from my standpoint, I think the design is fine. The concern I have, obviously, is the proximity to the lake, and I know that we have a number of these older houses that pre-date the pre-existing, nonconforming structures, but I just wonder about the wisdom of a significant renovation to this site. I mean, five feet from the lake. It seems like some of these sites we just need to let them be used up, if you will, and replaced with more compliant structures. I mean, that's pretty extreme, and I sympathize with the owner and the fact that he, you know, he purchased this 1951 building, but I just think, at some point, we have to manage that, the extreme range of the CEA intrusion, and I wonder about the value and the wisdom of doing a significant renovation to this building without moving it. The design I think is, I mean, I can understand the reason,the motive behind it. I think the design is fine,but I just think it's an extreme example of an old structure that is very,very close to the lake, and I wonder if it's the best one to have a significant renovation. That's my concern. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. KREBS-I would tend to agree with you, except that it's really not going to increase any water flow. I mean,they're just moving the ceiling up so that the water is going to come off the roof at two feet,having two stories instead of one story. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-You know, if they were actually doubling the size of the building and you were going to have a bigger footprint,then I could see how that would increase the necessity of. MR. TRAVER-But it's also not reducing the impact. I mean, we've had designs where they've had similar situations where they've been able to have design elements that reduce the impact, even though it still was within the CEA. I mean, I'm just,you know, I'm not saying I'm opposed to it. I'm just concerned, and I suspect that the Zoning Board is going to be concerned about it as well. I mean, it's really, of the examples that we've dealt with, and the examples I know that are out there, it's really an extreme case. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the structural integrity of the building, and it's capacity to add an additional floor? MR. LAPPER-It was renovated after the 1999 approval. So really everything is in very good condition now. It was really all re-done at that point. It's just that access issue wasn't thought through at that time. To address Steve's point, too. You're kind of, what you're really blocking is the view of the garage. So when you're looking at it now in terms of the height, it appears from the lake that the garage is on top of the structure because you can see both from the lake. So it's not visually, and I acknowledged when we sat down, I mean,you know, 17 feet is close to the lake, but you're going to be seeing very similar to what's there now,because you're looking over the house at the garage which is right behind it, too. So I think in this case that, with the permeability, that it's really not a big change. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments,questions from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I think both of them are right. I mean, their comments are good comments. I just don't think,in the large scheme of things,that it's there,and I would not try to tell him what to do with it. I mean, think he's got to do what he's got to do, and I don't think it's going to make the situation any worse. It is what it is. MR. KREBS-And unfortunately, you know, I mean, I spend a lot of time on the lake, and there are many places where the buildings are actually sitting over the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-You know, I mean,that's the way they were built 25, 30, 40 years ago. MR.TRAVER-Yes,absolutely. MR. KREBS-And I don't want to get on my high horse again, but, you know, but the County and the Town do not assume the responsibility. We constantly ask the individual to assume the responsibility,but as a community,we have known for years that we're dumping salt, oil, etc. in the water from the roads around Lake George and we do absolutely nothing to correct it. I mean,finally we have a project in West Brook where they're going to do some filtration basins on the way, but, you know, for years we've known that the phosphorus level above the Village sewer plant was significantly lower than below the Village sewer plant,but we never did anything about it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-A year from now we'll have some hard data and then we'll really know what's happening. MR. KREBS-Yes,hopefully with the IBM. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because to (lost word) extent,people have been guessing. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Based on some of the comments that were made, are there any other mitigation that could be offered? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. LAPPER-I guess just the biggest one, because we were, you know, knowing that this is a variance request, the size of it, making it not as big as what was there, in terms of the footprint, to get to the five feet, that it's pushed back to 17 feet, so as Dennis said, the impermeable area is just that entranceway, and that is being treated. So we're dealing with the stormwater, and everything else is just raising the existing roof, it has no stormwater impact. So I think that's the best mitigation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Well,the impact's minimal,then. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And the alternative is prohibitive. MR. LAPPER-Right, moving the whole structure on top of the hill, and you'd see it a lot more from the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Would anyone like to make a recommendation? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#41-2013 C. CHRISTOPHER MACKEY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes expansion of an existing home with the addition of a third level living space including bedroom, bath & closet as well as new entry to the residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements of the WR zone and for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2013 C. CHRISTOPHER MACKEY, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. At least one member is keenly aware and concerned about the additional modifications to a pre-existing structure within five feet of the lake. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-I would like to ask that there be an amendment to that resolution to include that we, or at least one member is keenly aware and concerned about the additional modifications to a pre- existing structure within five feet of the lake. That that be noted. That's all. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and a second with an amendment. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Jamie,did you want to come up? EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 41-2013 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL CHRYS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 81 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 700 SQ. FT. SUNDECK OVER AN EXISTING U-SHAPED DOCK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 01- 073 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-27 SECTION 179-5-060 MICHAEL CHRYS, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Staff comments -This class of project is considered for expedited review where the project has minimal or no impacts to adjoining properties and the environment. The applicant has indicated the sundeck will be 23 ft.by 30 ft. constructed over the existing dock. The sundeck height is to be 16 ft.from the mean high water mark to the top of the rail on the sundeck. The access to the sundeck is to be a 4 ft. by 18 ft. ramp as the drawings show a steep slope to the existing u-shaped dock. The plans show the location of the dock,the access to the sundeck,and the sundeck elevation. The existing dock and sundeck shown on the plans indicate the project meets the 20 ft. side setback requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since this is an Expedited Review, I'll just open it up for any questions or comments from the Board. MR. TRAVER-I guess the question I have is, are we looking at another land bridge issue, with the ramp to the deck? I know that we've had some discussions and at one time we decided that we wanted an alternative to that design, and if, in fact, this constitutes what I interpreted to be a land bridge,are we potentially approving something that we have routinely denied,as a design element? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Anyone have a,do you have a comment, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Actually I did talk to Mr. Chrys about this, and he indicated or explained that there's a steep slope and if you walk towards that area where the dock is you can see there's a steep slope, and so this was the purpose is to access the upper sundeck (lost words) steps accordingly so that it runs along the length of the shoreline and then up to the sundeck. It's just because of the slope. MR.TRAVER-Right, and again,we've had other applications where that's been an issue, and they've put in a staircase, as I recall, from the dock up to the deck, starting from the dock and going up to the deck. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean,we've had a number of discussions about the use of land bridges, and I was never really clear why they were considered to be discouraged, and I know there was confusion on the Board as to why. MR.TRAVER-Yes,although we've consistently, I mean,since my, since I've been on the Board,we've consistently denied that design. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. TRAVER-And the applicant has always been able to come up with an alternative means of access. I know that part of the discussion was there are some pre-existing land bridges, but new ones we have consistently denied, including some individuals that insisted that it was virtually a requirement for them to be able to use the deck for various reasons, including a claim of even disability, I think, in one case, and we've still insisted that an alternative design be proposed which ultimately was. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but if you look at everything that's around this area, look at all the ones on Assembly Point. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR.TRAVER-Right, I agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The road is at this level, and your deck is at that level, and you've got to, how are you going to get there? You can't,you don't want to walk down 13 steps and then have to wind your way back up to the deck, especially if you've got kids. That's not what you want to do. That's not a safe thing. MR.TRAVER-And we've had this discussion before, and the result has always been the same. That's all I'm pointing out to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Well, of course, there's also the other question which we haven't really resolved, and that is does this Board even have any authority,once you're over the water,to,you know. MR.TRAVER-If it was a water bridge, I guess I might feel differently,but it's not. It's a land bridge. