Loading...
02-17-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2015 INDEX Subdivision No. 2-2015 Warren County 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 288.-1-51, 49 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 10-2015 J.H. Land Development, LLC 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 278.-1-14, 18 Site Plan No. 11-2015 Michael Lia, The LIA Auto Group 8. Freshwater Wetlands 1-2015 Tax Map No. 303.16-1-1.1 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE JAIME WHITE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a public hearing handout. We do have several public hearings scheduled this evening. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from December 18th and 20th, 2014. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 18, 2014 December 20, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18 & DECEMBER 20, 2014, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, and Mr. Magowan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items for Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals this evening. The first one is for Warren County. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2015 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WARREN COUNTY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-5A LOCATION GURNEY LANE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 39.85 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 8.18 & 31.67 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE RR 5A ZONE - NEW LOT LINES CAUSE EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REQIURE SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEAR AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-For those of you who don't realize this, but I am an employee of Warren County. So I will be abstaining from any consideration and discussion on this item and I will turn the floor over to Mr. Traver. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-And welcome. Laura, would you like to review Staff Notes? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MRS. MOORE-Yes. I apologize. We're having a little bit of a technical difficulty. So, I'll read the project description. I think we're good to go. The applicant is proposing subdivision of a 39.85 acre parcel into two lots. This is an 8.18 acre parcel and a 31.67 acre parcel. There's a variance relief requested from setback requirements of the RR-5A zone. The new lot line causes existing buildings to require setback relief and a road frontage requirement relief. In this instance the Planning Board may consider granting a waiver from Sketch. The Planning Board may conduct their SEAR and provide the recommendation to the ZBA. MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening. My name is Martin Auffredou. I'm the Warren County Attorney and I'm here this evening with our team. To my right is Dave Barris. He's our surveyor, and to my left is attorney Larry Pelchowitz. Larry is our special counsel for this matter, helping us put all of the documents and paperwork together. As you probably are aware, Warren County is in the process of selling the West Mount Nursing Facility. As part of the sale, to get to the sale, it's been determined that we need to subdivide the parcel here. The parcel is actually comprised of 39.85 acres. There's a hook that actually connects across the Northway over to that vacant piece on the other side, closer to the Municipal Center, but where the, we all know where the nursing home is. The nursing home proper, if you will, the attendant parking lots, there's a couple of other buildings that go along with that. That is 8.1 plus/minus acres. That's being proposed as the new lot. The balance will be retained in ownership by Warren County. That is 31.67 acres. So it's a two lot subdivision. We have a contract for sale. There are some contingencies in the contract. One of those contingencies is obtaining any necessary land use approvals from the Town of Queensbury. So as Laura had indicated, we also need a couple of Area Variances, a few Area Variances. There are some buildings that are being retained on the site. The old wick building, if you will, there's an old building and grounds, and old building department building. Those are being retained by Warren County as part of the larger lot. We need some setback relief with respect to those. We also need some setback relief with respect to the shed that goes along with the nursing home and the nursing home itself in the rear and on the side of the newly created lot. This lot, this 8.1 plus/minus acres lot, although it's not a legal lot, has been, for all practical purposes, a separate tax map parcel for some time. How did we get there? Long ago, well, not that long ago, but our Department of Public Works sort of created a map for Warren County and that map eventually made its way to becoming a separate tax map parcel for that area. That's not precisely what's represented in the 8.1 plus/minus acres that we're conveying, but it's pretty close. So we feel this is a, the important next step to take. We agree with the Staff comments as they relate to the project. We think when you put into the mix what we're asking for into that 267 B Town standard, the balancing act, if you will, we think the benefits weigh in favor of the applicant, Warren County, in favor of the Area Variances. We think we've met all of your subdivision requirements. We've prepared a Long Form Environmental Assessment form. We've worked very closely with your Staff and have provided everything that we think is necessary. So we're looking to, as I understand it, we're looking for your approval tonight to waive Sketch. We'll come back next week for the Preliminary and Final is what our plan is, and we're looking for a favorable recommendation from you for our appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that's for the variances on the setbacks and so on, correct? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I don't, I'm not concerned about Sketch. Is anyone else on the Board feeling as though we need to review Sketch? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-1 don't, either. Okay. So then we get to the issue of the variances. The Lot One frontage is really a minimal variance. That is the east side setback. The rear setback is almost 50%. So that's a little bit greater, but in view of the location and the use of the property, it doesn't seem to be much of a concern, at least to me. Are there, in looking at these variances, are there members of the Board that have concerns that need to be raised with the Zoning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the way I look at it, they, you know, did the best they can with, I know it's been a long process to get it this far, and really the, I kind of like the jigs and jogs. That was quite a surveying you've got there. I hope you did it before the snow. I'll be looking for the pins in the spring. No. I don't, you know, I think they fit it in as best they could, and with, you know, the minimal variances. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MR. TRAVER-Yes, and it's obviously an old, pre-existing facility. Any other comments or concerns? All right. Then I guess the SEAR is our next step, right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-You can open the public hearing if you wish also. MR. TRAVER-Sorry about that. MRS. MOORE-That's all right. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application this evening, Subdivision 2-2015. Are there members of the audience that would like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Well, actually I'm not seeing anyone who wishes to speak. Thank you for reminding me. All right. Then, let's see, for SEAR we need to close the public hearing? MS. WHITE-Are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, and you can close the public hearing before you proceed with SEAR. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we have a, we need to conduct SEAR. This is essentially a paper change. Are there any Board members who have any concerns regarding environmental review on this application? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-Then if we have a motion on the SEAR review. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We need a motion, first, on the Sketch Plan, don't we? MR. TRAVER-No, that's a waiver that we would grant in the, I think in the recommendation. MRS. MOORE-There's actually a formal resolution. So you can grant the waiver first if that's what the Board wishes to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which just happens to be the order I've got them. MRS. MOORE-You're correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we don't want to rock your boat. MR. TRAVER-That's right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the waiver from Sketch Plan. RESOLUTION RE: WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN SUB #2-2015 WARREN COUNTY A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.85 acre parcel into two lots of 8.18 & 31.67 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. THE PLANNING BOARD GRANTS A WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN REIVEW FOR SUBDIVISION 2-2015 WARREN COUNTY, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2015 by the following vote: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next then on the recommendation to the. MR. MAGOWAN-No, we've got to do SEAR. MR. SCHONEWOLF-SEAR. