Loading...
05-21-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 75-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48, 49 Subdivision No. 6-2015 Maurice Combs 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Site Plan No. 15-2015 Action Sign Co. for Dollar General 7. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-57 Site Plan No. 27-2015 David Dawkins & Alyssa-Barber Dawkins 8. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-67 Subdivision No. 5-2015 Lynne Fish & Wendy Schmidt 10. PRELIM & FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 279.17-1-1, 7 Site Plan No. 31-2015 Thomas Kubricky 11. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-24 Site Plan No. 29-2015 Garvey KIA 13. Tax Map No. 303.6-1-4 Special Use Permit No. 32-2015 Thomas Jones & Brendon Rozell 17. D/B/A Devocean Water Sports Tax Map No. 252.-1-65 DISCUSSION ITEM Russ Faden 23. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 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 05/21/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD GEORGE FERONE JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-So I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. Do the applicants know where we stand this evening, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they do. MR. HUNSINGER-They were all informed during the course of the day? So apparently the proper notices were never sent out for tonight's meeting, and the scheduled public hearings. So there's only two, really two projects, only one project, really, that we'll be taking any action on this evening. All the rest will be tabled. All the public hearings will be opened and public comments received, and we will review the projects. We just won't be able to act on them. Having said that, our first item is an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 75-2014 MC DONALD'S: FOR FURTHER TABLING MR. HUNSINGER-And that is up for further tabling. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do we have a date? MR. HUNSINGER-July 28th, Laura? MRS. MOORE-July 28tH RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 75-2014 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC The Planning Board tabled this application to May 21, 2015 pending a Zoning Board of Appeals decision on May 20, 2015; No new information has been received for the Zoning Board or Planning Board meeting; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2014 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the July 28, 2015 Planning Board meeting, pending receipt of information by June 15, 2015 deadline. The board may consider a Denial without Prejudice in July if no information is received by the June 15th deadline. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE TYPE I - COORDINATED REVIEW MAURICE COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.24 ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.01 TO 1.45 ACRES. SUBDIVISION: 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 LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, MAY CONDUCT SEAR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2015; WATER DIST. EXT. LOT SIZE 9.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM HUTCHINS & DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel into seven lots. They range in size from 1.01 to 1.45 and the Planning Board may consider conducting SEAR and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and this was tabled at the previous meeting at the request of the applicant to provide test pit information to test the area where the development will occur, and that has been done and that was actually witnessed by Chazen and the information was completed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, I'm Dennis Phillips, representing Mr. Combs, and with me, as you I'm sure know, is Tom Hutchins, also representing Morris Combs, and I think we are here tonight to answer any questions that you may have. I think that we all understood the last time we were here that we needed to do some soils work, some deep pit test holes. That's been done, and maybe Tom could talk about that very briefly. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. Yes, we did, on April 28th we did the excavations. There were several, seven holes in total, most 10 to 11 feet in depth. I did have the rep from Chazen come and observe. We found no evidence, we found no water and no evidence of seasonal high water in any of the holes. So with that information, and there is a letter in your package from Sean outlining our findings looking in each hole. The yellow dots on this map are where we did the holes. We got a representative area along the road, along the north line and back on the east. I think we covered the area reasonably well, and with that, I think I'd turn it over to the Board. That was our mission when we left last month, and I can turn it over for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Those test pits answered the questions that I had about water levels and so forth. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the interesting thing about your test pits is, with the exception of hitting some roots, they were pretty consistent. MR. HUTCHINS-They're consistent. They're well drained sands. They're finer on the top and they get courser as sometimes we go down lower. I tend to log roots in a wooded area and sand, because roots are a very good indicator of a shallow water table because. MR. FORD-Roots go to water. MR. HUTCHINS-Roots go to water, but roots don't like to be saturated. So if you've got an area that's saturated for a great period of time, a lot of times you'll see the roots reasonably consistently not go below two feet or something, and that's a great indicator of seasonal high water because they won't grow into it if it's saturated. So I log roots if there's good root penetration, but if you've got roots to eight or nine feet, you know it's pretty dry. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Other comments, concerns from the Board? If there's no other questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? We do have one commenter, if you could give up the table, please. I know you know the routine, but I'll spell it out anyway. The purpose of a public hearing is to provide comments to the Board. I would ask anyone that wishes to speak to identify themselves for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is available on the Town's website, and the tape is also used to transcribe the minutes. Good evening. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-Good evening. My name is Richard Jones. I'm one of the adjoining property owners to the development. We're actually I think behind Lot 6 and 7, which are proposed at the far end of the property away from Corinth Road. We are glad that they did the test pits. The water table in our area, which is adjacent to that site, is somewhere about seven and a half feet, and if you look at the test holes, the root structures are about seven and a half to eight feet. So I agree with him that it is indicative of the root level with water table. They noted that there was mottling not found in only one hole. They didn't say anything about it in the other six. So I found that curious. With regard to the development, the people in Bedford Close are not really opposed to the development of the property. They're basically opposed to the development of the property as proposed, and it's our feeling that a two acre parcel is what it is zoned at and that's what it should be subdivided at. The fact that adjoining developments are less than two acres is not a valid reason to approve a variance for this parcel and its development. Basically when you look at it your density is almost 100% more than what's allowed, and with that in mind, I believe that the Town, whether it be the Planning Board or the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board provides variances and approves them and the Planning Board approves a subdivision, you're setting a dangerous precedent in the Town, basically that the two acre parcels were set up for a reason, and now you're allowing people, because adjoining parcels are smaller sized lots, to get a variance, and then subsequently at site plan approval for the subdivision, and this is not a big subdivision, but you multiply it by 10 or 15 times, and the density in the Town of Queensbury increases greatly. The rationale for the original two acre parcels, the ones for conservation of green space, protection of natural resources, protection of our aquifers, now by them almost basically duplicating or doubling the size of the development, they're impacting the soil conditions because of septic. There is no municipal sewer. They're bringing water in, which is fine, but they have major impacts on green space and water table, aquifer, that type of thing, because of sewer. Those are the major reasons that we're opposed to the project. As I said, if they're going to develop it and meet the zoning, that's fine, but right now they aren't doing that and we are opposed to that. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments. Laura? MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If the applicant would like to come back to the table. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. I don't know if you had any comments. We did talk a little bit, the last time you were here, about the lot sizes and the variance request, but I don't know if you have any comments regarding that. MR. PHILLIPS-The only comment that I would have is that, in looking at the Bedford Close lots that back up to this property, that the Lot Number One, which is at 1.45 acres, adjoins a property in Bedford Close that is at 1.53 acres. So with a little bit of difference, they're all both the same size. The next lot, Lot Number Three, which also backs up to the Bedford Close properties, is 1.1 acres, compared to two lots in Bedford Close that are at .69 acres. So one lot is bigger than both of those lots. The next lot, Lot Four, backs up against the Bedford Close property that's .69 acres. Lot 4 is 1.14 acres. So it's bigger than that lot, and then the next lot is 1.04, Number Five, versus a lot on the corner in Bedford Close at 1.16. Those are basically both like the lots when you do some rounding, and then Lot Six and Seven, which back up to the other Bedford Close lots, are both larger than any of the lots that those lots back up to. So in terms of lot size, I think overall the lot sizes are bigger than the lot sizes in Bedford Close. I think the anomaly here is that if we had both sewer and water, the lot size requirement in the zone would be one acre lots. We don't have both. We will have one, and so I think that's a factor that kind of rounds the edges off a little bit in terms of the extent to which we're looking for a variance, and of course the reason we don't have sewer is that there are not sewers out there, but as far as being able to develop this property, by putting a road into it, I know this is a Zoning Board issue, in terms of reasonable rate of return, you know, we're looking to basically feel that we're compatible with the neighborhood and probably it's not a one to one compatibility. It's greater than a one to one compatibility in terms of the sizes of these lots. So I'd just make that observation on the lot sizes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-I think Mr. Jones has a good point, as far as zoning goes in the Town, and I think there's going to have to come to a point someday where the Town Board is just going to have to address this instead of coming to us all the time and the Zoning Board, and, I mean, how many times they can keep doing this and doing this, and I think that that issue is going to have to be 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) addressed at some point, and that's where I stand as far as that goes, but I know we have to have some considerations taken into account. I know compatibility is another factor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, we are being charged this evening with making a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Even though this is a Zoning Board issue, you know, it is our obligation to provide comments. So that's why I raised the question. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, why did we change them to two acre lots? I mean, what was the purpose behind that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what was laid out in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. So, you know, there was a reason why we laid it out that way, and now, you know, trying to crunch everything down to get the max amount of lots into, you know, a parcel of land to, you know, by the time you put the road structure and the water and everything in there, I mean, and sell off the lots, I mean, are they close to $400,000, say, you know, so you've got to divide that by the lot. So 1, you know, so they try to crunch it down, but we have a Comprehensive Plan that we try to go with two acres and now, you know, they come in with smaller and we keep, you know, they ask for variances. So, I mean, I can see a, you know, one parcel where they're trying to maybe squeak in a house, but, you know, I'm kind of back and forth of what to do. I like the layout, but I also have to respect, you know, I know Lots Six and Seven I know that's the newer side of Bedford Close where the lots are bigger. Is there a possibility of, you know, maybe crunching down, getting rid of seven and making six, you know, dropping off one and kind of adjusting the lines to get a little bit more? I mean, it's a give and take. I don't know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think it makes any difference. They've got it laid out the way it is. It's an attractive layout. We'll see what the Zoning Board does, but I don't have a problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 can sure see it both ways. It's a tough balancing act, and there's a reason for that in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. You certainly were a part of that, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-We can throw it to the Zoning Board. I mean, the ultimate decision is going to be theirs, not ours. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So a question that I would have of Staff, if we were to move forward with the SEAR review, the SEAR review is going to be based on seven lots. It's kind of hard to then come back and say, well, seven lots is too many. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-To argue if there's an environmental impact. It's really more of a policy, I think. MRS. MOORE-Right, is there a significantly adverse, is it significant. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, it's not going to be. Any impact is going to be small to moderate MRS. MOORE-1 guess that's what your purpose of SEAR is. Is it significant adverse. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right, and there's really not going to be any difference between say six lots or seven lots, going through the SEAR Long Form. Because the thresholds are so large. We were talking about this with a recent project with traffic impact, and, you know, the traffic impacts are, you know, does the traffic exceed the capacity of the road. Well, no, not even close, but the increase is still more than what's out there. The thresholds are just too large that the difference between one or two lots isn't going to change the SEAR, at least in my opinion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. FORD-Good point. MR. HUNSINGER-But I also don't want to create the perception that we're presupposing what the Zoning Board is going to do. That's the risk we run. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we send it over to the Zoning Board tonight with a Negative Dec. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MRS. MOORE-1 mean, if you're looking at that recommendation, you could give them guidance that the Board as a whole feels that there's a concern with the number of lots, but not to the point where it's reduced significantly, but maybe there's discussions with the Zoning Board that it would be reduced by one. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and, you know, even in the draft resolutions, the options, you know, the pre-drafted options, A is typically what we choose, and that is that the Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts, and that's really what we're saying by issuing the Negative Declaration for SEAR. Okay. Is the Board comfortable with going through the SEAR resolution? MR. FORD-And the key word there is significant. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I'm fine with it at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any, the applicant did submit a Long Form as is required under a subdivision plan. Are there any items that any member felt requires discussion or would have, I always forget the new terminology, small, anything greater than a small impact? MR. FORD-Small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the answers now are small or no and then moderate to large. That's why I was going to look it up, the old SEAR. Are there any items that the Board feels would have a large to moderate impact that may occur? Okay. If you would like to move the SEAR. RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE DEC SUB # 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS The applicant proposes Applicant proposes subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel into 7 lots ranging in size from 1.01 to 1.45 acres. Subdivision: 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 lot size requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency status, may conduct SEAR review 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 Type I 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; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Per the draft resolution prepared by staff: 1. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Would you indicate that Part III of the EAF is not necessary because you did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MRS. MOORE-That should be removed from the resolution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll add that, the suggestion of Staff. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Were we going to say anything about the lot sizes or? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, I think it's more of a policy, in my opinion, more of a policy discussion than it is an environmental discussion, in this instance. MR. MAGOWAN-No, for the recommendation for the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-What would you suggest? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we just have some concerns with the lot sizes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what this variance request is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what the variance request is for. MR. MAGOWAN-But we're recommending it to the Zoning Board, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the language says that we have not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current proposal. That's the standard recommendation. MR. MAGOWAN-But it says we identified the areas of concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be another option. MR. MAGOWAN-You just look at the lot sizes. I'm just really thinking more of anything, I think one through five back up to areas about the same size. Six and Seven, you know, the acreage is a little bit larger. That would be my concern. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? MR. FERONE-Aren't they going to the ZBA for the lot size variance? So I don't think there's anything we need to say further about that. MR. DEEB-If they feel there's a problem, they'll discuss it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. DEEB-So I don't know where we need to write it as a recommendation. MR. FORD-We might want to refer it to the Town Board, not the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so are most members comfortable with the typical Item A? MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I'll make a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV# 11-2015 MAURICE COMBS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel into 7 lots ranging in size from 1.01 to 1.45 acres. Subdivision: 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 lot size requirements of the MDR zone. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency status, may conduct SEAR review 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 4-21-2015 & tabled to 5-21-2015: 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 AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: The Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We have four items under Old Business Requiring Public Hearing. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED ACTION SIGN CO. FOR DOLLAR GENERAL OWNER(S) PRIMAX PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 61 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE (3) WALL SIGNS - EACH SIGN IS TO BE 28 +/- SQ. FT., AND EXTERNALLY LIT WITH GOOSE NEK LAMPS. SIGNS TO BE LOCATED ON THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 140-7 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 9-15 SP 76-14, SUP 77-14 WARREN CO. PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 0.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-57 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER 140-7 MRS. MOORE-The applicant is not present because they were made aware that there was no public notice. So they understand that they will be moved to a meeting date in June. So you can open the public hearing. I would be surprised if there's anyone in the audience, but you can proceed, and I was informed by them late this afternoon that that was going to be the case. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here to address the Board for the public hearing for Dollar General for Action Sign Company? Okay. We will open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-There was a sheet going around with meeting dates, do you have it? MRS. MOORE-I do. So it would appear that Tuesday, June 2nd would be acceptable. I have Chris able to attend, Paul, Brad, David, George and Jamie. Tom, you didn't identify, you only identified the noes. So I would assume that could be a yes? MR. FORD-That could be a yes. MRS. MOORE-So it would appear that we would have a full Board on June 2nd. If that's, and we can schedule a meeting that evening. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've also got one person that isn't here. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. So I guess the first thing, before we do the tabling motion, is if anyone would like to make a motion to hold a Special Meeting on Tuesday, June 2nd RESOLUTION TO HOLD SPECIAL MEETING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2015 MOTION TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ON JUNE 2, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If anyone would like to make a motion to table Site Plan No. 15-2015 to the June 2nd meeting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 15-2015 ACTION SIGN CO. FOR DOLLAR GENERAL MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2015 ACTION SIGN CO. FOR DOLLAR GENERAL, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Tabled to the June 2nd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I should have asked the applicants that are in the audience, is there anybody that would not be available on June 2nd? On Tuesday, June 2nd? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then we can do them all at once. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, that's what I'm thinking. I mean, we're holding a Special Meeting to. TOM KUBRICKY MR. KUBRICKY-Is that just for this one, or would that be for mine, too? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would be for anyone, if you can't make it, then we wouldn't table you until then. MR. KUBRICKY-Is there any way that I could do mine tonight? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We can hear you but we can't take action, unfortunately. So you're all in the same position because the public notices didn't go out as required by Town Code. So that's really the soonest that we could get the meeting in. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID DAWKINS & ALYSSA-BARBER DAWKINS AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL-RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) JEFFREY SCHWARTZ ZONING CM LOCATION 980 STATE ROUTE 9 _APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 3,458 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A DAY SPA & TREATMENT FACILITY. SITE AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS ARE ALSO PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE OF TENANCY AND FAQADE ALTERATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 15-15, SP 1-14, SV 22-14 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2015 LOT SIZE 0.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-67 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to go through the summaries or, we could probably dispense with that. MRS. MOORE-Correct. I think the applicant can provide information from the other night meeting with the Zoning Board and you can proceed with the tabling. MR. HUNSINGER-Because the public hearing notice was published in the paper. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall, principal with Rucinski-Hall Architecture. MR. HUNSINGER-So you were here on Tuesday. MR. HALL-We were here on Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-How did you make out last night? MR. HALL-Unanimous approval at the Zoning Board last night. One thing that I have done, just for your benefit today. I went up this morning, took pictures of the existing, took a picture of the existing building from Route 9 and we superimposed the existing over it. So you can see exactly where we are with it. I thought that would give you a little bit better feel for where we are with it. MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to require that of every applicant now. MR. FORD-Keep coming back. MR. MAGOWAN-Was it Tom's idea? MR. HALL-It was, but I think this gives you a pretty fair idea of where we're headed with it, as far as taking out the glass that's across the front. It was set up as a pretty wide open strip type mall setting. MR. FORD-Much more energy efficient. MR. HALL-Yes, it's not so much of a heating issue as a cooling issue, because this thing faces due west, but it's actually changed the color of the carpet inside. The sun has bleached out the carpet inside, and so this would certainly help, and that's kind of another reason for that shade structure over that front, to kind of cut down on that glare. So really that's where we're headed. The site plan, as we said, there's not a whole lot, we showed to you the other night, but there's really not a whole lot to the site plan. One thing that I did neglect to mention to you, that the main entry right now comes in and there's a fair amount of blacktop right here in front of the building and the concrete walkway goes out and then actually juts out towards Route 9. Our proposed plan gets rid of almost all of the concrete along the front and we're replacing it with plantings, taking it right out to the building fagade, and then we cut out a big piece of the, where the parking is up in front of the building, we're getting rid of that. So parking is all either right beside the building or around back. MR. MAGOWAN-Is the grass going to look as good on your superimposed? MR. HALL-Absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-No, that really is going to dress up the whole front of the, give that building a total different look. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it does look good. Any other questions or concerns from the Board? MR. FORD-1 like it. MR. FERONE-Yes, it looks good. MR. HALL-Thank you. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-Did you put any signs in there? MR. HALL-The only sign is the one that's already there, at the E Spot. That's going to remain. The sign, they got the variance for that back in January, I believe. It was very recently they just got the variance for that, and the sign, obviously the sign board itself will change, but the sign location, everything else will stay the same. We are going to highlight and put some plantings around the base of it and dress that up. That's it as far as the signage goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we will leave the public hearing open, and I guess with that we'll, you understood it was going to be tabled, right? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to table this to June 2nd as well. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #27-2015 DAWKINS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2015 DAVID DAWKINS & ALYSSA-BARBER DAWKINS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the June 2nd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Mr. Chairman, the agenda says Site Plan 27-2015 and on the Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-That's an error. MR. DEEB-Which one's right? MRS. MOORE-The notes are in error. It is truly Site Plan 27. MR. DEEB-27, not 25. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-Okay. I just wanted clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. FORD-Good catch. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And my apologies for the delay. MR. HALL-See you in a couple of weeks. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you then. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2015 PRELIMINARY& FINAL STAGE LYNNE FISH WENDY SCHMIDT AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A; WR LOCATION SUNNYSIDE RD. NORTH, DREAM LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.65 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 4.4, 5.8 & 4.5 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-15 LOT SIZE 14.65 ACRES (12.6 & 2.05) TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-1, 7 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; LYNNE FISH, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The subdivision is 14.65 acres divided into three lots ranging from 4.5 to 5.0 and 5.2 acres. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCH INS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins with Lynne Fish. We did receive our variances last night and if you have comments and layout and what you see, we'll certainly take them into consideration, and I know we can't have a decision tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, unfortunately. Questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Okay. Written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess if there's nothing else, we'll entertain a motion. Probably just keep the same order and everything. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB #5-2015 LYNNE FISH & WENDY SCHMIDT MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2015 LYNNE FISH & WENDY SCHMIDT, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Tabled to the June 2nd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And my apologies to you as well. We'll see you in 10 days. SITE PLAN NO. 31-2015 SEAR UNLISTED THOMAS KUBRICKY AGENT(S) ERNEST STANLEY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 53 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 1,062 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACING - 600 SQ. FT. PARKING AND 402 SQ. FT. OF SIDEWALK. THE 912 SQ. FT. +/- PORTION IS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 22-15, AV 1-15, SP 53-14, AV 67-14 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-24 SECTION 179-6-050 THOMAS KUBRICKY, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-I'll just read you the description. The applicant proposes installation of parking and sidewalk areas on a 5,587 sq. ft. parcel, and the Zoning Board did grant variances last night. The application was reduced. The sidewalk's reduced to three feet in width and the Zoning Board requested that all materials be made of permeable pavement, which actually gave the applicant credit for all permeable surfaces. So they were granted relief for two percent. So they went from, they were required to have 75% permeable, and they are now at 72. MR. FORD-72 or 3? MRS. MOORE-73. MR. FORD-73. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, Tom Kubricky. If there's anything you guys would like me to do, you know, I'll do it, but I did everything they asked me to last night. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So which way are you narrowing the sidewalk? MR. KUBRICKY-I'm just going skinnier. MR. HUNSINGER-So you're bringing it in on both sides? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, on both sides, and he wants me to do the parking lot. He wants everything how he wanted it, you know, he doesn't want a hard surface. MR. DEEB-Did you say three and a half feet? MR. KUBRICKY-Three feet he wants it. MR. DEEB-Three feet. MR. KUBRICKY-He took some stuff right out, too. He only wanted me to use like 315 square feet of sidewalk. So what he did, he cut it down to his number and then he cut the parking lot down to his number as well. MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks, Tom. MR. KUBRICKY-You're welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? MR. FORD-1 like that better. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Were there written comments? There were written comments from Tuesday night. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We don't need to read them again. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So it was a comment and I did read it in at the Area Variance application, and I could read it this evening because you opened the public hearing if you wish, or do you want me to wait until June 2nd MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn't there a comment letter that you read to us Tuesday night, from the Water Keeper? That was for other applications. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry. It's up to you if you want to read it now or read it later. MRS. MOORE-I'll read it into the record now. So this applicant, on May 18t", Staff Land Use Planner, myself, Laura Moore, received a phone call in reference to the Site Plan and Area Variance for the Tom Kubricky project of parking area and sidewalk. The caller Margaret Colacino has property at 49 Rockhurst Drive and is neighbor to the proposed project. She has expressed concerns about the site stormwater management with the new impervious surface-in reference to the parking area with road flooding and the new sidewalk where the stormwater would be directed to? She also expressed concern with the amount of relief being requested that there has been continued requests for relief on this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. That was the only comment letter? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, that lady and the lady on the other side of me, they're just, they don't like me. If my car is blue they want it red, you know what I mean, everything I do they call. It's terrible. MR. HUNSINGER-So we will obviously open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Did you have anything else you wanted to add? Are you available on June 2nd as well? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If you'd like to make a motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 32-2015 THOMAS KUBRICKY MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2015 THOMAS KUBRICKY, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled to the June 2nd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in 10 days. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, thank you, guys. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 29-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE UNLISTED GARVEY KIA AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) TOWBAR, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION JUST NORTH OF GARVEY VW APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 18,000 SQ. FT. AUTO DEALERSHIP AND ASSOCIATED PARKING LOT, ACCESS ROAD AND SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW RETAIL USE (AUTO SALES) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 4-03 (LI TO HC) WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.6-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes construction of a new 18,000 square foot auto dealership and associated parking lot, access road and site work. MR. HUNSINGER-So, Mr. Garvey, you were so anxious you were here Tuesday night. MR. GARVEY-Well, actually I hadn't been here for like seven or ten years. I just thought I'd sit through part of a session. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GARVEY-It wasn't lost. MR. MAGOWAN-And then you put on your power tie tonight. MR. GARVEY-This is what I was told to wear. I'm married. I'm very good at following instructions. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Sean Garvey, applicant/owner. Garvey's been running KIA and VW dealerships out of the original VW site, and it recently purchased land to the north of them, with the intention of separating the two dealers into two separate buildings, two separate display lots, and we're here tonight to present that new KIA dealership. This will have a couple of advantages. The property will have a separate entrance so that each dealership has their own identity out on Quaker Road. Currently the VW dealership has to unload the car carriers out on the road because of the configuration of the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) existing driveway. The new dealership will have the driveway without the hump in it, so that car carriers can get completely off the road back onto the lot so that the deliveries to both dealerships can now be unloaded, in the future, be unloaded on the KIA site. MR. FORD-That's much safer. MR. DEEB-Yes, that's the biggest part that I liked. MR. NACE-Basically we're connected to municipal water and sewer with the proposed dealership. Stormwater, it's fairly tight soils so stormwater is going to be handled in on site basins, stormwater basins, two of them, one on the north side of the site and one on the southeast side of the site. Lighting, we're asking the LED lighting, modern looking. We're asking for a height variance for the poles, not a variance, a waiver, from the 20 foot. We'd like to go to 25 feet to optimize the number of poles so that the distribution of lighting is a little better. We're also asking for a waiver from the requirement that the landscaping be internal to the parking lot on the islands. This is not a normal parking lot. It's a display lot where vehicles are there 24/7. It makes it, with the islands there, it makes it much more difficult to plow snow and do the shuffling of vehicles and accommodate the islands at the same time. In addition, we are proposing that we take the landscape requirements from the internal lot landscaping and add those to the amount of landscaping we have around the perimeter. So it would increase the landscape around the perimeter where I believe it will be more effective. I don't know, Sean, if you want to add anything. MR. GARVEY-Tom said I can only use 100 words. I don't know if I can say something that small, but long story short, I'd like you to maybe consider what the Hyundai store looks like on Dix Avenue. We got a variance there for taller poles, actually taller than 25. They're 30 foot poles. The landscaping there was moved to the exterior of the property, and then the front, there's probably going to be double the amount of landscaping on this parcel than there is on the Hyundai lot. The only thing I wanted to talk a little bit about was the definition of a parking lot versus a display lot. Many times when you look at the front of a car dealership, there's lots of parking spaces, they really aren't parking spaces, per se, at least in the way I look at them. They're really display lots, and I think the whole idea of the zoning regulations in this Town is that when like a parking lot like Lowe's or Wal-Mart's empty at night, that there is something there. Instead of looking at a raw lot you have trees and pieces of greenery there. Snow's kind of a burden for car dealers. You know what it's like to brush off one or two cars in your driveway. We have hundreds and hundreds of them. It's kind of a bane, and we have to use front end loaders. It's not like a plow. We have to use heavy equipment, and I understand these islands, parking islands look very nice in the displays that are presented to you and they're green, but in reality, if you look at many of the places in Town that they've been required, for a parking area, they don't remain green many times. It ends up being just dirt or possibly mulch and things like that. So we thought it would be more aesthetically pleasing if we pushed the landscaping to the edge of the parking lots. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It would also cut your costs by about 50% in the winter. MR. GARVEY-When it comes to? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Clearing out the lot. MR. GARVEY-Well, you actually, I guess you're right. I'm not really sure. I never thought of it that way. I always thought of it was just kind of the ease of, you know, you plow between the rows and then move the cars and plow again, and when you work heavy equipment like that, sometimes you damage these islands and things such as that. So it's worked very well for us. I think you can see the way the Hyundai store looks, and that would be a good tool to measure us by. MR. MAGOWAN-Actually I think all your properties that you have look nice. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-From the collision center to the, because I remember when you used to be on Miller Hill, but the Hyundai store, you know, that looks nice, and I agree with you. I mean, I see the concept of having the islands, but I, you know, that's great for a parking lot, and like you said, when it's empty, it makes such good sense, it's peaceful, but we're not in Florida, either. So I don't have a problem with you going with the outside vegetation and the landscaping. Like I said, the Hyundai dealership looks nice. It's nice to see all those cars there. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. Honestly the trees might be back a little bit further because you don't want branches over the cars because of birds. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-1 thought maybe the spring sap. MR. GARVEY-That, too. MR. FERONE-What's the elevation going to be there? Because I know your Volkswagen dealership. MR. GARVEY-Well, Tom may be better qualified. MR. NACE-It's very similar to the existing Volkswagen site. If you're aware, as you come north from the Volkswagen site, there's a hill there. The top of that hill is going to be leveled off and moved back in to the main part of the site to provide fill. It will be approximately the same elevation as the VW. MR. DEEB-The store will be modeled after the Hyundai store, it will look similar to that? MR. GARVEY-Yes. If you turn to maybe the last page of the application, of the site application, there's a foldout like this. I think it's almost the last page, obviously car manufacturers, they want the particular look. It's going to be similar in style. Probably not as tall as the Hyundai store. MR. DEEB-It has clean cuts. MR. GARVEY-They want glass and they want their particular color scheme. MR. DEEB-And believe me, I know what you're talking about with the snow. I moved it a lot of times with the snow. MR. HUNSINGER-That was one of the questions that I had is you gave us the fagade elevation but we didn't really have other building elevations, and also color scheme, you know, is that color rendering. MR. GARVEY-Primarily it will be red or white, primarily. The sides will be very, it's going to be architectural siding on it, partially, and then behind, the service area will be plainer. MR. HUNSINGER-So this is white? MR. GARVEY-Yes, it's white, gray and red, primarily. The colors of the building are white and gray, primarily. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you needed more. We would have easily supplied that. MR. FORD-Tom, can you talk to the permeability of the surface? MR. NACE-The permeability of the whole lot? MR. FORD-The lot. MR. NACE-It's a big lot. Permeability proposed is almost 82% permeable. Impermeable is like 18%, non-permeable. MR. GARVEY-It's a 20 acre parcel. So we're disturbing a little bit over six acres, and the pavement itself is 2.5 or 3 acres. I can't remember. MR. DEEB-How many cars do you want to carry? How many KIAs, compared to what you have now? Will you carry a lot more? MR. GARVEY-Probably 30% more. I'm guessing. My partner, my brother Mark and I have always been conservative in our estimates, but the Hyundai location in 2004, when we built that, we guessed business would increase 25%. It was actually more than that. So realistically we hope. MR. DEEB-The same thing happens here. MR. GARVEY-Yes, with the new facility. The facility now that we have is old. It's been there for 30 years. Mr. Magowan exposed his age when he spoke of the Garvey on Miller Hill there. MR. DEEB-I remember that. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. GARVEY-That was really a rat infested building that, it's amazing. When it rained we actually had hundreds of gallons of water pour into the shop, and it was just a nightmare. We were there for seven or eight years then moved to this current location, and this building is getting old and tired. It's very crowded. We can't really take care of customers to our satisfaction. The waiting area is too small, and things such as that parking, it's become a nightmare. MR. FORD-When beetles cost $1795. MR. DEEB-I forgot, who did you take over the dealership from? MR. GARVEY-Bromley. Actually we didn't, Bromley had been in business, he sold Studebakers downtown, and I don't remember that, and then he obviously opened that store in the late 40's. He had it for13 years before us. Actually Ames Volkswagen was before us for years, He was a paint salesman, and we sublet it from him for a few years. Then we ended up dealing directly with Bromley. MR. DEEB-Subaru was up there, too. MR. GARVEY-Yes, it's changed a lot. When Honda was on the hill a long time ago, and Chrysler was there. We've been all over. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? The other question I had, you talked a little bit about the delivery of the Volkswagens will come into the new site. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Will they actually go up the hill to the existing building? MR. GARVEY-They'll come on to the KIA site. Probably they'll offload them there. Obviously there'll be a lot more space once KIA's out of there, the KIA customers and the KIA cars. They might be able to drive across. Coming up that hill, if you look at the hill now, you'll see some deep gouges in it, and we've actually stopped them, we've had car carriers get stuck there. Emergency vehicles, you know, if you get a car carrier stuck on the hill. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're going to have an access road between the two? MR. GARVEY-Yes, it's really for convenience for customers. I think the car carrier is probably going to remain on the KIA site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it didn't look like it was really designed for. MR. GARVEY-Well, I didn't want to make it obtuse there. MR. DEEB-So glad to get it off Quaker Road. MR. GARVEY-Yes, it is, it has always caused us concern, to be very honest. MR. FORD-Me, too. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board about this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-We'll leave the public hearing open. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Any concerns that have not been mentioned? MR. FERONE-No, it looks good. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you available to come back in June? MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #29-2015 GARVEY KIA 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2015 GARVEY KIA, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Tabled to the June 2nd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in 10 days. MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, and again, my apologies to you as well. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 32-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED THOMAS JONES & BRENDON ROZELL D/B/A DEVOCEAN WATER SPORTS OWNER(S) FRANK J. PARILLO ZONING RR-5; LC-42 LOCATION 2036 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF THE EXISTING MARINA - 4 DECK SLIPS AND 8 LAUNCH PASSES TO OPERATE A JET-SKI TOUR COMPANY. NO CHANGES TO SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDITIONAL USE TO A MARINA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PARILLO CLASS A MARINA WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER APA, NWI WETLANDS, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 24.77 ACRES (PORTION) TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-65 SECTION 179-10 THOMAS JONES & BRENDON ROZELL, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the existing marina, this is for four dock slips and eight launch passes to operate a jet-ski touring company, and no other changes to the site are proposed at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. ROZELL-Good evening. I'm Brendon Rozell. MR. JONES-Thomas Jones. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you tell us about your project? MR. JONES-Yes, of course. I do want to start by telling the Board, informing you that we are still working with Lake George Park Commission about the title that we're actually applying for there. Meanwhile, we do have to show up here and start here. So we'd leave the Board open for questions and concerns about our project. MR. ROZELL-What we're doing is we'd like to give jet-skis a better name out on the lake. It's been a bad name for quite some years now. We'd like to take and treat it in a similar way that the tour boats on Lake George treat it, a nice, you know, not going a million miles an hour, letting people go out on the jet-skis and roam free. We'd like to take them out with tour guides on jet-skis as well as in a boat and kind of lead them around the lake, show them the lake from the local's perspective. You know you can only see so much of Lake George from downtown, and you can only see so much of it from the tour boats. There's a lot of stuff on there, little nooks, and some of the islands, the monuments on the islands that are only able to be seen by the locals and it's a really interesting way. We've grown up here and it's something that we'd like to try to show people and show them a good time all at the same time. MR. JONES-We're very family oriented. That's kind of our main goal is to bring everyone that's involved with the family. We do have specific regulations in Lake George with PWC's, you know, age requirements and things like that, licensing. So therefore we do have our boat within our plan to accommodate for small children who can't be on the boat but we're not going to leave them on the dock, you know, elderly people in the family that might not be able to actually come out with them on something like that, most of them are usually the ones paying for something like that, but we'd like to offer an assistance to come along. So therefore we would have the charter vessel with us as well as if someone is cold, doesn't want to ride, things like 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) that, we have somewhere to put them, comfort them, things like that. So, you know, we've thought pretty well through this. MR. ROZELL-Actually that's a picture right there of where we would be stationed out of, off to the left there, two docks with just a small pop up tent and a table, just to have a home base for everything. It's a nice, as you can see there, there's a very nice little learning area for people that have never been on a jet-ski before