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But the dock's in the water,and the water's not ours. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Yes,but,yes,that's a good point. MR. KREBS-But all over the lake there are these bridges. MR. CHRYS-All over Assembly Point,in fact,right down the whole main road,all the access is. MR. KREBS-Go look at Cleverdale. MR. CHRYS-I'm not sure what constitutes a land bridge in terms of square footage or access,but the reality is real simple. I mean, even some newer structures there have this same kind of issue, where,like Mr. Mackey before me,you know,to walk down and then up, it's just, I think it creates a hazard as well. MR. KREBS-Well and I don't see any difference in building a pair of stairs this way or having a bridge this way,you know,what. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the difference is in the winter, is that that deck fills up with snow and you've got to get out there. A lot of people use snow blowers and so you've got to go out the bridge from the road to get the snow off that deck unless you want to watch it collapse. MR. KREBS-Yes, but I'm saying from an environmental standpoint, I don't see any difference between a bridge and a pair of stairs. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think it makes any difference, no. Not when I've got a thousand tons of salt underneath it going in there from the Town. I'm not worrying about the environmental impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? This is a Type II SEQR. And we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador. I'm a resident in North Queensbury. If you recall, the issue of the land bridge was always a contentious thing with the Warren County Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SALVADOR-They no longer exist. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. SALVADOR-What's the point. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Anyone else? Yes,sir. PETER BROWN MR. BROWN-I'm Peter Brown, and I've been on Lake George most of my life. Unfortunately I don't waterski anymore, but anyway, I believe the person that was just in here has a land bridge going from his parking lot, that's a covered bridge, you know, and that's all it is. So I'm just trying to figure out what the difference is, whether you're going from the land to a boathouse versus going from land to a house. So,that's my only thing,and I think it's going to, I really think they look rather nice compared to a set of stairs, and as far as getting the snow blower out there, you build it up to take that. We're in the North Country. If you want to build something out of pipes,small pipes,inch and a half pipes,go (lost word) around. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thanks. Anyone else? Any written comments, Laura? Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And entertain a motion. I would like to add a special condition, only because we've had problems in the past with height requirements. I think the applicant's project narrative, all height requirements, and setbacks will be met according to current zoning regulations. If we could just add that to the draft prepared by Staff. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#41-2013 MICHAEL CHRYS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 700 sq. ft. sundeck over an existing U-shaped dock. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; SEQR Type II -no further review needed; The applicant has received Lake George Park Commission Permits: 5234-21-13 Wharf Construction; 5234-22-13 Excavation/Fill Activity dated 7-29-13; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/20/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2013 MICHAEL CHRYS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) 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. 2) 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. 3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 4) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) 5) 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. 6) Plus we are adding Item Number Six. All height requirements and setbacks will be met according to the current zoning regulations. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr.Traver MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. CHRYS-Okay. Thank you. I'm going to ask a curious question. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Before you leave, I'd just like to point out to the Board something. For those of you that have been down Assembly Point Road,you know when you get to Brayton Lane there was an old camp there that had been there about 60, 70 years. It was either going to fall down or burn down. Mr. Chrys bought it, re-did it, re-landscaped it, I'm sure at no small expense, and his mother's going to live there, and I don't think there's a person I've run across in the last month that hasn't had something nice to say about it. So I just wanted to let you know that we all appreciate it. MR. CHRYS-Thank you very much. I'm over budget. So if you don't mind, I have a curious question, and I'm not an attorney. I'm just a regular guy, but I try to keep up on some things, and I think somebody kind of alluded to it,but I'm trying to understand, at least when I was doing my research, who has the jurisdiction relative to docks on the water, and I don't want to get into a long dissertation about it, but, don't want to go there, but everything I read, everybody's gotten out of the game except for the Town of Queensbury, and I kind of read some information on the (lost word) case, which I'm sure you're probably familiar with, and again, I'm a layman, but I just sat there and scratched my head and wonder, and when you talk about, you know, what constitutes a bridge or not or whether you have jurisdiction to make rulings on that, just for my own future information, is there? I pay an application fee and I sit there and go, well, should I pay that application fee? MR. HUNSINGER-We were given, and it was an internal memo from the Town Attorney that basically said that until told otherwise,that we should continue business as usual. MR. CHRYS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So basically that's where we stand. The court case that you mentioned, I always forget whether it was in Lake George or Bolton, was very specific to the type of use, and the Town Council is of the opinion that that doesn't routinely apply to decks or docks or such. MR. KREBS-But I think the other thing we should add to that is that all of the water and the islands in Lake George are part of the Town of Bolton. MR. CHRYS-Yes, I read that on the maps, which was going to be another question of mine, but I didn't want to get that deep. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we don't,yes,we kind of avoid that. MR. CHRYS-It says Town of Bolton on the east shoreline,and I didn't know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It'll be decided in the courts. MR. CHRYS-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don't all agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, someday maybe. But just, you know, since you asked the question, I mean, part of the reason, my personal willingness to go along with the project is because you already had all your permits from the Lake George Park Commission. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. CHRYS-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's key. MR. CHRYS-And I did get that approved. Well, listen, thank you, Mr. Schonewolf, for your kind comment. I appreciate that,and thank you for the Board for the approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 30-2013 SEQR TYPE II GEORGE &PATTY PENSEL AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 256 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENCE, DETACHED GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING 3 BEDROOM WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND NEW STORMWATER SYSTEM. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-13, BP 8092 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-76 SECTION 179-6-050, 060 DENNIS MAC ELROY&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the activities involved in the removal of an existing home and construction of a new home this includes work within 50 ft. of the shoreline and work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The applicant has included two shrub plantings and has indicated the existing shoreline trees/vegetation is to remain per the Town requirement of shoreline buffer plantings. The new impervious area design and stormwater/erosion control measure calculations area have been reviewed and a Town Engineer sign-off has been received. The board may discuss the renovation of the existing terrace area towards the shore where permeable materials are encouraged and at this time the plans have indicate this area is impermeable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, with Curt Dybas, the project architect, representing Patty and George Pensel on this application for a site plan approval. We were here a month ago for a recommendation because this proposal involved some variances. We met with the Zoning Board of Appeals and received the necessary variances to move forward with the project. So we're back to you for the real thing here as far as the site plan review is concerned. Just to refresh your memories,this is a removal of an existing dwelling on a lot that is at the end of Lake Parkway on Assembly Point facing the main lake. The configuration of the lot is somewhat unusual, but the existing structure has been accommodated for many years and the owners would like to modernize living there, living there year round in the future. So the plan is to remove the existing structure and build a new structure basically in the same footprint but actually even more conforming, even though it still involved variances, more conforming than the existing one does. It also involves a detached garage, a new wastewater system for a three bedroom design, and an associated stormwater management system for the impervious area, which, as I recall, is technically a little less than what previously existed, but yet while the jurisdiction of this is maybe not as, requires as much as we're doing, we're treating it as if it was new construction, no net accommodation of the existing impervious. So we're treating all the new impervious areas with infiltration devices. So that's where we stand, and as Laura indicated, we've been communicating with the Town Engineer. He had a few comments. We clarified those, provided information so that he did ultimately provide a signoff,which I think you should have in your files. MR. KREBS-Yes,we do. MR. MAC ELROY-So that's where we stand. I don't know if Curt wants to add a little,but. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. DYBAS-No, other than the wastewater is designed for a three bedroom house, and a the house, proposed house is a two bedroom house,but we just took it upon ourselves to do a three bedroom. It seemed logical. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR.TRAVER-I think we looked at this pretty carefully when we made our recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes and that was even before we got the engineer's signoff. MR.TRAVER-Right,exactly. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? We have at least one taker. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide comment to the Board. I would, I mean, I know you know the drill,but for anyone else that might come up. We do ask that you state your name for the record and direct your comments or questions to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The only thought we had on the project was consideration for alternatives for that hard scape surface area within the shoreline setback, that if there was some consideration to reduce that area, but that's all. We support the stormwater. We support the wastewater improvements. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Was there anyone else that wanted to comment? Was there a written comment, Laura? MRS.MOORE-The written comment is from the Lake George Water Keeper. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Does it say anything more than what was just summarized? All right. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I know we talked about this before,but I'll ask the question so that we can have it on the record. Again, the consideration for using impervious surface instead of the hard surface within 50 feet of the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-I think certainly the owners will consider that as they, I mean, so much focus has been on the house and the variances related to that. The simple indication was that the existing terrace would remain. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-But it's expected there'd be some restoration required, just because of construction activities in that area. So I think that they've begun discussions with a landscape contractor trying to see how they'd want to address those issues. So that's, certainly would be under consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? Questions, comments? Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. KREBS-Motion to Approve Site Plan No. 30-2013 for George and Patty Pensel. This is per the draft provided by Staff,and that's it. MR. TRAVER-Do we want to make a condition to make the patio impermeable, or, I'm sorry, permeable. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd give them the option, and when they get to that point, I'm sure Dennis is going to use good judgment. MR.TRAVER-So not a condition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I wouldn't make it a firm condition, because I don't know what's going to happen when they get to that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Could we make some sort of a suggestion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd make a suggestion that it be considered. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-I guess I'd be concerned, because then it's when our Code Enforcement Officer goes out and determines whether it's permeable or non-permeable, I need guidance to say whether 50% of the new terrace is going to be permeable surface. MR. TRAVER-If I could, if I could just ask the applicant's representative, you know, would a conditional approval based on making that terrace permeable be a problem? I mean, it sounds like you've already considered it. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think as demonstrated by the rear driveway and the driveway serving the detached garage,those are all planned to be permeable pavers. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-So it might be a natural extension to do that as well in the front, but the first option, I guess, and this is how we entered into this, is that that would remain undisturbed, that from a practical standpoint, I think my language of saying the existing terrace to be restored following house construction is probably a more realistic. There'll be some disruption of that, so that so that, I'm getting to an answer here, that the owner certainly would consider some permeable surface there. I just don't know that they're at a point of knowing that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, what might make sense is if more than a certain percentage of the patio were disturbed and had to be restored,that then you consider,would that make sense, Steve? MR. TRAVER-Or maybe we could put a condition that any restoration be with permeable tiles, so that over time perhaps if it's not done initially all at once, it could be done over time, as the wear and tear on the patio ensues over the years or whatever. It might turn out to be easier to just do it. That's what I'm thinking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.TRAVER-And it would be an environmental improvement to the project,and a significant one. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, although I will state,though, that that impervious area is all factored in to the permeability,stormwater management on the site. MR.TRAVER-Understood,but we are in a CEA. MR. MAC ELROY-If it becomes a condition of approval,then we'll certainly address it. I think that at this point, my comment is, you know, it's certainly under consideration, but they haven't really evolved that plan as to how that would be landscaped further than what we've done for the basic shoreline buffering requirements. MR.TRAVER-All right. MRS. MOORE-Just to follow up on your clarification,when you say restoration, at the moment, from what I understand with Dennis, is that the entire, not the entire patio will be restored,but a portion will be restored and a portion may remain. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. TRAVER-Right, well, that's what the applicant has offered that as part of the renovation and construction process, it might be necessary to renovate part of that patio and that there's been some consideration already to making it permeable as opposed to impermeable. So as an alternative to making the entire patio be converted to permeable, an alternative, a compromise somewhat along the lines of what's been offered by the applicant would be to put a condition that any renovation work be with permeable as opposed to impermeable pavers. MR. MAC ELROY-That seems reasonable. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. So we had a motion. I don't know if we had a second to the original motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-I'm sorry. I hate to ask you to do this, but could you do the motion over again,just so I'm sure exactly what you want in the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we're at the same point,so,yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 30-2013 GEORGE&PATTY PENSEL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of existing residence, detached garage and associated site improvements including 3 bedroom wastewater system and new stormwater system. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and construction of a freestanding structure within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15% in the WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 7-16-2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 7-24-2013; SEQR Type II -no further review needed; Warren Co. Planning made a No County Impact recommendation on 7-12-2013; Engineering sign-off was received on 8-12-2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8-20-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2013 GEORGE & PATTY PENSEL, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) 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; 2) 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, 3) 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 au site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 4) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff, a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 5) 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. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 8) 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; 9) And we are adding to this resolution the fact that when the front patio has to be reconstructed, or a portion thereof,that it be reconstructed with permeable materials. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-That's pretty clear. MRS.MOORE-A portion of. MR. KREBS-Or a portion thereof,yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would just add that it's implicit in the resolution that it's based on the draft prepared by Staff. MR. KREBS-Yes, I thought I said,oh, I said that on the first one. MR. HUNSINGER-On the first one you said,but on the second one. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2013 SEQR TYPE II WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 4 HOLLY LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES IMPROVEMENTS TO TWO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. MAIN HOUSE WILL HAVE A NEW ENTRYWAY ADDITION AND A NEW DECK. SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW DRIVEWAY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING FOR SHORELINE BUFFER. EXPANSION OF NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 36-13, BP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 APA,CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-64 SECTION 179-13-10 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the expansion of a non- conforming structure in the waterfront zone in a critical environmental area. The plans have been updated to show the existing plantings and proposed plantings with new shrubs, a tree and groundcover areas per the Town requirement of shoreline buffer plantings. The plans also show 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) the stormwater and erosion control measures with calculation details where this information is being reviewed by the Town Designated Engineer. We did receive a signoff today for that project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, together with Pam Roberts, the owner of the property at 4 Holly Lane, representing the Roberts' on this site plan application. Once again, we were here a month ago for a recommendation for a variance, and that variance if you remember had to do with a stormwater device that needed relief from the 100 foot setback. That was approved by the ZBA, and we're back for the site plan approval. This project involves the renovation of two existing structures,cottages on this property. One,the guest cottage, the one closest to the road, doesn't change the footprint of the structure, other than actually removing a chimney. So it's technically a (lost words). That one doesn't really fall under the site plan review requirement. The main house,the main structure is