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We need a Negative Dec on the SEAR first. MR. TRAVER-Right. I'm sorry. SEAR next. MRS. MOORE-If the Board moves that way, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm just looking at the order you want it. MRS. MOORE-Correct. The order next would be the SEAR, SEAR resolution. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mr. Secretary? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: SEAR REVIEW SUB #2-2015 WARREN COUNTY The applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.85 acre parcel into two lots of 8.18 & 31.67 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from setback requirements of the RR 5A zone -new lot lines cause existing buildings to require setback relief. Planning Board may conduct SEAR and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION 2-2015 WARREN COUNTY Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb Per the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we have, last but not least, the formal recommendation to the ZBA. I've not heard any concerns expressed that we need to include in this recommendation. So, Mr. Secretary, can we go ahead and have that recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#6-2015 WARREN COUNTY 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.85 acre parcel into two lots of 8.18 & 31.67 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A- 183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from setback requirements of the RR 5A zone -new lot lines cause existing buildings to require setback relief. Planning Board may conduct SEAR and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; A public hearing was advertised and held on 2-17-2015: The Planning Board has 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. 6-2015 WARREN COUNTY, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; and In accordance with the resolution prepared by staff: a) The Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2015 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any comments? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you need to select, if it's the comment about not identifying any significant adverse impacts or Letter B, areas of concern. So please be specific. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we need to amend the motion to add. MR. MAGOWAN-A or B. MR. TRAVER-A or B, right, Mr. Secretary, I believe it would be A in this case. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I'll amend it for A, no significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. MR. TRAVER-Any concerns or comments on the SEAR declaration? Then can we have the vote, please. MR. MAGOWAN-That wasn't SEAR that was zoning. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, right. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED J.H. LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR; LC- 10A LOCATION 321 STATE ROUTE 149 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL 72 CAMPSITES ON A 42 ACRE PARCEL. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMBINE LOTS, ETC. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-10-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ALL SPECIAL USE PERMITS 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) & CAMPGROUND REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE L C ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-2015, UV 28-92 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 98.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-l-14, 18 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10-020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to develop a vacant parcel with 72 additional RV/ campsites. The adjacent parcel to this one currently has 150 sites. This project is subject to Area Variances for permeability requirements of the LC-10 zone and subject to Special Use Permit requirements. I can go through further on the site plan and the Special Use Permit, but the relief requested for permeability is 95% is required in the LC-10 zone and they're proposing 85. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace and Lucas Dobie of Nace Engineering and Hutchins Engineering and Patty Green, part owner of the Park. As you know, the Park has been around for quite some time. The Hughes, John Hughes and his family developed it many years ago. Currently there are 150 sites, RV sites at Ledgeview. John owns adjacent land that he would like to develop the next phase of the Park by adding 72 sites on a 42 acre parcel. The parcel is zoned LC-10, which requires a maximum, or minimum permeability of 95%, which is fine for single family housing on an LC-10 lot, but it's rather difficult to do for any sort of development like an RV park. We're proposing a park that would have a green area of just under 90%, and therefore we're here asking for your recommendation to the Zoning Board for a variance that would allow us to have a permeability of just under 90%. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else you wanted to add? MR. NACE-I'll give you a rundown of the Park, the addition to the Park. The existing Park is developed in the area on the east side of the, the west side of their property, just north of 149. The additional parcel they have purchased, John had purchased and is wanting to expand onto now is this 42 acres. He also owns land up on the Mountain which is, here's the existing Park in here, here's the addition, and he also owns land up in here that was more mountainous and really not appropriate at this time for development, but there is quite a bit of area. As far as the expansion of the Park, what we're looking at is a development of three primary access roads and a secondary access road off to the side that would serve as sites that are pretty much in conformity with the type and size of sites he has in the existing Park. Circulation would be from the existing front gate of the park, so that the existing recreational facilities, the sign and the administrative facilities of the existing Park would also serve the addition. The water system in the existing Park was designed large enough that it will also support the addition. Sewage from the sites will be gathered up in groups of sites and taken into, I think there are eight separate septic systems scattered around the new portion of the Park that would serve not only the individual trailer sites but also centralized restroom facilities in the Park, which will be pretty much here in the center. Stormwater on the sites would be gathered and for the most part the individual sites would have swales on the low side of the site that would infiltrate the stormwater. The soils are good, sandy soils. We've done soil testing with the Department of Health. Obviously the Department of Health also is a permitting agency in this case. So they're aware of the project. Once we get further along with the Town, we'll be submitting to them for their review and approval. That's a brief overview. The sites will be served by individual hookups for water, electric, sewer and cable. I don't know, Patty, if you want to say anything more about the Park itself, how it's upgraded or. PATTY GREEN MRS. GREEN-At the campground now, at the RV Park, we cater to overnight campers. We do have some long term campers that do stay with us for the five and a half months. On the holiday weekends we're 100% occupancy, and the weekends in the fall are 100% occupancy. During July and August we're about 85 down to 75, depending from year to year, but there is a demand for more sites, and, like Tom said, all the sites do have full hookups from water, electric, sewer, cable T.V. and WiFi for their individuals, and so, you know, at this time we would like to do the expansion because of the demand. MR. NACE-I'd answer any questions you have. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MS. WHITE-Just exciting that business is that good that you, it's good for the area, for the economic development. So I'm happy to hear it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-1 don't know if any of you have been back in. It's a beautiful Park once you get in it. From the highway you barely know it's there. MR. FERONE-Yes. So when I drove in there the other day, there's a part where there's actual homes, I guess they're like mobile type homes. MRS. GREEN-That's our mobile home park. MR. FERONE-Okay, and then straight in is. MRS. GREEN-In is where, that's the campground. MR. FERONE-Right, and so this new site is to the east. MRS. GREEN-The east of that. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns that I had, and I'd be curious to hear your comments about it, is the access off 149. Lots of times there's people coming too fast down the hill and trying to turn in or turn left and just, you know, wondering what your thoughts were. MRS. GREEN-The traffic flow out in the entrance way, we haven't had any accidents of people pulling out of our Park. There's been a couple of accidents of people trying to turn into our Park and being rear ended. So that's speed. That has nothing to do with our customers. When the road was changed back then, it was back in '95 1 think when they re-did the construction on the road, we asked for turning lanes and because we don't have 100 cars per hour the Department of Transportation would not grant us pull off lanes. No, the campers make it out and up the hill with no issues. It's them stopping, where those signals are and to turn in is when we've had a few of the accidents, rear ended. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and that seems to be when most of the accidents occur on 149, is when people are actually turning. MRS. GREEN-Turning, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the only comment I had. Anyone else? MR. FERONE-Are you going to do this all at one time, all 72 spots? MR. NACE-We were just discussing that. We'd like it all as one approval. I think that in a logical fashion because we'd have to break it up for stormwater into five acre chunks, we'd have to have no more than five acres open ground at any one time. They would probably be developed so that these first couple of rows would, in the back of the upper loop here, the middle loop, would be completed first, and then it would follow through with this single loop out to the side, and a few of the sites down here on the bottom to complete it. It's about 10, 11 acres of open ground total, or total disturbed area. So it's going to take two to three phases of construction to meet the DEC standards. MR. DEEB-Do you have an estimated completion date? MRS. GREEN-Well, as soon as we get approvals, we would love to get working on it. I mean, this has been in the works for a couple of years now. So if we get approvals, we would like to get them open by 2017, yes. MS. WHITE-You mentioned that there's a little bit more mountainous area back behind where this new portion is going to go in. Do you ever, do the people that come stay ever hike back there? Do you have any plans for any nature trails or hiking or anything like that? MRS. GREEN-At this time we don't. When we first bought the property, we had an accident on the mountain, before we even started our construction, almost ended up in a lawsuit. So we're a little hesitant to opening the mountain, and it's where all the rock ledges are. So there's a lot of rock ledges back in that area. So at this time, no, no we don't foresee any hiking. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's a good idea. MR. DEEB-Tom, can you comment on the septic capacity? MR. NACE-The soils are generally good. There are a few areas where the soils are a little tight, but not prohibitively so. By a little tight I mean that they're not particularly like our west Queensbury deep sands, but they're still good for septic. There were no areas we found, and DOH agreed with us, no areas where we could not have septic. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? If there's no other questions or comments, then a recommendation would be in order. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV # 7-2015 J.H. LAND DEVELOPMENT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes an additional 72 campsites on a 42 acre parcel. The applicant proposes to combine lots, etc. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-10-020 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan Review is required for all Special Use Permits & Campground requires a Special Use Permit and shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from the permeability requirements of the LC zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested 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. 7-2015 J. H. LAND DEVELOPMENT Introduced by Paul Schonewolf moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Good luck. MR. MAGOWAN-Good luck. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-2015 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL LIA, THE LIA AUTO GROUP AGENT(S) JOSHUA O'CONNOR, INGALLS & ASSOCIATES, LLP OWNER(S) WILLIAM LIA, SR. ZONING Cl LOCATION 373 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 17, 785 SQ. FT. NEW AUTO DEALERSHIP WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. SITE PLAN/FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PURSUANTTO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AUTO SALES AND SERVICE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF WETLAND AND FRESHWATER WETLAND FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 14-04, SB 2-04, SB 23-89 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 13.35 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303-16-1-1.1 SECTION 179-3- 040 JOSH O'CONNOR & MATT COUGHLIN REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to construct a 17,785 square foot new auto dealership with associated site work. This location is off of Dix Avenue and their alignment for their access is across from McDonald's, the Stewarts access. The arrangement of the site, this plan includes 425 spaces. Some of these spaces are located, have porous asphalt areas. These areas will be used for the storage of the vehicles. There's other areas on the site for sales, customer, employee vehicles. The project only requires 70 spaces for the proposed use for the building size. In the Commercial Intensive zone, in our Code we require merchandise display to be setback 25 feet. There are three areas on the site plan that meet that criteria, and he's designated those display cars. The site design also includes identified landscaping areas and non-residential criteria, this includes a parking buffer as well as a landscape buffer. The applicant has indicated that earlier, once they reviewed the Staff Notes, there's areas where there's almost 15 feet worth of landscape and parking buffer together, and there's an area that is adjacent to an existing residence building. It's a vacant building now and the applicant has indicated there will be a fence on that side of the property. The building itself is approximately 22 feet in height. The plans shown in the submission package include a floor plan typical, an elevation, and some of this information may change only because it will be designed this particular auto dealership. The signage, at this time there's no signage proposed in reference to the service area. It's primarily the identification of the auto dealership, and then the freestanding sign, a regular 45 square foot freestanding sign is proposed, and the lighting, the information about lighting and the cut sheets are provided in the site plan, and site conditions, the applicant did submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that was forwarded to the engineer for review. That information has come back. The applicant did provide information about the traffic. At a peak hour, 48 trips with 22 entering, 26 leaving, and in reference to my summary, the applicant completed the site plan application, as well as a freshwater wetlands permit and the Board may consider the request to maintain the five foot buffer on the east side, versus a 50 foot buffer. That's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Hunsinger. My name Josh O'Connor. I'm with Ingalls & Associates. Matt Coughlin here is representing the prime BBL, with the construction of the project. Good evening, Board members. I hope everyone's well tonight. Laura covered most of the key points. Essentially, as you can see we have a pretty standard automobile dealership here. The site design is driven largely by the entrance. We're proposing the entrance directly opposite from the existing entrance that provides access to the McDonalds in the small plaza there. That'll be the only entrance to and from the site. These are the truck turning moves for right and left turns out of the site. The radiuses allow for it. As was stated, the dealership is, as shown here is 17, 875 square feet of indoor space including, you know, typical automotive maintenance. It's actually going to be a little bit larger. I got word from the architect during development of the final floor plans now. It increases by about 1500 square feet. That change will happen towards the east, which is down on the plan, this way, so it's not going to impact the overall impervious on the site or change the general, the overall site layout. We have, we've gone through the stormwater and we're proposing porous asphalt for our stormwater management predominantly. The soil characteristics on the site are ideal for it. We have enough, it's largely flat so it works for it as well. We don't propose any standard structural stormwater management practices. There are no catch basins, no drains. It's all handled through, as you can see, all of the parking islands are porous while the travel ways remain capable of heavy loading or not. They're standard asphalt pavements. The stormwater management happens through the porous pavement. The porous pavement is designed to retain and treat the 10 year rainfall event. Above that, we provide relief to swales on this side of the site, this side of the site, which is eventually collected at the rear of the site, with an overflow to the back corner of the lot. Pretty straightforward. We're proposing a septic system, which is designed in accordance with DOH's standard for a commercial parcel. It's sized appropriately. We do have to provide a pump to the septic system and the syn septic system is a mound system. It's a raised bed system. The site generally is characterized by sand on this side of it. We do have rock outcrop and clay soils towards this side. It's the most logic location for a septic system. So, as I said, we're designing a standard raised bed system per State regulations, noted that that's the type of system that Dunkin