Loading...
11-17-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 71-2014 David Hartman 1. REQUEST FOR 1 YR. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Subdivision No. 8-2015 Burnett Family Trust 2. PRELIM & FINAL STG. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING Site Plan No. 58-2015 Fritz & Mary Stefanzick 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11 Site Plan No. 59-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp. 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.00-1-54 Site Plan No. 60-2015 Jeffrey Hamilton 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-19 Site Plan No. 61-2015 Russell W. Smith 16. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-23 Site Plan No. 62-2015 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 20. NEW RIDE Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 63-2015 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 26. DISCUSS TRAFFIC MONITORING Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20; 295.8-1-3; 295.12-1-4 Site Plan No. 64-2015 Stan Dobert 35. Special Use Permit No. 64-2015 Tax Map No. 309.10-1-10 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. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) NOVEMBER 17, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-If everyone's ready, I'll call the meeting to order. Welcome, everyone, to the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, November 17th. I would ask everyone to turn their ringers off on their cellphones so that we don't get interrupted during the meeting. On the back table there are copies of the agenda and there's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the items do have public hearings later in the agenda. The first order of business is approval of minutes from September 15th and 22nd, if anyone would like to move them. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 15, 2015 September 22, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15TH & SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-1 noticed that you gave us all of the resolutions in one nice, neat package. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I updated some of them. So if you could use that packet that's stapled together, that would be useful. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two administrative items. The first one is a request for a one year extension for David Hartman. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION: SP 71-2014 DAVID HARTMAN, 51 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other information that you need to give us other than what was in the Staff Notes? MRS. MOORE-No. He provided a letter to the Board explaining that he wouldn't be able to start until the fall construction and he just asked for an extension of a year. DAVID HARTMAN MR. HARTMAN-1 am here if you have any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board? Any concerns? Thank you for coming. If anyone would like to make a motion. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion. Do we have a second? MRS. MOORE-Actually you have to actually say I'm making a motion as per the draft resolution per Staff, would be one way to present it. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Schonewolf? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, well, that's good, but I don't have that on this. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'll say it. RESOLUTION GRANTING ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP# 71-2014 DAVID HARTMAN RESOLUTION —APPROVE ONE YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST SITE PLAN 71-2014 DAVID HARTMAN, 51 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD /ZONING: WR MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 71-2014 DAVID HARTMAN. Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. The next one is Subdivision 8-2015, Burnett Family Trust. REQUEST FOR TABLING UNTIL DECEMBER 15th. SUBDIVISION 8-2015. BURNETT FAMILY TRUST PRELIMINARY & FINAL MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, you gave us a letter from the applicant's attorney this evening asking this to be tabled. MRS. MOORE-1 did give you a letter from the applicant's attorney. I do know the applicant is in the audience today, if you wish to hear additional information. I understand there's still some items to be addressed with the subdivision line itself that's being worked out with both parties of that property, and the individuals, the Burnetts have asked for it to be tabled definitely to the December meeting. I have the 15th, 16th, and 17th. This actually is a Planning Board recommendation and then goes to the Zoning Board and comes back to the Planning Board. MR. FORD-So the 15th would be better? Yes, to start them on the 15th, which is the Tuesday/ MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 8-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST PRELIM & FINAL STG. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the Planning Board meeting of December 15, 2015. Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then we have several items for recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) SITE PLAN NO. 58-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE ZONING WR LOCATION 43 HANNEFORD ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR 1,025 SQ. FT. ADDITION, TO A ONE STORY 1, 410 SQ. FT. FRAME HOUSE UTILIZING CURRENT HOUSE FOOTPRINT THROUGHOUT. FLOOR AREA EXISTING 2,562 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED 3,587 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF A PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: AREA VARIANCE REQUIRED RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 58-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER CEA, APA, LGPC LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 SECTION 179-13-010 FRITZ STEFANZICK, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a second floor addition to a one story frame house utilizing current house footprint. There is a minor change in that they're not going to cover the sunroom. It will go around the sunroom. The sunroom will remain as a one story, and the Board is to provide a planning recommendation in regards to the applicant's request for expansion of a nonconforming. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEFANZICK-Good evening. For the record I'm Fritz Stefanzick. I'm the owner of 43 Hanneford, and eventually I'm seeking to be able to renovate and enhance my existing one story house which is at 43 Hanneford. Right now what I'm looking to do is build a second floor on top of my first floor. That's all going to be on the same foundation as it is right now. However, the current house is 5 feet away from the south boundary of my neighbor instead of 30 feet. So I'm seeking a variance for that for this Board, seeking approval to build on a nonconforming structure. Since I'm building up, I'm not going to change the current setbacks. It's going to go straight up, and besides that current and proposed design isn't going to, I'm going to meet all other setback and Code requirements such as height, floor area ratio, stuff like that, and I think this recommendation is the least impactful to the environment, to the neighbors and stuff, since it's going straight up on the existing foundation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? You certainly have a nice view there. MR. STEFANZICK-It's beautiful. We are looking to move up here full time. That's one of the reasons we are looking to make it a little bigger. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the house year round now? MR. STEFANZICK-It's year round right now. We've been using it for weekends for the last couple of years. We live in Saratoga, but that house is for sale right now. MR. MAGOWAN-How is the foundation underneath? You're not going to start and find out that the foundation is? MR. STEFANZICK-It's a solid foundation. I have all the designs that show that it's a four foot foundation with the footing, except where it goes into the ledge, and there's a lot of ledge up in there. So the footing is sound. The exterior walls are all sound. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I just didn't want you to start and then find out, oh no and then, you know, come back again and then your house sells and now, you know. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 58-2015 FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a second floor 1,025 sq. ft. addition, to a one story 1,410 sq. ft. frame house utilizing current house footprint throughout. Floor area existing 2,562 sq. ft. and proposed 3,587 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance. Expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Area variance 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) required relief requested for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2015 Fritz & Mary Stefanzick: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; 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 November 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Next item on the agenda is also a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S) CHUCK MARSHALL OWNER(S) SANDRI REALTY, INC. ZONING CI LOCATION 1433 STATE ROUTE 9 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GAS SERVICE STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 3,897 SQ. FT. STEWART'S SHOP WITH THREE SELF-SERVE MULTI-PRODUCT DISPENSERS UNDER A 1,500 SQ. FT. CANOPY (6 PUMPS). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: AREA VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. ALSO SIGN VARIANCE FOR SIZE AND SET BACK. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-2015, SV 61-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 0.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040 CHUCK MARSHALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes demolition of an existing gas station/convenience store and replacing with a new 3,897 sq. ft. Stewart's shop. This will have three self-serve multi- product dispensers under a 1,500 sq. ft. canopy. I have identified items relevant to the design standards, the Adirondack appearance, and the Board can review that at site plan, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it during this variance proposal. The applicant requests variance relief from the side setback of 10 feet proposed where a 20 foot minimum is required. The rear setback, setback from the front roadside as well and relief requests for permeability. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MARSHALL-Good evening. My name's Chuck Marshall. I'm the real estate representative from Stewart's, and with me is Steve Kinley also from my office. We are presenting tonight for the Sunoco at 1433 State Route 9, which is obviously the one in front of the new Lake George Outlets and the existing outlet facility. Not to sell the project, but it's the only one on Route 9 without the lights on it. Our plan is to raze the existing 2,066 sq. ft. building and associated 1432 sq. ft. canopy. We'll abandon the kerosene that's on the north end of the property. We will come back with a 3897 square foot building. That building will be accessed via a corner entry which is unique for us. This building that I'm going to pass out here is the prototype that we've been doing, and this is the only other corner access building that we've built in this prototype. We will reduce the number of fuel positions from eight to six. We will re-locate the existing curb cuts. Those curb cuts will be re-located to the north. They will also be reduced from approximately 85 feet to 60 feet. The governing situation for us, with curb cuts, is our fuel truck and goods delivery. The good delivery will be removed, or not removed but re-located to the rear of the building, and that is shown here. It's also shown, that's where 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) the dumpster location is. So we keep it out of the sight view from Route 9. We have approached the Outlets at Lake George to the south for an interconnect for the concrete walk that will land in the