adding a slight area of living space, and if you see on the plans, on the existing structure there's a little bump in, as it were, on the existing. That's going to be filled in, and there'll be a new entry at that point. So there's 128 square feet of new living space in the structure, and then 28 feet of a new covered entry, which qualifies under FAR as well. So the project easily qualifies, satisfies the requirements of FAR and permeability. The wastewater system is an existing system that's permitted by the Town several years ago; it's actually located on the other side of Holly Lane. So it's well beyond any requirements of setback to the lake, and as far as this project is concerned, it does involve the addition of a driveway, which, before this, the Roberts really haven't had any formal driveway. There's a parking, gravel parking lot which will be removed, actually. So there's a reduction of impervious area factored in to all this. So there's an addition of a driveway and we've provided stormwater management for that new impervious area,a little bit of new roof area. There's infiltration trenches provided for stormwater management of those as well. So I think that we're in good standing as far as the infrastructure is concerned. We've provided some additional planting, shoreline planting shrubs, and ground cover that would be appropriate to be in compliance with the Town shoreline regulations. So I think that the site plan is in good shape in that regard. I will mention that we've had discussions with a neighbor to the south, the Waldren family, and there was concern, on their part, as far as light spillage. If you look at the site plan, and you see the driveway comes down the slope, and their house is in close proximity to the property line on the south, and they were concerned about the possibility of when you pull in and back up, there's a little turn around spot to the north. So you would back in to that, at night,whenever there might be light spillage, headlights to the rooms in that section of their residence. They've asked that we consider some additional planting along that property line which the owners have considered and certainly will agree to as far as accommodating that concern, and while that may, there's a section of probably eight to ten feet of a gap where there's some existing vegetation that that's where we would provide that on a final plan. It's not on the plan that you see now. This just came up recently. So I think that Lee will explain this to you as well during the public comment. We just want to let you know that we've certainly considered that. The Roberts' are in agreement with doing that, making it a condition of the approval,whatever. So I think it's a good neighborly exchange, and. MR. HUNSINGER-So what would you propose? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, some type of vegetation that's tall enough, and let me just say as an example, I'm not the landscape architect, so don't jump on me, but typically you see that bordering type of thing might be arborvitaes, you know, a row of those. I'm not suggesting that that's what it would be, but something along those lines that would have some height to it, that would block the headlights from a, you know, a passenger car, an SUV, that type of thing, that could have some impact on the neighbor because of their close proximity to the property line. It's just sort of the nature of the condition there, and the best place for the driveway is where we proposed it, but yet the neighbor's house is close to the line. So this seems like a reasonable request and a reasonable solution. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. MAC ELROY-I think that should cover that. MR. KREBS-And, Laura,you said engineering comments have been taken care of. MRS.MOORE-Would you like me to read them? 1s (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes that would be helpful. I was going to ask you to anyway. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Mr. Brown. "The Chazen Companies (Chazen) has received the latest submission responding to technical comments offered by Chazen on August 19, 2013. Based upon our review all technical comments offered have been addressed to our satisfaction." MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Not a lot of comments, questions. The only question I had was on that vegetative buffer that you just mentioned. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think for the resolution we'll probably want to be, and Laura will probably encourage us to be as specific as we can be with numbers and species, or at least maybe with what species it is not. Obviously not from the invasive list. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Height requirement,maybe, and numbers. MRS.MOORE-You still have your public hearing. I can look up some things. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board on this project? If you could come on up to the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LEE WALDEN HARRIS MS.WALDEN HARRIS-I'm not sure if you want me to put this on top of the table, or in front of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Whichever you prefer. MS. WALDEN HARRIS-I haven't used one of these since I helped my daughters do their science project. So forgive me. I'm an engineer, a daughter of artists, and so that doesn't make me an artist whatsoever. So I appreciate everybody's patience. My name is Lee Walden Harris, and I'm here representing my mother, Mary Dale Walden, widow of Robert L. Walden. She's 86 and she's currently over at Glens Falls Hospital Renal Center where she has life sustaining dialysis three times a week. She lives at our home here at Lake George six months out of the year. The rest of the year we take her to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale,Arizona who have brought her back from death many times. This is a wonderful house that we've owned since 1967. I was seven years old when my parents bought it. My father passed away in this bedroom, master bedroom, because that was his last request, and it's a very special house to us. As you can see, it is directly to the south of the project that is proposed tonight. We are on a very large pie shape with a kind of a square towards the back. We face really out towards Brayton Lane. So our front door, our address is Brayton. The Roberts' are our neighbors and they're wonderful neighbors, and I'm not here to put any sort of stones in front of their project, but as Dennis brought up, there really is a concern for us because there's literally 37 inches between the corner of our master wing where my mother is taken care of by nurses. She's a semi-invalid, and she has a catheter, chest catheter sticking out of her chest that leads directly to her aorta, and we've talked with Dennis about making sure that when construction goes by that we do have containment of all dirt, dust, whatever. The other real requirement for us, because if you can take a look and see, we've only got a few feet, 12 feet, between the end of the master wing and the fence, and the parking lot, from what Dennis has put forth to us, is about 10 feet beyond that. So approximately 22 feet. The Roberts own several real excellent SUV's and pickup trucks, and at night when they come on in, there is quite a bit of light that bounces around within the master bedroom, but they've always parked on the other side of the houses. What our concern is mainly for my mother and her nurses,is that,as Dennis explained,if they came down and backed into, because their front door is on the other side of their house, the lights would shine directly into my mother's master bedroom, and we can't close the door because she has to be able to access that at night with her walker, and so it would come, spill directly through her master bath into the master bedroom. I don't know how much longer my mom's got with us on the earth, but we want to make sure that her last days are comfortable and she gets just a little bit of sleep in between the sessions that she has to with her nurses. So we really appreciate, and the Roberts' have always been wonderful to us, and we're just looking forward to being able to make sure that 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) we have very tall vegetation that is also dense, because for all of us, not just the Roberts, all of us, we must use high beams up there because there's a lot of deer, as you all know, who live on Assembly Point, and they love to go to the Roberts' place in the back where the septic system and stuff,they just love nibbling on Lynn Gauger's flowers and the Roberts'lawn,and so we always have to take caution, and so I want the Roberts' to be able to still use their high beams to be safe, but I also want to make sure to protect mom. Are there any questions? I've got video and everything, but I think you pretty much,you see how close the Roberts'are to us. MR. HUNSINGER-I was half joking saying, then, if there's such a proliferation of deer, you certainly don't want arborvitae,because they just love that. MRS.WALDEN HARRIS-No. You know, we have,you know, tall cedars, but I'm not, as I said, I'm an engineer. I'm not really very good with plants, but it should be some sort of bush or shrubbery, or maybe a tree that has very thick vegetation, and many of them,because you see that there's an open gap of this. There's a fence. Here, I'll play this video. That's my mom's. MR. HUNSINGER-We can't see that. MRS.WALDEN HARRIS-Can't do that, can't see that, but you'll see that there's that open fence area. So it would, if there's any vegetation that's taken down from above that open fence area, then it'll have to be replaced because it would be all the way down, but definitely that gap, because that gap is the very place where you'll have a separation between the end of their parking area, and my mom's master wing windows. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS.WALDEN HARRIS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.WALDEN HARRIS-I have extra pictures if anybody wants them. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we're all set. Thanks. Was there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Board on project? MRS. WALDEN HARRIS-There was one last thing. The runoff, do you need me to go back to the microphone? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.WALDEN HARRIS-Dennis has assured us about the runoff,that there will be containment, etc. If we can make sure that anything, any extra runoff is slanted towards the Roberts' property. Ours currently has more than enough to handle. As you can see we are a pier structure. We only have a small crawl space, especially under the master bedroom. It's very,very moist and you can see that we have a hard time controlling mildew. So if we can just make sure that all of the runoff from the driveway stays towards them, because we are down, we're slightly downhill. I think we all have that runoff from uphill. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay. Well,if there are no other comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no further SEQR review is necessary. I guess the only really outstanding question is what kind of vegetation. MR. KREBS-Well,you know what I wrote. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. KREBS-The Roberts' will plant a screening buffer of trees from the Town approved trees list, trees or shrubs,at least seven feet high. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you're doing that, you might send the same guy over to the road across the way,because I see lights every night. It doesn't really bother me,but,you know,you could get a lot of business. MRS.MOORE-Can you repeat that again? MR. KREBS-The Roberts' will plant a screening buffer of trees from the Town approved tree and shrub list of at least seven feet tall. MRS.MOORE-Along that southern property line? MR. KREBS-Yes,along that southern,in the gap that exists. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-One more freebie, Dennis. If you want to keep the deer away. You're not going to believe this but I'm going to tell you anyway. We just discovered this in the last three months. You can go to Harbor Freight, and if you've ever seen those little sticks that go in the ground and they get charged by light and there's a little plastic, I don't know what kind of bird is on the top, and they change colors. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, three of us that live next to each other put them all in, because we had severe deer problems. Haven't seen a deer in three months. Something bugs them about it changing colors, and I haven't had a deer in my yard all summer, and the lady next door has stuff that the deer eat as candy. They haven't shown up. So, research that. You might be able to use it someday. It's free. It's worth what I paid for them. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to make a motion? MR. KREBS-Sure. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 33-2013 WILLIAM&PAMELA ROBERTS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes improvements to two existing residential structures. Main house will increase footprint by 128 sq. ft. Expansion of non-conforming structure in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; SEQR Type II -no further review needed; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 7-16-2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 7-24-2013; Warren Co. Planning made a No County Impact recommendation on 7-12-2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8-20-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2013 WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) 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; 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) 2) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 3) 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. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) 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. 7) And we are adding Item Number Seven, that the Roberts'will plant a screening buffer to fill the gap of trees or shrubs from the Town approved list. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 3 7-2 013 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2 013 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY&SARAH MERRIGAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-5A LOCATION SW SIDE OF INTERSECTION OF BOULDERWOOD & WILDWOOD PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES ADJACENT TO A WETLAND. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO A WETLAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PROPOSED DISTURBANCE OF LAND WITHIN 100 FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE AV 37-13, GRANT ACRES, PH. II APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 1.68 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-2-46 SECTION 179-3-040,CHAPTER 94 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Laura. MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application and a freshwater wetlands permit for the construction of the single family home that is within 100 ft. of a designated wetland. The plans also show the stormwater and erosion control measures with calculation details where this information was forwarded to the Town Designated Engineer. We did receive a signoff for that as well. The board may also consider the applicants request for waivers from lighting, landscaping, and grading plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I'm Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I'm here on behalf of Jeff and Sarah Merrigan who could not be here tonight. The Merrigans are the owners of a lot at the corner, the southwest corner of Boulderwood and Wildwood, and we were here a month or so ago looking for a recommendation on a variance. This subdivision was part of an APA permit in 1988, I believe, and it was an approved building lot, subsequent to the approval of the Town and the APA. The rules have changed a little bit and we now have shoreline setback to the wetlands, and we have Queensbury wetland permit. So we were here looking for a variance from a setback to that wetland. The wetland is as it was shown in 1988 on the approved plan. We verified that it hasn't moved, and we've been to the Zoning Board with your recommendation and support and received a variance and we're here tonight. We'd like to ask for your support for their wetlands permit and 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) site plan review. The house is located in strict accordance with the approved plan, and the septic system is designed in strict conformance with the approved plan. Everything is per the approved plan except at the time the plan was approved, there wasn't a, the setback and the wetland permit didn't exist. So with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. I'd add, we have made a couple of modifications to the locations of some of the stormwater devices in our discussions back and forth with Town Engineering. The house,the septic system have not moved at all,but we did juggle some stormwater things and the well around a little bit to hold all those 100 feet setbacks. So with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Just a question of Staff. The Town Engineer's comment,was it significantly different than the last one? The same language? MRS.MOORE-I have the letter. Do you have the letter? MR. HUNSINGER-No,we don't have. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don't have this. MR. HUNSINGER-The one we have is from August 15th. MRS. MOORE-Chazen has submitted another engineer comment dated August 19th, and this is addressed to Mr. Brown. "The Chazen Companies (Chazen) has received the latest submission responding to technical comments offered by Chazen on August 15, 2013. As indicated by the applicant in their August 16th letter, they shall advance soil investigations directly within the proposed stormwater management facilities at the commencement of construction, to verify conformance with Town Code Section 147-11.1(2)(e). If separation distance does not exit, and the site plan requires modification, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Town for a potential site plan amendment. Based upon our review all other technical comments offered have been addressed to our satisfaction." MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. What is he referring to? MR. HUTCHINS-He's referring to, if you'll see,he's referring to my test pit locations were five to ten feet from the actual stormwater device. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and in lieu of, in one of them I have test pits on both sides of the device, but I did the test pit and then we ended up moving the device out of the way, and I didn't slide the (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-So he's just being thorough. MR. HUTCHINS-We're being thorough. I expressed my confidence to him in the consistency across the site,and I'm not concerned with,yes,with verifying that during construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks. Other questions, comments from the Board? Hearing that there's no comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open the public hearing. Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. This is also a Type II SEQR so no further SEQR review is necessary,and with that, I'll entertain a motion. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 37-2013 FWW 2-2013 JEFFREY&SARAH MERRIGAN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling with associated utilities adjacent to a wetland. Construction activities adjacent to a wetland require Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed disturbance of land within 100 feet of a regulated wetland. PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 7-23-2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 7-24-2013; SEQR Type II -no further review needed; Warren County made a No County Impact recommendation on 7-12-2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8-20-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2013 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2013 JEFFREY & SARAH MERRIGAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jaime White: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) 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; 2) Waiver requests granted: grading,landscaping&lighting plans; 3) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 4) 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, 5) 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 au site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 6) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff, a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7) 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. 8) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10) 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. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) AYES: Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2013 SEQR TYPE II COVER 3, INC. AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 714 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING WENDY'S STORE INCLUDING NEW ATRIUM. SITE &BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 38-13 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 LOT SIZE 0.