Donuts has on this parcel, and that's located right in the same type of soil, same type of system. One of the features of our storm sewer, our storm sewer system, in addition is the Dunkin Donuts discharges all of their rainfall to our site. This side of the parking lot all sheets onto the site. The other side of the parking lot goes through swales around, under the driveway, and outlets just on to the existing site. We've accommodated that volume of flow in our model, and we're detaining and in air is treating that flow, which again, the outlet to the site is down here, overland. There are no water courses, ditches or streams for us to outlet to, which is, again, why we're working with infiltration systems in our grade infrastructure on the project. As Laura noted, in addition, there are more parking stalls than would be required. The LIA's are anticipating vehicle storage to the rear of 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) the site. Again, this is all to be porous, as you can see it is here is a large back of parking stalls in the rear. That's all porous as well, porous pavements. The lighting for the rear of the site, since it is just vehicle storage, is proposed at the five foot candle level instead of the more robust 20 which you would want for the front of the site. We do propose higher in the display areas, right here, but the site average is significantly less than the required maximum of 20. We're also using cut off fixtures to prevent light spillage to the adjacent parcels here and here, although it's noted that the Dunkin Donuts does not provide cut off fixtures on their light. So it, you know, it's a like use and a, in the same zone. With that said, we are providing those fixtures on the side of the site. I'd like to address the buffering. We're proposing parking lot buffering and landscaping in accordance with the zoning regulation. On this side we have a five foot wide hedgerow proposed. The same on this side and this is right on the edge of the parking lot. Along the front we're proposing what is allowed as the minimum, which is an 18 inch high landscaped berm. A three foot high hedgerow along the front of an automotive dealership prohibits sight lines which the dealership relies on for sales, and Laura mentioned we show three specific stalls, here, here and here, for vehicle, for merchandise display. We're really considering this entire strip merchandise display, which is, again, outside the 25 foot setback, but we want to make sure we can provide that display. So that's why we're proposing the lesser acceptable buffer on the front of the lot, the parking lot here. We provide the level of screening required, five foot screen between uses on this side of the site. On this side of the site it's an existing residential parcel. It's currently owned by Wells Fargo. They bought it in foreclosure. The site is zoned Commercial Intensive. It's zoned the same as our site. The current use is vacant residential. There's an issue there with, you know, when is the use discontinued. I think it's safe to say that Wells Fargo is not going to be interested in selling as a residence, given that it's zoned, and it is commercial and a desirable district. With that said, we can't tie them to anything in that regard. We're proposing an additional 15 foot buffer on the other side of our drainage swale right along. We're proposing to preserve as much of the existing green area as we can. In addition to that, in this area, a six foot board on board fence to provide an absolute screen for light spillage for vehicles as they get moved around, you know, the parking lot. That said, a lot of the buffering requirements have the intent of diminishing light spill from vehicles as they're brought in and out. If you picture an office park, five o'clock in the winter, everyone comes out at the same time, turns their cars on, backs out of their stall and light goes all over the neighbors. You don't have that kind of traffic with an auto dealership. The cars are largely parked, except for when they go out for a test drive, that sort of thing. You'll also notice that in auto dealerships, they're usually backed in to the stalls because they want to present the front of the vehicle to the perspective buyer. So all of those issues considered, it's our opinion that the buffer we're proposing in this area is more than adequate to meet the requirement of these potential neighbors at some point in the future, screening them. We are adjacent to vacant parcels here. We're adjacent, as I said, to like uses here and here. The area behind the septic field, we have significant existing vegetation. None of that will be disturbed, and we don't propose any, you know, business related activities in this area. So there shouldn't be an issue with the existing natural buffer. We would have to disturb more than we create to add a buffer in that area. The existing drainage pattern on the site, as I mentioned, goes from the southwest corner to the northeast generally overland. In its current state, we don't have any wetlands that you would characterize as marshy area. We have what Army Corps has noted as a Hub HX wetland. It's a man excavated pond. The pond was excavated, the best we can tell, when there was more agricultural activity going on on the site, and if you go back and take a look, it's actually, there's a lot of that bedrock outcrop is removed, and that pond is perched on that now. It's actually, it's perched higher than detectable groundwater all around. That indicates that there's a lens of silts and clays that are sitting on the bedrock, and this pond, there's no flow into it, in the current condition, and there's no flow out of it. It's largely panic and brown water. That said, we are proposing an impact within the 100 foot buffer, the construction of hardscaping which is the parking, and within the 50 foot buffer we are proposing grading and a portion of the parking falls in that I believe. That said, the Army Corps doesn't require a buffer. That's the Town's buffer we're proposing that impact in, and I'd like to point out that the activity that we're proposing within it is green infrastructure and stormwater management practices. We're proposing porous pavements. Any flow or water or any stormwater that would leave the site is graded generally this way here, will be intercepted by this swale and directed it into this, which is essentially an infiltration practice. We're not calling it is such for the sake of DEC as a detention pond, but those soils are highly permeable. There won't be any, on site onto that wetland. It's all going to be captured, retained and infiltrated before it gets there. There is currently, from this area of the site, no existing flow to that wetland either. So we're maintaining the existing drainage pattern on the site as far as that's concerned, and it's that, and it's in consideration of those facts that we're, to the buffer. I can't think of anything remarkable, beyond those features. We do propose the landscaping levels that's required. You can see along the edge we're providing landscaping on these pole nosed stalls, here, here, here, landscaping here, and at the proportion ratio that's required given the volume of parking lots. The project really, it's, in Commercial Intensive, an automotive dealership is by right. There's no special use required. You folks know well enough. You drive down 254, the area is characterized by automotive dealerships in the immediate vicinity. It's in kind with the type of development in the local 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) community. Laura also mentioned the impact of traffic. That's an ITE generated number for a car dealership. We anticipate, you know, maximum 48 trips per hour. We do recognize Dix Ave. in this area is heavily traveled, but that said, the volume of cars that we're proposing to contribute is a very minor increase in the high volume there, we expect at peak hour is well over 1500 to 2500 cars through there in a peak hour. We're not even proposing a percent increase in that. I don't think it would be perceptible to the citizens in the area. Aside from, again, and there are, there is congestion there at peak hours. I've been there, and I've been in it. I think I'm good there, and I'd be happy to hear any questions or comments from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-You talked about the porous pavement there and you also mentioned you have some water that comes across from the Dunkin Donuts down towards your property. So along that western side where all those parking lots, is that porous also? Is that going to be, the other side, I'm sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, these are all porous pavement. Understanding, we more than satisfy the requirements for our green infrastructure with the amount of porous pavement that we have, but for maintenance purposes, it's important when you propose this type of product, that you work with your owner. They have to understand that all of the parking stalls are porous pavement, and that drives their maintenance regiment. If we proposed, you know, I don't need these to be porous. I don't actually need these or a handful of these in the center to be. Basically the stormwater flows off the site and it's intercepted by these stalls, but for the sake of making the maintenance program work, it's important that the owner recognizes that