or it's been a while, where we can show them crowd control, braking, turning, you know, get them comfortable before we actually get them out into the lake where there are boats cruising by at all different speeds and, you know, that's the one thing we are working with Sport line Honda to acquire our fleet of they're all brand new Sea- doos. They are all, they come with a trainer mode so that if somebody's never been on a jet-ski before, they can only do 30 miles an hour tops, and it takes quite a while for the vessel to actually get to that top speed, instead of a high performance machine that is going to throw somebody right off the back end there, you know, and all of a sudden is traveling on the lake by itself. There's an automatic kill switch. There is a lot of safety precautions that they've put into these new machines that will stop everything. MR. JONES-They guarantee safety now, basically, on all machines. They do idle at a standstill now. They don't idle in gear. There is muffler components on there that, you know, minimize all the rattle and noise and the exhaust sounds. So we've looked pretty thoroughly into these machines to make sure that they would be able to be operated on a family level, you know. So that was a lot of research done there to make sure we went for the high equipment. We did link up with some professional companies to offer helmets as well as, you know, very nice life vests to go along with it. Each life vest, too, comes with a safety whistle. So everyone has, we're geared up for safety for sure. Any questions? MR. FORD-That'll be mandated for all users? MR. JONES-Helmets, whistles, every vessel has a flag. Fire extinguishers. We do have a, throughout our boating safety courses, and we both do have our public vessel license. The public vessel is already inspected. It did pass and with that being said, we have made up a total packet that we will be going over with every guest that comes in, all together. There'll be an on land 10 to 15 minute training on safety, safety in the water, the rules of the road, and at the very end, well actually throughout the packet there is a specific section for jet-skis, and, you know, we go over top to bottom on where everything is, how it works, and then, as Brendon was saying, throughout Dunham's Bay channel into Dunham's Bay there's a very long stretch five mile an hour no wake zone, and in this time, you know, we can easily spot any issues. It's going to take us 15 to 20 minutes to get out to the, you know, out of the Bay. So like he was saying, we will have, you know maybe, depending on traffic, stop and go, you know, a practicing, turning, maneuverability, hey, how does the brake work, which I failed to mention. There is now a new brake system on the jet-skis. They never had them before. It used to be just let go of the throttle, coast. Now there is an actual brake. MR. FORD-How are you going to organize that with families and groups coming in, 15, 20 minutes, 30 minutes apart, 45 minutes apart? MR. JONES-Were going to do two tours a day. MR. FORD-Two a day? MR. ROZELL-So any of your other jet-ski rental companies on the lake, everybody offers $85 a half an hour, and you have to stay within 2500 feet of that marina to, as State law goes. So for us to be able to let them go over the entire lake, we're going to stay with them. We're going to offer a three hour tour, and that incorporates everything from learning, all the safety regulations, your training, kind of going through the Bay, making your way of getting through, acquainted with everything, and then a similar loop to the way the Saint or the Mohican travel. We've worked out all the timing. We've met with the owners of the Steamboat Company, talked to shoreline, figured out their routing, times where they're going to be at on certain parts of the lake, and we have our two tours. One would be starting at 9:30, probably they'll be on the water by about 10, and we will be missing by about 30 minutes all the big boats on the water. Where we're going to avoid an instance like what happened a few years ago. So everything that we've done to try and mitigate it. The first one would be at 9:30, and the second one would be at 1:30. You get back around 12:30, 1 o'clock from the first tour and we'll be finishing up right about 5:30, where hopefully traffic at the marinas are at a low point at that point, where most people are already out on the water, and most people are already gone by the time we get back at the end of the day. So what we're trying to work with the marina, work with Lake George as a whole. We're trying to stay out of everybody else's way is how we modeled everything. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. JONES-We know we're the new guys. We know we're, jet-skis as a whole don't have the best reputations. So we're trying to make every modification possible to work around everybody as much as possible. MR. ROZELL-We also have the channel numbers that every vessel on the big boats has. So we have communication as well as, you know, possible water signals that, you know, we're all aware of that have taken public vessels and things like that. MR. DEEB-A couple of questions. One or two people per jet-ski? MR. JONES-Two tops. MR. DEEB-Two, you will have two? MR. JONES-They are three seaters, but we will not allow that. MR. DEEB-You're going to have two seaters? And you're going to have eight, is that right? MR. ROZELL-We're applying for eight. We're going to start off with six, just to make sure that we can, it's manageable. MR. DEEB-So you'll have the most 12 people going out, plus the boat. MR. ROZELL-We'll have one tour guide on one jet-ski and five tour boats. MR. DEEB-And then how many people can a boat hold? MR. ROZELL-A boat can hold eight. MR. DEEB-Eight. MR. JONES-At least seven customers, if need be, and then your guide. MR. DEEB-Okay, and all your motivations for doing this, not one time did you say you were doing this for profit. You're doing it for all the other reasons, right? MR. JONES-For the last couple of seasons out in Colorado in the back country I've been a snowmobile guide, avalanche trained, all that kind of stuff, we really take them out to the back country, people that have never even seen snow before. So it is a very, you know, safe, family oriented. MR. DEEB-I can see you embrace this. MR. JONES-Yes, it's more of a, something we enjoy and we want to be part of the Lake George scene. MR. DEEB-All right. The other question is, so you're going to have four docks? MR. JONES-Two docks total, four slips. MR. DEEB-Four slips. All right. So you're going to have, one slip's going to have to be for the boat, and then the other two. MR. ROZELL-Two skis on each other side. MR. DEEB-Now, from what I read, and I was a little bit confused, you're going to go out from the marina, and then on your way back you're stopping at an island. MR. ROZELL-Diamond Island. MR. DEEB-Diamond Island, and were you going to boat people back in or are they going to come back in on the jet-skis? I was a little confused. MR. JONES-We were concerned on traffic volume midday, so we didn't want to bring a bunch of, you know, possible amateurs through the channel again if there's heavy traffic. We propose the idea of the use of Diamond Island to do so. As of right now, it won't, it's more of a quick stop, from what I'm understanding with New York State. So like if we want to present the monument, show them the monument, give them some history of the lake, that's fine. To actually hold them island down, you know, with six jet-skis while they tour back and forth is probably not going to end up happening. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. DEEB-I'm still confused. MR. ROZELL-We're going to bring them back. Lake George Park will not allow us to leave skis there. MR. DEEB-Are you going to transport the people from Diamond Island by boat? They're going to transport themselves? MR. JONES-That was an original thought we had, but in the past week of dealing with Lake George Park Commission we've been in contact with them. MR. DEEB-All right. So they're going to drive their own skis back? MR. JONES-They have to. MR. DEEB-All right. Because that confused me quite a bit. MR. JONES-There has been some modification to our original proposal, just because Lake George Park and us have been in pretty heavy back and forth right now, fine tuning all of the specifics, and we've just, pretty much in the past day, have finalized everything that we did to come up with a new proposal. We can have that for you on June 2nd MR. DEEB-I would like to see the new proposal. MR. JONES-We'll have it to you tomorrow morning. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You can give it to Staff. MR. JONES-Just one copy for each of them, or do we need 15? MRS. MOORE-You'll need one copy for each. I would do 10. 1 do understand there's an electronic copy of it. So I will need that so that we can put it on Laser fiche. MR. JONES-That is fine. MR. DEEB-It would have been a logistical nightmare to transfer everybody back in by boat. If you had people on the boat, you'd be making several trips. MR. ROZELL-Yes, the application's been completely changed. Sorry about that. MR. DEEB-All right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Laura, what's the time ramifications on the Special Use Permit? Is it good for a year? MRS. MOORE-The term validity is up to the Board. Currently, the way I understand the Park Commission with the current marina it's a five year. I am in communications with Joe Thouin as well. So we have talked already about the updates, amendments to the plan already. I can confirm with him how often things are renewed, and I would follow that term, suggest that same timeframe. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think that would be a good idea. MR. FORD-1 have a question. Could you tell us the significance and the meaning of your DBA name? MR. JONES-Devocean Water Sports? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. ROZELL-It's, we're devoted to showing that Lake George is fun, you know, we're, you can have fun and be safe, but it's just, it's a lifestyle that we have always done and we love the outdoors. We love the lake, you know, we're on it every weekend, and we'd like to take what we love to do and turn it into something that we can do for a living, and, you know, enjoy the water and at the same time make a little bit of money doing it. MR. JONES-In order to get anything done in life you've got to be devoted, and we did a little play on words with it is all. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. FORD-1 like to know what you're thinking is. I like to get inside your mind every once in a while. MR. JONES-We were going through names, name after name after name, and, you know what, this is the only one that we both put on the list of about 150 names that we came up with. It was the only one that matched. We both felt the same exact way. It was kind of fate. MR. DEEB-It sounds like you really thoroughly researched this and you've done a lot of investing in it. MR. JONES-We wouldn't come to you unless we had. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you own that property around that area where the boats come in? MR. JONES-No, we do not own the property. We have a contract with Dunham's Bay on the use of what's already established. Therefore, you know, we are still working with the title permit and we are trying to get out of Lake George Park. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-It's a great little venture. MR. ROZELL-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-You guys really did your homework. I was quite impressed. MR. JONES-We're actually still trying to work out a breakfast and dinner plan with one of the local businesses and restaurants. Trying to get them to advertise for us and we'll send them, so if you go with our receipt to them you get a meal, a small portion meal, obviously, and then, you know, everyone can enjoy part of the downtown Lake George area as well. I've worked there 10 plus years, right in the heart of Lake George. I managed Trustco Bank in Lake George for two years prior to dropping the tie and running out west for a little bit, but, you know, I know a lot of local owners and I have a pretty strong relationship with a lot of them. So we're hoping for good things, to get our foot in the door and be able to come back to Lake George instead of, you know, trying to find somewhere else to enjoy life. MR. HUNSINGER-1 give you credit, yes. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Have you ever thought about, you know, like some of these trips, you know, you go out to your destination, have a little lunch, you know, bring a lunch basket and eat on one of the islands. MR. ROZELL-That's another reason for the boat is we'd like to bring them, I know everybody here's probably heard of Dunham's Bay or Log Bay, that's kind of a hangout, Shelving Rock, everything like that, and, you know, one of the stops on here is Log Bay, where we'd like to have them, you know, bring them in, tie everything right up to the boat, let them get off, rest their legs a little bit. I don't know if you guys have been on jet-skis in a while, but they can really give you a full body workout. So give everybody a chance to rest up, get them some water, a little snack, and get them back on their way and show them the rest of the lake. MR. JONES-And then instead of getting into any health codes or anything like that, that is why we kind of turned over the food to the restaurants that are already established, and it's a one hand, I know Lake George, and everyone helps each other out out there. MR. DEEB-This kind of parallels the white water rafting. MR. JONES-We do have very close friends that do operate on that part of the Hudson there in Warrensburg and things like that. We're familiar with the tour guiding aspect. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the only stop I'd be concerned is the Log Bay Day. MR. ROZELL-Actually we're not operating on that day. MR. MAGOWAN-That would be my only concern. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. JONES-We're not operating at all, not on Log Bay Day. The last Monday in July we will not be open. Just because it is a liability. There's no room and I don't even want to be, there's far too much. MR. DEEB-A lot of alcohol. MR. JONES-There's too much traffic on the lake for that day. I mean, and especially in that one area where everybody's coming in and out of there, and it's a nightmare to try and bring a couple of jet-skis through there. I mean, it would be an absolute nightmare. The best part about of it, too, is the versatility that you have, the knowledge that we have of the lake. We can stay away from unexpected high volume of traffic, you know, that's why there is two guys. That's why there is a boat, and we're visible. You're going to see us. The jet-skis that we actually have purchased are bright blue. You can't miss them, right in there. They're high visibility. They stand out. They look good. It's not like we're going to be running up and down the lake with two strokes or any of that. MR. FORD-What would be your position on the consumption of alcohol? MR. ROZELL-Absolutely not. MR. JONES-We have a waiver we attach with our application. It goes through in pretty good detail about how it's not tolerated. MR. ROZELL-Any drug or alcohol use, if we suspect it, you're not allowed near the machines. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments. MR. DEEB-I commend you on your entrepreneurial ship. It's a pretty aggressive project, but I really do commend you. MR. ROZELL-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Were there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-1 didn't have any written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone want to address the Board? Okay. We will keep the public hearing open, and unless there's any other questions or comments from the Board, I'll entertain a motion to table. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SUP #32-2015 THOMAS JONES & BRENDON ROZELL MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN & SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 32-2015 THOMAS JONES & BRENDON ROZELL D/B/A DEVOCEAN WATER SPORTS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb Tabled to the June 2nd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-1 did have a question for you. Do you know when the Park Commission permit might be acted on? MR. JONES-We meet with the Park Commission for our first meeting, it's a two meeting process with the Park Commission. The first one is Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. JONES-It will work out well actually. We'll be meeting with them Tuesday morning at 10 a.m., and then their second meeting I think is June 23rd. So if we come in here in early June, get things summed up with you first, it would be great to go back to them. MRS. MOORE-And when I spoke with Joe today about their process and our process happening at the same time, we did communicate about the Park Commission would prefer that because there's local level review, that our review is done first. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ROZELL-Yes, they expressed that to us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. We'll see you in 10 days. MR. ROZELL-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Our last item on the agenda is a discussion item. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION ITEM SEAR TYPE N/A RUSS FADEN OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75, 77, 79 MAIN STREET DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY - APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY BUILDING ARRANGEMENT ON A CORNER LOT LOCATED ON MAIN STREET. WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 0.46, 0.42, 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 SECTION N/A DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Dave Carr. I'm with the LA Group, and this is Russ Faden. We appreciate you putting us on the agenda. Russ is, he owns quite a few Subways in the area, and what he is contemplating is he has an option to purchase a piece of property at the corner of Main Street and Pine Street here. The Hess station is right here, and he actually has an existing Subway to the west closer to the exit on the south side of Main Street, but if you know that area has very poor visibility. Actually you're pretty much driven by it by the time you see it it's set so far back. So what he's looking to do is to move up the road and have better visibility on Main Street. He likes the location, likes to be on Main Street, but he feels this site would fit his needs better. It's approximately a little over an acre. It's actually currently three separate parcels. There's residential structures on each parcel, on these three parcels, and as I said, it's just over one acre and it sits in the Main Street zone, and we have gone through many iterations with Russ as to what he'd like to do there. Obviously one of the spaces would be a Subway, but he's looking to develop a second space with the Subway. The plan that he's considering is actually about 7500 square feet of building. There would be a Subway and possibly a bank at the corner in this area, and then the possibility of a drive thru, and in talking with Craig Brown and Laura, Russ does understand that if he were to develop a drive thru, that would, there would be a need for a variance to have that drive thru, if a bank would be interested in going in that location. We're really not sure at this point, and so the plan would be to have the major access off of Main Street with parking on the side of the building. Russ feels pretty strongly that Subway being a fast food restaurant, parking, available parking seen from the street is very important, and with the Main Street zone, it's required that 60% of the frontage is actually covered by buildings. So the frontage is about 200 feet long. So the building we're showing is approximately a little over 120 feet. So to fit the parking on the eastern side, it pushes the building a little closer to Pine Street, and again, we're also showing the possibility of a second building in the back. That probably wouldn't be part of the initial application, but really what we're here for this evening is your feedback. He kind of played with the idea of doing a two story building, but that is economically not viable at this point. He understands that the building has to be a minimum of 15 feet tall, and that would be part of this plan, but I don't really believe you know exactly, material wise, what you're looking at this point. MR. FADEN-No, I don't. I mean, pretty much what I'm looking to do is obviously it's going to be a commercial building, but it's going to have like a residential feel. Laura had a picture of the building. What I want to do on the front