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-56 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-10 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This is a site plan application for the renovation of Wendy's restaurant for internal and external work with a new wall sign feature and includes the removal of the existing atrium to construct a new atrium. The work is to be conducted within the same footprint and includes only a minor expansion to enclose the outdoor cooler within the footprint. The planting information indicates an additional mulched planting bed will be included at the front of the atrium and the existing planting bed along the existing concrete walk for Wendy's will be maintained. The planting bed to the north will be decreased to accommodate the right turn-lane. The lighting fixtures are proposed to be located in a similar location where the recessed lights are down cast fixtures. The board may consider discussing the external wall light fixtures which will be code compliant per applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins on behalf of Cover 3, Inc., and this is for renovations of the Wendy's on Glen Street. We've talked about it at the last meeting. It is essentially a building renovation both interior and exterior. They've changed their look a little bit. The bowed atrium will be gone. It'll still be glassed area, but it'll be a roofed glassed area. The entrance configuration will be relocated, both the entrances will move a little closer to the west toward Glen Street. Wendy's has come up with this feature, the red, they call it the blade, which is the red thing that kind of sticks out, and they put the Wendy's sign on it. There were some renderings in your package that showed Wendy's signs on the side of the building which will not exist. The only sign will be on the red, on the blade item. We're not changing the, the way the site works, we're not changing it substantially with this,with the possible exception of adding the right out turning lane, and we are taking an area which is presently a landscaped area, but right now two cars can't exit that at the same time. If one's going left, it's, everything's backed up. By opening that exit up a little bit,we'll be able to have a right exiting lane and a left exiting lane. MS.WHITE-Will you replace that landscaping anywhere else on the site? MR. HUTCHINS-We are making up for some of that landscaping. You'll note the numbers; we're not quite making up all of it. We are making up for some of it. Lighting, I have had some discussion with Laura on lighting. There's a note in the plans you have that said existing lighting fixtures to be relocated. That's actually incorrect. The building mounted fixtures will be new wall mount, downcast,night sky compliant fixtures. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. HUTCHINS-No,with that, I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll turn it over to questions,comments from members of the Board. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. KREBS-Just that it seems like all of the fast food restaurants are going through a renovation process. MR. HUNSINGER-Keep up with the competition. MR. HUTCHINS-We have had a number of those in Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's one every month. We've got a couple of more coming. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments? Okay. We'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only condition is to just state, make sure that any lighting is Code compliant. Because we don't have cut sheets. I mean, he did say it would be, but, I should say any new lighting is Code compliant. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, and the new lighting will be building mounted. There's underneath soffit lights that are shown correct on the plans, and then there's some side mount sconces, cut offs, on the. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,the reality of that site is you probably have tons of spillage from the street lights,and the neighbors. MR. HUTCHINS-There's a lot of spillage from the north. In fact, we modeled that spillage from the north because the fixtures are there, and we used it, and there is a flood, there is a fixture, a pole mounted flood to the rear of the site. Well,it's not way back,but it's right about there,there's a pole mounted flood that's powered direct from National Grid and that is on a photo sensor. It comes on in the dark and it is on all night. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that a street light? MR. HUTCHINS-No, it's a flood, but it's not powered out of, it's a separate power service from National Grid. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But other than that,there's no external site lighting on our part of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a Type II SEQR. So unless there's additional questions or comments, we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 38-2013 COVER 3, INC. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes interior and exterior refurbishment of existing Wendy's store including new atrium. Site/Building improvements in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review needed; Warren Co. Planning made a recommendation on 7-12-2013; 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 7-23-2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 7-24-2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/20/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2013 COVER 3. INC., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) 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; 2) 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; 3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 4) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 5) 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. 6) We are adding Item Number Six-All new lighting will be Code compliant. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Ms.White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. The last item on our agenda is a Discussion Item with Dollar General at 61 Main Street. DISCUSSION ITEM: DOLLAR GENERAL,61 MAIN STREET TIM O'BRIEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if you have any comments for introduction, Laura. MRS. MOORE-I just have discussion of proposed retail business for a 9,100 sq. ft. building and associated parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'BRIEN-Good evening. My name is Tim O'Brien. I'm with Bohler Engineering out of Albany. With me also is Scott from our office. We've been working with Belker out of North Carolina, Primax Properties. They're a large developer, and they're doing Dollar Generals all across the State. We've done a few right now, and I've got a proposed site plan to give you an idea of what we're doing. The site is located at 61 Main Street. It's a vacant lot right now. It's a 9100 square foot building. We did review your Code and actually Scott came in and met with Craig Brown the beginning of last month and reviewed the plan with him, and we've come up with an architectural 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) elevation for the site as well. This is very different than what they've proposed elsewhere, that I'm familiar with. It's a nicer looking building. It kind of matches the Cumberland Farms which was, I guess, recently rebuilt, redone a couple of years ago right down the street. It's got the hearty plank boards as well as the eagle roof hangs. It is a steel structured building. It's a square building. This store is different than most Dollar Generals that you will see. It's a corner entry building. We've only done a couple of these so far across the State. It's a nicer building. We've also brought the building up to the street,which we normally don't do either. The parking,typically they have 28 to 30 spaces required for these stores. As such, because of your Zoning Code, a variance would be required for that. Dollar General, the store is 9100 square feet. Of that 9100 square feet, about 7300 square feet of that is actually retail floor space. They have a small service area, two restrooms, probably a little mechanical room. Trucks are brought right into the site, probably one, two a week depending on,you know, how busy the store gets. A truck would pull straight into the site, and then all the way back to the back and then turn back into the loading area, then exit the site. We do have a trash enclosure located at the back in the loading area, located at the back of the site. I did visit the site this afternoon, prior to coming here. The property to the east, there's a stockade fence up along the property line. The residence is for sale. I believe the property is actually being used, or was used for parking for the, I guess it's the produce across the street. I'm not quite sure what,it looks, I think that's empty now,or vacant. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-So I'm not really sure what's going on there, but this will be a standalone site. Dollar General, like most retailers, are, you know, like fast food restaurants or any other business, Rite Aids,Walgreens,they've mastered their floor plan so that the store has maximized their production or maximized their sales, and this is a footprint that they're very comfortable with. They've built them across the State, although this one has a corner entry. These stores carry quite a bit of, you know, their name is kind of deceiving. Most of the goods sold are, you know, dollar to fifteen dollars. You don't get a lot of boxes. Everything is delivered in a crate, unloaded in the store, and almost immediately put on the shelf. They have the system down. They're up to about 10,000 stores nationwide. They're one of the fastest retailers growing in the country right now, and they really look forward to coming to your community to build this store. What we're here for is to get your opinion on the site layout as well as the building architecture. Because there are some variances involved with this project, we'd like to go to the Zoning Board to see if, before we start spending the client's money with the detailed site design, we'd like to know if we can, if the variances, the Zoning Board would accept those variances and if we could move forward with the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on what variances would be necessary? You mentioned parking. MR. O'BRIEN-There'll be a parking variance. When we met with Craig last month, we thought we'd have a five foot, he told us we'd need a five foot setback from the parking to the property line. We think we can do that now. His other concerns were 10%green space. We actually kind of tweaked the site plan a little and we believe we have that now. The 21 foot front setback is required from the sidewalk. Right now your sidewalk is actually up against the street. So we think we can meet that as well, or be very close to it. The architecture, we're still trying to master the architecture, when we came up with the site plan. If you look at this,the two gabled roofs are actually out. So on one side; this is the sidewalk that would face the parking lot. If you look right here, it's actually covering the walkway, and the same thing on the other side which faces the street, faces Main Street, projects out a little from the building. So there's a little variation from the actual site plan. We're showing you we're trying to meet as much of your Code as possible. We are going to have a survey prepared. One of your Main Street design requirements for this zone is a two story facade. We're trying to reach that or come very close to that and match what else is in the neighborhood. Most of the structures in the neighborhood are actually one story buildings. Down a little further you do have a couple of two story homes. We did, the way we actually did this was we went to Google Earth and took little screen snapshots and we sent it to the architect and we looked at the Cumberland Farms and that was one of them that helped us come up with this elevation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many parking spots are you supposed to have? MR. O'BRIEN-Right now I think we're at about 28 parking spaces. Generally they go 28, 30, 33 spaces. Because this is, most of their stores are located in more rural communities where you would have to drive to it; they are very comfortable with the 28 spaces that are proposed. We 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) would not be allowed to show the plan to you unless Dollar General signed off on it. When a retailer comes to a community, sometimes they ask for a lot more parking than is required because they know that they'll need it. Dollar General is one of those, they know what they need, and they don't believe they need what is required by your Code. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is? MR. O'BRIEN-You require, I think it's five per thousand times,you know, five per thousand of your retail space,that's 7300 square feet. We're 35, 36,roughly, required. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it's 28 versus 36. MR. O'BRIEN-Thirty-six,thirty-seven, something like that, and,you know,years ago,like the Lowe's and everybody, they designed these big parking lots, and I think it's going the opposite direction, now, for runoff. Drainage for this site,we looked at that already. We started to look at it. The soils are very good there. We can do some infiltration around the perimeter in the back and then do storage on the ground as well. So we're looking at the site, you know, it's a more populated community than what we're used to doing with Dollar General. A lot of their customers they hope would be walking there. Again,they don't believe that they will need the parking that's required by your Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions,comments from the Board? I've got to tell you,when I saw Dollar General, I was less than thrilled, because there's a store that I'm very familiar with that,you know,has the parking lot out front and, I mean, it just does not look well, and then when I saw your plan,you know, I think your plan does a pretty good job of capturing the intent of Main Street, and I can tell you model it after Cumberland Farms. We, I remember when we approved that one, we kind of saw that as being the,you know, as kind of a model for what you can do. I mean, maybe it's not the prototypical model,but it is a model of what you can do, and,you know, I mean, obviously it was acceptable, and it was one of the first, you know, quote unquote Main Street projects that we did under the new Code. So,speaking for myself, I thought the plan was really good. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-Thank you. We appreciate that. MR. KREBS-And I think that,you know, at some point we're going to have to modify the Main Street requirements a little bit,because it has actually stopped any development in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess my comment is,here's an example of how you can make it work. MR. KREBS-Yes, but this is not really meeting the requirement. I mean, they're meeting the two story facade by having this peak on the roof. That's not really what the intent was. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well. MR. KREBS-I'm not disagreeing with your thing. I'm just saying for the Board's understanding that when we created that facade look that we wanted for Main Street, we really didn't expect, I mean, we didn't think that we'd have as much resistance to it as we have had. MR. O'BRIEN-As, I've been doing civil site design for years. All retailers want their parking up front. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-Or facing, they want it seen from a parking lot. We did the best we could with this site. We were able to get some parking visible from the street, and it's visible from the building. So I think we tried to do the best we could for the developer and for Dollar General as well to try to meet the Code,or the intent of your Code. MR. KREBS-And I was in the retail business myself for a period of time, and I was in the retail furniture business,and the number of parking spaces for my 18,000 square foot building,compared to the number of customers I ever had at one time was ridiculous. Okay. If I'd ever had as many people in the store as I had parking spaces, I would have been doing very well. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'd still be in the business. MR. KREBS-Yes,right. MR. O'BRIEN-Dollar General is one of those stores, you enter the store, you've been there a few times,you know exactly where the goods are going to be on the shelf. You're going to get it. You're going to go to the register. You're in and out in five minutes. They really don't need the parking that's required. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? I mean,lighting's always a big issue. I don't know if you, I mean. MR. O'BRIEN-We didn't really look at the lighting yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-I can tell you, as an engineer, the lighting plans that they provide us, we always tell them to add more lights because they usually have two or three light poles, and they just do the bare minimum. So I think you will be happy with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-We try to light up the driveway a little more for pedestrian safety. This one, this particular site plan all the parking's on one side. So you won't have, you know, people cutting across the sidewalk. You do have nice streetlights out there already. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-I don't think that should be an issue with the sidewalk or the driveway. We will have to have a survey done to locate where those lights are and right now the driveway is more or less almost where the building front door is right now. So the driveway would have to change, but we would try to meet your, the requirements, and meet with the engineer to make sure the sidewalk and the curb design meets your standards. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-Would the Board mind if we go to the Zoning Board, you know, we'd like to get our variances or at least get through a portion with them so that we can understand what the design of the site will be, rather than come here, do the full design. We'd like to come in and get their input and see if they'll grant those variances before we spend our client's money. MRS.MOORE-Our process is you make applications,site plan,and the variance. MR. O'BRIEN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-The first meeting would be called a Planning Board recommendation where the Board would make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. At that time typically we see all the site development completed, and then the referral is made to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board gets their information relevant to the variances that you're requesting so they can make their decision, but then it comes back to the Planning Board again. So you essentially have three meetings. Two of them are Planning Board meetings; one's a Planning Board recommendation. That's the full Board. They do review the information and they provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board makes their decisions. If there's any conditions that are relevant to notice of the Planning Board,they will do so,and then the Planning Board will review the application. MR. O'BRIEN-Would that be full design, at that point, when we come, make our first submission, or is it just our site plan,like we show here almost. MRS. MOORE-That site plan and clarification of the information that's required by those design guidelines, and it's something we can discuss in the pre-app meeting. So we can discuss that information about what details they will need,say stormwater would be one. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. O'BRIEN-Yes, and that's the point I'm trying to make. We don't want to go full bore on a full design and then find out our variances won't be granted and the project can't go forward. MRS.MOORE-We're aware of that. We'll discuss that. MR. O'BRIEN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So that you're not, you're providing enough information to address stormwater. Maybe it's not that full calculation,but it may be. So it's something that we'll discuss. MR. DEEB-Okay. Do you know how many variances you're going to be looking for? MR. O'BRIEN-I know there's the parking. The building setback we'll finalize and building location. There's probably two or three variances that we'll be requesting. MR. DEEB-Parking setback. MR. O'BRIEN-The parking setback. The number of parking, I think there was a parking setback for the rear. There's, most of the variances, and that's not including signage. I don't know what they have proposed for signage at this point. We'll try to get that and incorporate those at the initial meeting so that that's not a separate application. So there's going to be a few variances. We just don't want to go too far into the design. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'BRIEN-I hope you can understand where I'm going. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely. I mean, I can just tell you from prior experience, I don't think you're going to have any difficulty with your parking variance requests. MR. O'BRIEN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we've kind of tended to go the other way as well, and give applicants the benefit of the doubt. So I don't think you're going to have any issue with that, but,you know, that's just me telling you what the history has been,not an approval. MR. O'BRIEN-Right. Now, looking at the building architecture, do you think there's going to be an issue with meeting that Main Street design, because we're trying to meet it, but again, it's a steel building. We are putting a parapet on the front of the building. We are adding some features to it to kind of dress it up from the,like you said,the normal Dollar General building. Do you see this as an acceptable architect elevation? MR. KREBS-Well,the question is,does it meet the Code,and I don't believe it does. MRS.MOORE-Remember,they're guidelines. MR. HUNSINGER-They're guidelines. MR. KREBS-Okay,guidelines. MRS.MOORE-So the Planning Board has that,so they can discuss it. MR. KREBS-I mean, I don't have any objection to the design. It's just, I. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it's clear in my mind you're trying to meet the intent, and we often have this kind of struggle with, you know, you try to layout some guidelines and your interpretation of what we think is the intent isn't always the same as what we think it is. So there's often this discussion and kind of back and forth. Again,to me it was clear you modeled that after Cumberland Farms. I mean, obviously that was an acceptable model, but I don't know if anyone else wants to comment. MR. KREBS-They did a nice job. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. O'BRIEN-Anybody else? I just want to get as many comments as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely,yes. MR. O'BRIEN-All right. I guess the next step,then, really is both applications and then come in for a pre-app meeting? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and, you know, Staff is very good about giving you guidance and, you know, give you recommendations and I mean, they'll give you similar kind of comments as to, you know, what the Boards prefer and how we view things and that kind of thing. I mean, obviously it's not an approval,but,you know,they'll give you that feedback and information. MR. O'BRIEN-Looking at the plan, I just want to be on a very good comfort level when I call them tomorrow morning. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, one of the things that could really throw a monkey wrench in is if you came back with some,you know,garish color requests. That might cause some difficulties. MR. O'BRIEN-I believe they'll be more earth tones. We did put the, some brick on the front of it. Those are fake windows with shutters on them. They give some kind of, more look than a blank wall. We did add the cornice on top. There was a few other features that normally aren't on a Dollar General. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, you've got multiple materials, and, I mean, clearly you're trying to create some visual effects there. MR. O'BRIEN-Now with your 21 foot setback from the sidewalk, a portion of this building will actually project out into that 21 feet. Is that allowed, or is that 21 feet is where the building has to be? MR. HUNSINGER-It's written up as a build to line. MRS. MOORE-As a build to line, and then roof overhangs are discussed only within 18 inches, but that's, if the roof overhang is a feature, then it's to the feature not, like a standard house roof of 18 inches, that's an allowed overhang, but if you were describing a feature of your building, so that feature needs to be set back, as part of the structure. MR. O'BRIEN-All right. So it has to be back 21 feet. MRS.MOORE-We can discuss that further,just to clarify,but(lost words). MR. O'BRIEN-There's, I think,because we really don't have a sidewalk on the front of the building at that point,we can maybe put that feature somehow on the front of the building so it only sticks out maybe two feet. There's ways to maybe fix that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? Okay. Well,good luck. MR. O'BRIEN-Thank you very much. We do appreciate your taking the time to hear us and let us present. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Yes, we appreciate Sketch Plan Reviews. It really helps us a lot. It helps the applicant,too. MR. O'BRIEN-Doing this as long as I've done it, it really does help the applicant, you know, some projects die at this point,hopefully this will move forward. So,thank you. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Is there anything else that needs to come before the Board this evening? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,how are you going to handle next week? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I wanted to bring it up, too, because we were given this package of information. It appears as though it was copied to the Town Attorney. Now, without getting into a lengthy discussion, I guess there's kind of a balancing act between giving them special consideration and then making sure that any concerns are addressed. So, seeing that Town Counsel has received a copy of this and it's going before the ZBA tomorrow evening,right? MRS.MOORE-I just wanted to see if there was a comment in your latest Staff Notes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When were the latest Staff Notes,today,right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's why we don't have them. MR. HUNSINGER-She's going to hand them out. MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to make sure there was not any additional information (lost words) response. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes,this is dated the 16th of August. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. The ZBA approved the variance,right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. There's a procedural item they need to address tomorrow night because the County referral did not occur. So they're going to re-address that process tomorrow night. The County referral has occurred. Now the Zoning Board can re-affirm their vote. MR. HUNSINGER-That's not what her, that's not what their objection is about, is it? I didn't really read the letter yet,but. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it's annoying that, did you read the minutes of the Zoning Board meeting? They made some comments about the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Oh, I found very offensive. Absolutely. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which I find offensive, and I'm going to tell them that. Because we sit in here with a joint meeting, and those guys sat there like statutes, except for the Chairman and the former Chairman who's no longer on the Zoning Board, and nobody said anything. Then when it comes down to fish or cut bait,they want to lay it on us. Well,they made the comment. MR.TRAVER-So we don't know if our agenda for next week is going to be changed or? MR. KREBS-The agenda's going to stay the same. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just to my point, maybe what I'll do is talk with Counsel between now and next week regarding this. I mean,my gut is to treat this as any other public comment. MRS. MOORE-Correct. Any other comment, and for your discussion,your information, (lost words) the applicant's agent is presenting information as an overview for the Board that you can choose to move forward, you can choose to hear the information, re-visit it again in September. Engineering still has to be completed. Things like that. So there's still activities that need to be accomplished through the process of the application. So you're probably just going to hear an overview of the application. If you,the Board members,have any questions about the project. MR. HUNSINGER-So we don't have the engineering signoff yet. MRS.MOORE-We do not have it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But can we approve it subject to the engineering signoff? Because we told them, you know, to go ahead with the engineering and they spent some serious money on it, then the Zoning Board turned around and screwed around with it. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MRS. MOORE-They have, but they are working on the engineering. Their engineer is working on the information about the comments that were received originally from our Town Engineer. They're in the process. They just have not submitted those yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we can't approve it subject to? MRS.MOORE-I've seen you have approved past projects subject to the engineer's signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have new engineering comments? MRS. MOORE-I would say in the past when you have lengthy comments by the Town Engineer you've tended to see the application on the following month to address those. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What I'm trying to avoid is two public hearings and I have to listen to the same people give me the same NIMBY. That's what I'm trying to avoid. I understand NIMBY, but, you know, we've had enough. We're the ones that have been working on this for two years with no support from the Zoning Board, I might add, and so I think,you know, we should give the applicant his due,his day in court,and then I think we should make a decision. MR. KREBS-Yes, not only that, Laura wasn't here when it started, but they came to us with a non- variance required plan, and we were the ones who influenced them to require variances, okay, because we thought the final design would be much more tenable to the community than what they had originally planned. MR.TRAVER-And we're long past that. That was a long, I mean,that's almost not relevant anymore. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Except I think we did a good job. MR.TRAVER-Absolutely. Sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It was an opportunity to do some planning,which we don't get very often. MR. TRAVER-And as far as public comment is concerned, we don't have to take redundant public comment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,that's what I was suggesting to Chris,like you did that one night. You shut them down,and that really, I thought was. MR. TRAVER-Well, I didn't shut them down. I just was interested only in information that hadn't been discussed before. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you said that, then they didn't come in and make those comments, and I thought that was a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Well, we did get some new comment, but it was very little, you know, I think that that's appropriate. It's not meant to be, I don't think that the public comment should be used as a filibuster. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes,exactly. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,like it was in the Kitchens. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Well, if anybody has any trouble sleeping tonight,you can bring this out and read it just before you go to bed. MR.TRAVER-Yes,that'll be relaxing I'm sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which letter are you talking about? The one we got? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2013) MR. KREBS-Yes, Sonnabend's letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to come before the Board tonight? Anything else, Laura? MRS.MOORE-Yes, I apologize. I did hand out packets. These are Staff Notes for next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,thank you. MS.WHITE-I just wasn't here at the beginning, Laura. So there was a handout by Ms. Sonnabend. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,Jamie didn't get the,from the applicant. You don't have it? MRS. MOORE-I have a written information. I don't know exactly what they handed to you. So it may be different. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then, that's interesting. I'll tell you what I'll do is I'll scan it and send it to you. Okay. Jamie, I'll scan it and I'll send it to everybody. That way everyone has the same information,but by doing that I feel like I'm giving them special treatment,you know,too. MRS. MOORE-You can always file it in the application folder, saying that you received it. So then it's in one place. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. Anything else to come before the Board? I thought you were going to make a motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 20. 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 32