all of the parking stalls are porous pavement. We don't want to have any confusion later on, and they say, well, in the front their not, so we can sealcoat those black. We want to make sure that they understand there's a particular owners, pardon me, operations and maintenance program for that product, which, again, one of the comments that we got in our SWPPP review from, was that we need to provide signage for the maintenance program on site, and we're working on developing those signs right now. Also, and pardon me, I didn't mention this before. I have reviewed the SWPPP comments that I got back from Chazen already. They are clerical comments. There was one, he had a comment about our depth to groundwater, which implied that there was an infeasibility with our plan for infiltration. It's actually driven by a mistake on my plan. I mislabeled depth to groundwater on one of my test pits. I designed it per my field notes, not what was labeled on the drawing, and I mislabeled it. When you consider that, the SWPPP project don't provide, pardon me, they're not critical of the engineering, largely. They're looking for more information as it pertains to cataloging rainfall amounts. They want to see the 50 year event, where we showed the 100. My understanding of the Ordinance was that it required at least the 50. We showed the 100. Sean Doty wants to see the 50 year. We can add that without an issue. Again, his other comments were pertaining to putting together the appropriate operations and ownership manual for the porous pavement, and that's really the lion's share of the work that that generates, and we're absolutely on board with making sure that the product works. MR. FERONE-So I thought I heard you say earlier you said were meeting a 10 year event. You're meeting a 50 year event? MR. O'CONNOR-We're required to demonstrate the effect of the 50 year rainfall event, per the Town of Queensbury's Ordinance. Pardon me, DEC requires that we capture the 10 year event with the porous pavement, and that's a feature of the porous pavement, and that's a feature of the porous pavement. We're actually designing for the one year event, but we provide the volume of storage for the 10 year event in the pavement itself, and pardon me, it's not in the pavement. It's in the reservoir course of gravel that's under the pavement. So you don't see water bubbling up out of it, and that's basically how you design the edge of the pavement. Without getting overly technical, basically the height of that gravel section is based upon the expected maximum depth in the 10 year rainfall event. Once it exceeds that, it leaps out the side through our gravel, through gravel on the side, and is intercepted by the ditches on the swales on the side of the site. MR. FERONE-Okay. Noteworthy, there's no discharge from this site expected during the 100 year rainfall event, and when I say no discharge, we have 0 cfs leaving the site. We're providing an overflow and essentially a flat swale to the rear of the site for extreme rainfall events, the 500 year. When that happens. MR. FERONE-So you're planning for that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it's a very, very safe design. Again, it's problematic from a development standpoint because we don't have an outlet, you know, we looked for some low spot to discharge to. Obviously, that's the issue that the folks had when they developed the Dunkin 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) Donuts. There's no drainage facility in the road and there's nowhere to discharge it. We're not going to, well, again, I don't know what their design is. I just know that there's a swale there that outlets onto our property, pardon me, onto the owner's property. So as I said, we're proposing to detain the entire 100 year rainfall event. One of the comments that Chazen had in addition was we were developing this as an infiltration practice. It is an infiltration pond. For the sake of showing it, it's not a wet pond. We don't want to have a wet pond. I prepared the model with an exfiltration rate, because it will exfiltrate through this sand. So that way it shows that within the span of three days during a 100 year rainfall event there will be no standing water there, but it's not designed as an infiltration basin. It's making note of the existing soil condition and using it as our eventual relief to any standing water in the lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-On the Dix Ave. side, if all those parking spots or display spots, whatever you want to call them, if they all had cars in them, what would be the clearance between, come in the driveway and turn right, what would be the clearance between the two rows? Right there. MR. O'CONNOR-Right there? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-That's a standard 24 foot aisle between, you know, and actually it's 30 feet minimum for our truck travel ways. I did provide a turning movement plan to the Town. I don't have it here. We anticipate trash pickup, through this area. We provide the minimum 30 feet through here. Basically the trucks who pull in nose in and back to the dumpster or they would pull in, nose in to the dumpster, back up this way and pull back out. Truck traffic, for delivery as you know we have a car carrier. They would pull in, stage in this area, off load the cars and then pull around. Again, this is all 30 feet minimum through this area. They can pull around and leave the site through this same entrance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I take it there's no hydrant on the site, you're using the one across the street? MR. O'CONNOR-There is a hydrant here indeed. We will be providing standpipes on the building as required by the Fire Code. I believe, I have the preliminary architecturals. As I said, it's not something I can present yet. We're proposing standpiping in the front and near the rear. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just some place that you've got access, that's all. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and that will be coordinated with the Fire Marshal and we have those plans to confer with them about. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Of course when you lay the hose across Dix Avenue, they'll screw up everything for you. MR. O'CONNOR-The building would be sprinkled as well, pardon me. MR. FERONE-I'm sorry. You mentioned traffic earlier. You talked about how you talked about how you've been on Dix Avenue. Is there any concern on your part or the engineer's that traffic will back up sometimes all the way to that area? Is that going to create some difficulty for folks trying to get off the property? MR. O'CONNOR-1 would expect that during those peak hours that that could be the case. We don't have, you know, there is a light here, you know, in that proximity to a light. There is, I suppose, potential to adjust timing on that light, but given that there are existing traffic problems there, it's probably something I would expect that the County has looked at, and that light is probably timed as well as it can be. Relief from that congestion is really going to come from doing some work on this intersections. MR. FERONE-Are there advantages to your lining up your driveway right across from the one for the, you know, the McDonald's across, or is it possibly to move it down further? MR. O'CONNOR-We could. What we find in that, you know, there is potential in the future for signalization, and if we stagger those entrances, that largely makes that impossible. We don't think there's a warrant for signalization there that close to the existing light, but if in the future that's something that's determined is going to help the flow of traffic through that area, it would make it impractical. That said, you know, from a traffic calming perspective, staggering entrances like that can actually be beneficial. It slows down heavy traffic when it's moving fast. That's not the problem that we have here. You want the most efficient movement to and fro. Without a center lane, you know, if someone wanted to go from the McDonald's to this site, 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) they're left pulling out a right and then trying to get through traffic to immediately make a left, and they've impeded traffic two times to make that one move, where directly across, when they find their opening, the light would be red up here. They go through once and they impede traffic one time to make their move. Generally speaking, it's more desirable from a traffic standpoint to have your entrances aligned. MR. MAGOWAN-Also the way I look at that is both cars would be coming up, looking at each other to make your turns, and if you're staggered, you're not going to be seeing that other car that's going to be coming out. So, you know, I look at also safer seeing the car across from you making a turn, too, so, you know. MR. O'CONNOR-And that's the general rule. You want to have as few potential areas of conflict as possible on the road, especially in a congested area. The more aggravation that, you know, the more aggravation that you'll have, and, you know, I think you see that in the way that this was planned in that this site uses the same entrance as the McDonald's, and for the same reason. If they had a separate entrance you would have two potential incidents every time a car comes through there, they have to stop for both accesses. MR. HUNSINGER-Were you on Staff when we did the Dunkin Donuts? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We had a very lengthy discussion when Dunkin Donuts sited, because this whole property was for sale, and it was the same owner at the time. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and they subdivided. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we had a lot, a very lengthy discussion about traffic on the entire parcel, and we talked about some sort of a master traffic plan, and we finally acquiesced and said, well, the assumption will be that when the site next door is developed, they'll probably use the same entrance. Am I the only one that remembered that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, but that's my only concern is that, you know, your entrance is close to theirs, and the conflicts that that may create. MR. O'CONNOR-You know, I could see the provision of, you know, a cross easement allowing Dunkin Donuts access through this site. I can see there's potential for that. Obviously we have no mechanism for compelling that in any realistic way. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-But there are, you know, we're zoned by right, and they're considered like uses as far as the Ordinance is concerned, but from a practical standpoint, a drive thru coffee shop is not a like us, car dealership. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-The car dealership has a lot of valuable merchandise on the ground, and I think they would largely resist having incidental traffic coming through their parking lot. It's a lot of potential for accidents and damage, especially, you know, when people are test driving cars, they're in cars they're not sure how to drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Conversely, though, I mean, one of the things that would be to your benefit, though, is when people have their cars there being serviced, it would be nice if they could have a safe place to walk, next door to Dunkin Donuts. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They could do that now. They've just got to move quite quickly when they go across the street. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they will. They'll have to get the employees out of the way first. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So at this time I guess we're, I guess I can address the signage to an extent, just so the Board's aware. We have not finalized the signage package yet with the architect. I 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) obviously don't handle the detailing of those types of signs. Matt, can you show us the site rendering? They've gotten this far with it. We are proposing signage that is in compliance. So we're not required a variance for it at this time. The LIA's are in negotiations with Nissan's national branch and basically they make find themselves compelled with a necessity to go for a sign variance in the future. I don't know how that's going to work out. Obviously I could never promise them that they could get it. What I'm working toward with the LIA's is getting them site plan approval, and doing that requires that we're proposing signage that works for them, that meets the Town's requirements. So that's where we're at right now, but they may, at some point, after we have approval, maybe in six months, I don't know, they might go for a variance at that point, but that would just be a referral to the ZBA, and your standard sign variance application. We don't show any landscaping on this rendering, and this is from the entrance. Obviously that sign looks significantly larger than it really is, given it's right there in front of your face, but it was to show the package that we're proposing. We've grouped them all together. This is on a, it's a sign clip system, basically, on this portion of the fagade. They can move them around. So if at some point in the future they get a variance, all they would do is move this badge here, slide the Nissan down to here, and leave the LIA symbol where it is. They wouldn't actually change the signs. They'd just move them around on the fagade. We're grouping them in an area that is, I believe, 135 square feet. The maximum allowed is 150 square feet for your signage on the face of the building. That 150 square feet is driven, in part, by your setback distance as well. We're 250 some odd feet from the road there. I'd have to double check that number, I have it in front of me. Regardless, we're far enough back from the road that it increases the signage square footage. We're under that maximum of what we're proposing. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that a fair depiction of the elevation? MR. O'CONNOR-That is Nissan's national branded standard at this time. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-This is actually a size that I'm, this is the floor plan that I need to revise my site plan to. Basically I found out that they changed the floor plan the day before we submitted our site plan application, but fortunately we have a way to make it work that doesn't actually impact our drainage. It doesn't impact the site grading. We just kind of expand the building to one side. MR. DEEB-How many service bays are there? MR. O'CONNOR-There are six in the rear, and there's a vehicle prep service bay. I'm sorry, Matt, could you show us the site plan again. I'll give them a little bit of a tour of the building. We don't show the floor plan. Again, we're doing site plan, not building permit. We have a quick maintenance, basically for tire work. We don't fix them. If, under warranty, they can get someone to fix their Iightbulbs for them or what have you, you know, it's that type of drive thru. I believe they'll do limited scheduled maintenance, oil changes. They have six bays in the rear, and in the front of this location here, these are vehicle prep and delivery bays. So basically, pardon me, they'll do vehicle prep here. They'll actually deliver them here. So they back them in, and then they give you your keys and then they take a picture of your car and then you leave right out here. So this is a man door. The rear door here is for the service bay and so is the rear door here. So there are only two entrances to the actual service facility, well, it's an entrance and exit from the service facility, and this would be the small parts delivery door. The parts department is in the rear, is in this part of the facility. So parts trucks would be able to pull in, into this area, off load and delivery parts directly to the service department. MR. FERONE-Are they going to do any kind of vehicle washing where that's going to be drained into the septic system? MR. O'CONNOR-No. We can't do that. It's prohibited on a, the Department of Health and DEC won't allow us to do vehicle washing unless we have a 100% reclamation of wash water, and it doesn't really exist. They're going to have to have a way to wash their vehicles off site. They may be able to do a rinse if they have a dusty car, you know, we can put water on a car, but they can't use, you know, we don't have a vehicle wash bay. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Essentially DEC and DOH won't allow you to discharge that water, even if it's claimed and treated, subsurface, and as I told you, we have no outlet. So the only thing we could do is discharge that reclaimed water to our septic field, and DEC and DOH won't allow us to do that. So even if, as I said, we had that, that high tech reclamation system, there still is wastewater and we can't discharge that, but they'll have a contract with Hoffman's or something and, you know, the major washes, when they do happen, which are infrequent, the cars show up 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) clean, you know, and, you know, in the winter I suspect they'll have to do some more heavy duty washing because of salt wash from the road, but aside from that, they really don't do that much. They're not going to prep used cars and sell used cars. If they go to auction they go through their central clearing before they get on this site. So that type of intensive washing doesn't really happen in this kind of car dealership. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments? MR. TRAVER-So summarizing the engineering comments, you're not seeing anything that you're finding that is problematic? MR. O'CONNOR-The comments that are potentially problematic, as I said, are related to what Mr. Doty noted as the depth to groundwater. In my reporting my depth to groundwater, well, it's at 315 feet, and that's your base elevation, but on the utility plan, my table was mispopulated and it showed it as 317 feet, and unfortunately I didn't have enough clarification in my actual engineer's report to point him in the right direction. He looked at my utility plan and saw that. I spoke with him and pointed out what it is, and if it was at 317 feet, we'd have some major re- design we're doing, but, no, we're good where we are. The base of the infiltration practice right here is what's at question. This is a small little infiltration pond. You see that? That is to detain the flow from, detain and treat the flow from the roof. All of the site flow goes through the porous asphalt, but the roof is going through a centralized collection system, Ieadered and outletted to the swale, and that little infiltration practice is what calls into question our depth to groundwater. It has to be three feet from the bottom of that swale. Now that said, if that was an issue, we would simply outlet all of our roof drainage to grade and pick it up on our porous pavement, and the issue would go away. It's just less desirable in the winter months to have water flowing across your, you know, melt water flowing off your roof across your parking lot. It's just practically not ideal. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? I don't see any takers. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There was no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received, and is the Board comfortable moving forward? I wasn't sure if we should close the public hearing or not. So I'm asking. MR. TRAVER-Well, there are some revisions needed to the site plan, but they're, as the applicant pointed out, largely clarified, so they could be submitted with the final plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So I guess I'm okay moving forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MRS. MOORE-The one clarification. Right now the proposal has 17,785, and you mentioned it was a little larger than that? Could we just confirm what size it will be? MR. O'CONNOR-1 will have to get that number. It's not significantly larger. Basically what I found out is there's a three foot wide tire, interior tire display area that goes right here, that I don't have accommodation for. So adding that three feet in there pushes the building three feet to the east, but the actual final square footage of the footprint I really don't know right now. I don't know, Matt, did they give you that number yet? MR. COUGHLIN-We're working through it right now. What happened was Nissan changed their design standards, halfway through. We had the building design, that's the footprint you have. Then Nissan went and changed their design standards and we'd pick up little things and that's what, we had to bump it out a little bit, but we should have it. MR. TRAVER-So it's going to be three feet wider along this? MR. COUGHLIN-Very minimal change. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-It may be more. I don't want to hold you to that, please don't hold me to that. I can't really speak for, I can't speak for the architect. I haven't seen the plan. My understanding is that it accommodates that, but I don't know what the dimensions of this actual node for the maintenance area are going to be, but that said, we won't be changing the limit of disturbance, and we won't be changing the actual footprint. Any increase in building size is going to be met with a decrease of this nonporous asphalt. So the permeability number for the site is not going up. So if the building moves this way, you know, and it's 1,000 square feet of more building, it's 1,000 square feet less of nonporous pavement. So the permeability number doesn't change. MR. MAGOWAN-Right now you're 96 foot 2 from the back corner to the property line there, Wells Fargo, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So that would just drop down say three feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Three to six I'm saying. It's going to be in that range. Again, without having the footprint, it's hard for me to say, and I don't want to tie us to a number that I can't deliver. I'm not the architect on this one. So it's in that range, but the program that the LIA's have developed with Nissan doesn't change. Their interior program hasn't changed. So the number of sales desks, the square footage of showroom space, the number of, you know, the big items, the service area, the stockroom, none of those things have changed. It's really just that reconfiguration, but again, I really can't say what that impact is going to be precisely. MR. HUNSINGER-The difficulty that we have is in both resolutions that were prepared is we have the square footage of the building. MR. O'CONNOR-Understood. Understood. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we knew, I mean. MR. O'CONNOR-What is was then we could modify the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, we could say approximately, and if it was off by a couple of hundred feet I don't think it would matter, but to be off by 1200 feet. MRS. MOORE-Right. So is it no larger than 18,000 square foot and it's the same building footprint outline? I think that's. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-1 mean, right now you're at 17,785. So if you said no larger than 18,000, 1 think it sounds like that would be a better number. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he said before it might be as much as 1500. MR. DEEB-That's like 300 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, put it this way, if it exceeds it, we'd have to come back regardless. MR. TRAVER-Do you know when you're going to have that number? MR. O'CONNOR-1 could probably have it day after tomorrow. MR. MAGOWAN-You can't text someone right now? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, they're in Atlanta. That's the coordination issue. The architect is a national architect that does these projects. So coordination being what it is. MR. FERONE-Come back next week? I think that would be the best bet, because then you'll have your figure and everything else has been discussed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have a very light agenda next Tuesday night. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so if you just come back maybe with at least one copy of your revised plan and let us know that final number. Maybe some of those engineering comments can be addressed. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-1 suspect I can take care of most of these issues. MS. WHITE-Can we do that, though? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and if you left your public hearing open, I would suggest that, I apologize, I don't know whether you closed the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-1 didn't close it yet, we were working through all this first, yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Good. So we'll leave that open. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you don't want any resolution tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we'd want a tabling resolution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-To 2/24. MR. TRAVER-So then a week from tonight you would come back and we'd be, you know, assuming your numbers are what you expect, it should be quite a quick process. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be nice to see the elevation, too. MR. O'CONNOR-The architectural elevation? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, at least the front elevation, you know, as part of your submission. MR. O'CONNOR-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Because, you know, typically we specify colors and design and if you have that on an elevation drawing, that would be great. MR. O'CONNOR-What's shown are what Nissan's national standard is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's not to say that the LIA's wouldn't be amenable to a discussion. That would trigger a, it would trigger a significant phase of negotiation with their national office to get this done. We could work through it obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I can just ask the question of the Board now. I mean, we did see an elevation, the sample elevation. MR. TRAVER-Everything except the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, did you see anything in there that was not acceptable? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think what you showed us is fine. We just want to have that on the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-So that, you know, all of a sudden you build the building and, you know, you make it chartreuse, and the Town can say, wait a minute, wait a minute, this is white and ivory or whatever those color names are, and, you know, like I said, I think what you've presented looks fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, and we do have the national standard package as it applies to their color selections, their palettes and their treatments. We can provide that now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Whether or not the architect has worked through the building elevation, I guess they have because they provided it with the sketch model that it was based on the elevation. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-He might be in the same boat that you are in terms of the square footage, and so on, too. MR. O'CONNOR-They should be done. They should be. Again, and an issue we didn't address in our conversation is the anticipated schedule. When I initiated the project with the LIA's, they were like, you know, sometime next year. They are now pushing to start construction as soon as they possibly can. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-They have a contractual obligation to Nissan's national to have construction completed within the year of their securing their site plan approval. So they are, they want to build this summer. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I'm not surprised. Yes. I mean, even just submitting that is the, you know, what the colors, with the colors. MR. O'CONNOR-The color values, the whole thing. It's more precise than a sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So even an elevation, but, yes, we can provide that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else that we would want to see? MR. DEEB-I'm just curious about the signage. You mentioned that you might have to go, you might go for a variance later on. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. DEEB-And you're leaving that up in the air at that, which has nothing to do with us. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. DEEB-But if there's a chance that you might not get your variance, what will Nissan do with the different? MR. O'CONNOR-Nissan's instructions to us, and their guy, Michael Keller, his instruction to us was Nissan's intention or Nissan's desire is to match their signage program as closely as they can given local zoning regulations. They negotiate this with the owners and they negotiated with the Town through us, the national office does, through us. If this is what we can get them, this is what they go with. If, in the future, the LIA's, national compels LIA's to spend the money, from an engineering perspective, to go for a variance, and they feel that they have to do it, they'll do it at that point, but, you know, again, that's a maybe. It's a maybe they do it and it's obviously a maybe that they get granted the variance. So our proposal is endorsed by the national office. It meets their minimum requirements for their branding standard, and it meets the Town's requirement. So, from a site plan perspective, that's what we've got to do to get it done. We don't want to go, we don't want to add another month to two months to project approval by building the variance application, variance process into the middle of our site plan approval. We don't want to go back and forth on it. We would rather streamline it, get done with our site plan approval, start construction, and if national really screams about it, we can come back and address it later, but I don't think it's, it's not something that will necessarily even happen. MR. DEEB-Well, we're out of the picture, so it wouldn't make any difference, but it's just something to be brought up between Nissan and LIA. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Mark my words, Nissan will sign off on everything we do. There's nothing that's going to get built that doesn't get their stamp of approval. MR. DEEB-I was just curious. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-So would someone like to make a tabling motion? And this is so that we can have a revised square footage of the building and elevation. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 11-2015 FWW 1-2015 MICHAEL LIA, LIA AUTO GROUP 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) THE PLANNING BOARD TABLES SITE PLAN 11-2015 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2015 FOR MICHAEL LIA, THE LIA AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: So we can have a revised square footage of the building and elevation. Tabled until the February 24, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 17th day of February 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. We'll see you next week. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you for the wonderful presentation, too. I don't think you left one permeable stone unscathed. MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show the public hearing was held open. Before we consider an adjournment, we do have two new items for consideration. The first one is a letter from Borgos & Delsignore, P.C., and Tom Center is here. Just Beverages will be coming to the Town for site plan review, and based on the public interest, they have suggested that perhaps we set a special meeting. I don't know if I could add more than that. Laura, if you have anything else to add. MRS. MOORE-The applicant is going to ask for a special meeting hopefully to hold that public hearing because of the level of interest. The first two weeks in March is a possibility. If the Board works with the applicant suggesting that we look at those dates, I will come back next Tuesday with some dates for those first two weeks of March. What's happening at the Town Board level is that they're looking at amending the zoning code and including the word extraction. I can't. MR. CENTER-Water extraction. MRS. MOORE-Water extraction. MR. CENTER-As an allowable use. MRS. MOORE-Right. So when that occurs, it'll actually move the clock a little bit for SEQRA. So if the Board, if the Town Board moves forward in that respect about changing that Ordinance, the Planning Board may get a request to be Lead Agency for that, and that Town Board's going to consent for that, and then we would be starting the time clock for this project with a special meeting as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we wait to see what action the Town Board takes before setting a special meeting date? MRS. MOORE-There's been discussion, it's already, they're in the process of going, of amending that language in the Ordinance. So they're moving forward. MR. CENTER-They've drafted something in regards to that. They've actually gone a little bit further. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So when do you want the meeting? MRS. MOORE-Right now it's before you to determine if you look, entertain holding a special meeting, and then I can go as Staff, or staff in the office can look at the dates in March. MR. HUNSINGER-So have they submitted the application? MR. CENTER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-The application has been submitted, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MRS. MOORE-So you will actually get, if that's the case, if you move forward with a special meeting, the information can be distributed prior to next Tuesday. So you'll get it by, you know, this week. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to do, have a special meeting in March, it wouldn't be out of sequence or out of order or anything? That was really the reason for the question. MR. CENTER-No, we submitted February 6t", I think it was, the Friday before the last Town Board meeting. We submitted a complete application after meeting with Mr. Brown and Laura, and actually you're going to see it come up as the owner is the City of Glens Falls. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-And Just Beverages, Borgos & Delsignore and Nace Engineering are acting as agents for the City of Glens Falls for this project. MR. HUNSINGER-What else do we have? I haven't seen any draft agendas yet for March. MRS. MOORE-It will be a full agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's not like February then? MRS. MOORE-No. It will not like February. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've got something we tabled into March. What was it? That gravel thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Fort Miller. MR. CENTER-We also had almost 80 people in this room for our public meeting when we met with them. So having a special meeting, we do know that there's some neighbors that want to speak in the public hearing. We did entertain quite a few of them that evening, and there are some folks, it would be fair to everybody and other people on an agenda having it one meeting just for this project with the level of interest. It would probably be fair to all and be able to work through. MS. WHITE-So that will be three meetings in March. MRS. MOORE-Most likely, yes. MS. WHITE-Just so I understand. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any objections from the Board? It seems like reasonable request. MR. TRAVER-No, I think it makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-We don't need a motion. Laura's going to look up the available dates, and we'll make the motion next week. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do we need a motion to put these poles in? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we're going to talk about that next. Yes. MR. CENTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes. So the other new item this evening is the memo from National Grid regarding the replacement of utility poles. I've got to say I don't know if I've ever had that come to the Planning Board. MRS. MOORE-I'm sure things have occurred, but in this case, the APA is saying you have an approved local land use plan, and the APA, under their review criteria, they feel that they need to hear your comments. That may have not occurred, but with other staff of the APA. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-So can we tell the APA and National Grid that we want to see the utility lines underground? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that would be good. It's solid rock. MRS. MOORE-So you can, I gave you the information. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think some of this is in the Town of Bolton anyhow. MRS. MOORE-So at next week's meeting you can provide comment back. I will have some suggested additional information for you if you need it at that time. I wanted to make sure you had it so that you could make comment, review it and make comment at the next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else that needs to come before the Board this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. I make a motion that we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I'll see everyone next week. MRS. MOORE-Yes. On motion meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 22