I'm going to have a lot of glass, probably something like a concrete board with some cultured stone is what I'm thinking for the material, and what I'm thinking is for the two entrances on Main Street, and even on the side if we have entrances, having a higher, you can see where that's going to be closer to maybe like 20 feet. So it gives it a little bit more of a presence, and it's going to be a lot of like, there's a lot of windows on the front, and it's really going to be tenant driven. If we, you know, start this project and I don't get a 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) lot of responses from a bank or a credit union or somebody that can utilize a drive thru, you know, we probably won't even use that. MR. FERONE-Will you move ahead with your project if you don't get a second tenant because you're definitely going to use one side for your Subway. MR. FADEN-Correct, and that's going to also come down to the bank as well. This property is under contract right now. So I'm probably going to have to find a tenant or the bank may even have a challenge with a loan. MR. FERONE-1 understand what you're trying to accomplish. I worked on Media Drive. So I was over there quite often, and if you go over there at noon and between the Cumbies there, or whatever it is, there's like no parking there. You can't get in there sometimes. MR. FADEN-Yes, the biggest challenge is visibility and parking is huge, and with this proposal, you know, all the parking that we can get will be crucial for us to move. MR. FERONE-You will break the heart of the people that are in the building down there Grace Note because they walk to the Subway now. MR. FADEN-It's only a block more. MR. FERONE-1 know. MR. HUNSINGER-So does Subway have a standard footprint in terms of the store design or store size? MR. FADEN-Internally. Internally, they can control nothing externally but internally they'll, you know, they'll do wallpaper, the flooring. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was thinking more of the square footage? MR. FADEN-No, that's strictly up to the owner. MR. FERONE-Will you have more eat in tables? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm thinking, well, if you get a new location with adequate parking, you know, maybe the Subway could use the whole building. MR. FADEN-Not the size we're proposing, and even the one we're proposing is bigger than the one we have now. I mean, you could always go as big as you want, but financially it wouldn't make sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CARR-1 mean, I think we, and, Russ, we had a lot of discussions, and I think it was important to show the bank, because that's probably the largest impact on the site. If we were an office, obviously the drive thru isn't needed, and I think, as Russ said, it's going to be tenant driven. I mean, that was another option, and I don't, I think that's a little too aggressive. That's a lot of square footage on that. I mean, we probably went through a dozen iterations on this site. It's interesting because the double frontage kind of makes it difficult on that Pine Street side, and we may, and I know Russ had a conversation with Laura and I think if we got farther into the process I would need to have a conversation also. The Code is a little unclear on what that setback needs to be from Pine Street, because it's really, you're in that Main Street zone, and it's, they want you to pull the building closer to the street. I'm thinking that maybe we may be in a variance situation on Pine because the side yard setback is zero. However, it's really two front yards is what we have on the corner. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I forgot, what's the closest bank to that? MR. FADEN-Probably Glens Falls National, once you get to that Y there. MR. FERONE-If you cross the highway, there's one on the other side. MR. FADEN-Yes, if you cross the highway, there's one on the other side. MR. FERONE-Near Stewarts. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. DEEB-I have a question on your layout, that one, and I'm looking at the drive thru, if you get a bank, which you're not sure, but if people are going to go into the bank, they're going to have to park on the other side, and then walk the front to the bank? MR. FADEN-So we would have, so there's going to be sidewalks on the front and then there would also be a sidewalk, yes, right there, and we would have a door. MR. DEEB-And where would the door be? MR. FADEN-Right there. MR. DEEB-Yes, because it would be a little bit. MR. FADEN-Like a vestibule right there. MR. DEEB-All right. So you would have room for pedestrian traffic, because it would be, the distance from the parking lot to the bank could be discouraging for some people. Not for the drive thru, but. MR. FADEN-Right. I see your point, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's like the new, the Glens Falls National Banks that go in with Stewarts. I mean, I would bet 90% of the traffic is drive thru. MR. DEEB-Is drive thru, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, I go to the one up on Miller Hill a lot, and they actually act surprised when you walk in the store, when you walk into the bank, I mean. It's all drive thru. MR. DEEB-Okay. Financially, it would be tough to go two stories, if they're looking to get that feel on Main Street. I mean, it's nice to see new projects going in. I know it would be tough, financially, to do something like that. I know that's what the Town's looking for. MR. FADEN-And I do know the Town would prefer to have two stories, but I got, you know, looking at the numbers and between, you know, sprinklers, elevators, the prices you get for rent, if you can rent it, there's a lot of variables there. In the commercial end, you know, I know will pay for rent down the road. I think it's a little more, to me, that's not much of an unknown compared to the two stories. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I certainly think there's a lot going with your plan. 1, right away, of course, noticed the build to line that you have on Main Street, and your sketches look attractive. I don't know what other input we can give you. MR. CARR-And what this plan doesn't show, I mean, it's kind of a massing plan, but obviously there would be that street front on Main Street with a sidewalk and, you know, obviously the Town has a vision for Main Street, and so we would definitely be following that, but we have a question, or I have a question, and again, I mean, the Code I was looking at, maybe my copy wasn't very good, because they show some diagrams in there. This zone backs up to a residential lot. So the Code mentions that setback is 50 feet, and obviously, on this plan we're showing five, you know, so the question I have, I mean, there's some language in there about solid fencing and screening, and so what is your vision as far as that goes? I mean, it seems like the optimum is 50. Fifty puts us way into the site. So I didn't know, you know, what the leeway is there, what the Board normally looks for. Because, you know, I want to be honest with you at this point. We're a commercial use and we back up to a residential lot. There is a house there, and there is, you know, unlike the three houses, I don't believe they're occupied, that we're looking at, but, you know, this house is. There's space here, but there's a house here and then there's the cemetery and I think Bare Bones Furniture is back here, but, and this is the Hess station. So, you know, we're pretty tight to that property line. We would propose a fence, but what does the Board normally look for in that situation? MR. SCHONEWOLF-This particular situation? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're flying by the seat of our pants over there because as you know they took a lot of buildings down and there's all sorts of opinions. MR. CARR-Well, that's why we wanted to ask. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-So my recommendation you just do what you think is best. MR. CARR-Okay. Well, we wanted to ask the question. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a fair question. We certainly would be looking for screening. MR. CARR-Screening, yes, absolutely. So, okay. MR. FORD-The parking on the north side is problematic. My assumption is that that would be employee parking? MR. CARR-Yes. Back here? Yes. I mean, this would be employees for this building, thinking that, you know, most of the customers would be parking in this area, but, yes, this would all be employee. MR. FORD-We've got a couple of access roads there that we don't want your customers having to negotiate in order to get into the Subway. MR. CARR-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you need all that parking across the back on the north side? MR. CARR-Maybe not, and that's why we put this in gray. I mean, and so there may be some opportunity for some more buffering here. We may not need all that, yet. MR. FORD-Buffering would probably be better than parking. MR. MAGOWAN-You kind of also have it set up for the future retail office. MR. CARR-Exactly. MR. FADEN-What I was thinking is, if, you know, is almost like a couple of different phases. If we don't end up getting a drive thru, and we just do this building, you know, in the future I probably, with interest, you know, want to expand this building all the way down here with more parking in here, you know, so really it would really. MR. CARR-So this would be green. MR. FADEN-Coming up the road from the Town it would be nice to see a nice corner piece on both roads. I think that would look very well. MR. CARR-That's what precipitated the other plan that Laura showed there was to really kind of solidify that corner, but I think Russ feels that it may be problematic to rent that much space at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Do it in phases as you had suggested. Any other comments? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a good start. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CARR-We appreciate your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that needs to come before the Board this evening? MR. CARR-Thank you very much. MR. FADEN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then I move we adjourn, unless you have anything else. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 21, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2015) Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 28