patio area and wrap around our sidewalk into the front door. We will be replacing the existing stormwater on site as the existing stormwater doesn't function. We propose a number of drywells with an overflow into the State system. The only thing that I apologize for not doing that should have been done, our deal with the owner who's Sandri Realty, a subsidiary of Sandri Oil, they're a Sunoco distributor. So our product will be branded Sunoco and because of that there are some minor site plan changes that should have been, that should be indicated and I have to return Thursday night. I could bring representation of what those would look like then, but basically it's just a Sunoco branding on the canopy that exists and we'll modify our canopy to accommodate those issues., but the overall square footage of the canopy won't change. MR. HUNSINGER-So it'll just be a sign? That's just basically it? It'll say? MR. MARSHALL-It's like wrapping around the fascia of the canopy. MR. MAGOWAN-Kind of like what they have up on Aviation Road there. It says Sunoco and blue and yellow, you know, just to catch your eye where Sunoco is. Right? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. Actually the existing facility that we're taking down is Sunoco. I just think that the new logo and branding will be less intense. I also think that because of that maybe what we can, we can figure out a way to dress up the canopy in another way, to kind of downplay that branding. MR. MAGOWAN-It's kind of like the Mobil up on 149 and Ridge. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The canopy has a little Mobil sign on it. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I mean, we have a number of instances where we're branded Sunoco or Mobil. Those are actually the only two. Some, obviously because of participation with the Price Chopper program, others because we, you know, at one point purchased Congress Gas and Oil. It was a Mobil distributor. So there are instances where we have to have branded gas, but for the most part we sell unbranded gas. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else? MR. MARSHALL-Not on my end. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Please address signage. MR. MARSHALL-There'll be one freestanding sign that is in the northeast corner of the property right here. As Laura indicated, we are seeking relief from the setbacks for that sign and the overall square footage of the sign. It's 63 square feet. One of the things that we do is our standard sign is 32 sq. ft. The eight foot width of the sign, which is inclusive of the Stewart's shop, and, you know, the swish, that eight foot is pretty standard. In the Town of Queensbury the sign gets slightly taller or longer because the, we go from LED pricing in other municipalities to what we call a scroll sign, which requires the letters or the numbers get a little bit larger. So that two foot ten dimension that you see here is just slightly more than in other places where we have less square footage signs. The other sign would be one building sign. That'll be on the gable end of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-So the sign out front is slightly larger than the Code allows and the sign on the building is smaller than what Code allows. MR. MARSHALL-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Can you describe the scrolling pricing numbers? It appears, from looking at the plans, as though it functions like an analog odometer on a car? MR. MARSHALL-That would be completely accurate how it functions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. MARSHALL-But it's still set from the store. It's not, you know, no longer are they manually operated. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but is it like rolling discs or something? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it's not digital? MR. MARSHALL-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Where do you have those signs locally? Do you know? MR. MARSHALL-The only sign of that nature that I can think of is on the corner of West Avenue and Route 29 in the City of Saratoga Springs. MR. TRAVER-What about the corner of Dix and Quaker? That sign recently changed from digital to, I thought, a rolling. MR. HUNSINGER-Did it? MR. MARSHALL-It would make sense that that sign changed because, again, we did, we recently went through a complete sign change program throughout the company. So Stewart's used to be just Stewart's. No shops, no swish, and this year, over the past 18 months, we've re-branded all of our stores with the Stewart's shop with the swish. At that time when we did that I would assume that we would have to bring any other, you know, any other sign into compliance, and because of that we would have gone to the analog roll, but again I'll confirm on Thursday that that's. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think I've confirmed it for you, but it's a big improvement over the LED signage. LED's are quite an eyesore. MR. FORD-You can't use that type of signage and be Code compliant? MR. MARSHALL-Not from the height of the sign, no. MR. FORD-Why does it have to be so high? MR. MARSHALL-it's not the height of the sign. MR. FORD-You just said it was the height of the sign. MR. MARSHALL-No, no. I meant it's the height of the face. Is that correct, it's the measure of the face? It's not the, the goal posts aren't measured. MRS. MOORE-Right. It's the square footage right here that we're measuring. I will just add, just because you mentioned that it's possible that the canopy may change in some sort of color issue or possibly a signage issue. That may be subject to a variance. So that's something that we should talk about prior tomorrow evening, so you can clarify that, but for this, again, it is 63 square feet. We require a sign of 60 square feet to be 25 foot setback, whereas a 45 square foot would be 15 foot setback. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we get engineering review on this? MRS. MOORE-We did. Do you want me to read it to you? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't get it. I looked and looked and looked. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've got two variance numbers. That's the other thing we were looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-Did they sign off? MRS. MOORE-They did not sign off on it yet. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then the other question I had was, there seemed to be an inconsistency in the percent of impermeable space. On the map itself it had an 11 and 2.4%, as proposed and existing and then on the site development data it's .76 and .94 percent impermeable. I don't know if you followed that question. MR. HUNSINGER-So on S-2 you have existing site usage data and proposed site usage data, and you have green space on existing site of 2.4% and then on the proposed it's 11%, but that didn't match up with the numbers on the site development data on the application. MRS. MOORE-Right. So actually it does, it looks like a calculation was incorrectly calculated on Page Three. If you divide out those numbers between H & G, which are non-permeable parcel area, it does end up being 88.8%, versus .94. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then that comes to your 11%. So it's just a calculation error in that top portion of the data. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't usually catch stuff that small. MR. FORD-I'm still not comfortable with the signage. You're making it larger and with less setback. Can that not be addressed successfully to get closer to Code? MR. MARSHALL-Unfortunately the location that we've selected, I'm not saying that that's the best location, but when you look at the location we've selected, the curbing that comes in, and then the parcel itself actually narrows. So when you push the sign back where it's shown, the grade of the adjoining property increases. It goes up the hill. So keeping it toward the road we thought was better. MR. FORD-Well then visually if it's closer to the road, you should be able to get it Code compliant as far as size is concerned. MR. MARSHALL-Is there a, I mean, for 15 feet, it's 45 square feet for 15 feet, but I don't think, is there a Code compliance for? MRS. MOORE-If something's 60 feet, it would need to be 25 foot setback. MR. MARSHALL-So the issue is that even with, we would not be able to achieve the reduction to get it all the way to 25 feet. Because as you can see that would be into one of the parking spaces. MR. FORD-Unless you put it in a different location, and you've already admitted that this might not be the best location. MR. MARSHALL-Well, the only other location would be here, and at 25 feet, is the setback measured from the concrete curb or the centerline? MRS. MOORE-From your front property, from all property lines. MR. MARSHALL-I'll look at it, but it puts it in essentially the green space area around where that, right where that save button is. So if the mouse were just moved. It would put it back here. MR. FORD-And? MRS. MOORE-Your property line is here, right? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MRS. MOORE-This is not their property. This corner piece is not their property right there. MR. FORD-Then that's really not an option is it, putting it on somebody else's property? MR. MARSHALL-No. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And the reason it has to be so big is for the dial. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. MARSHALL-Well, the dial, our standard, we could make it 32 square foot sign, if we had the LED, because we can shrink everything up, but the two foot, ten feet for the dial, and they don't make smaller dials, or dials that would be visible at the 18 inch or, if it's two feet, ten inches, and that's assumingly, well, that's an architectural scale, which I don't have, I mean, you have to assume that the regular and diesel labeling, there's a, you know, a dimension to it. MR. TRAVER-Your current sign, where is the current sign? If you were to overlay the structure on the plot plan, where would it be? MRS. MOORE-It is right about there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MARSHALL-It's shown on the, I have, I color coordinated the plans shown here. Again, the site, from our perspective, the site is laid out all incorrectly. It's a rectangular, but it's a rectangle that runs north and south primarily and they use the shorter side of the rectangle and have people closer to the pumps. It's the nature of doing business. I mean, our model is more inside sales driven and they came from the gas perspective. So they have the, you know, call it goalpost sign, again, just in front of the yellow dots on Laura's screen. MR. DEEB-So because of the rolling numbers you have to have that sign at 63 square feet. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I don't see any way to make it less, and again, we would be seeking the relief to push it further back, which is, you know, pushing it further back to get it under 60 we feel our request is less because, you know, you're pushing it up grade and, you know, difficult to see from southbound traffic. So we would be making our request, I guess what I'm saying is we would be making our request to the Board anyway for relief for the signage, because even at 25 feet, we wouldn't be able to come under 60 square feet. Did I say that right? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think what we're struggling with now is you're looking at two variances, one for setback and one for size, and I think what we're thinking is can you, is there a way you can eliminate one of those variances, either size or setbacks, and it sounds like setbacks maybe no, and it sounds like. MR. MARSHALL-What we do, what we've done in other municipalities, where this has become an issue is we eliminate the scroll sign. We go to the Stewart's at eight feet by, eight feet by five feet and maybe we could get it to eight feet by four feet so you get under the 60 square feet, but then you go to canopy LED pricing, and that's not allowed. MR. TRAVER-What about canopy scrolling pricing? MR. MARSHALL-That doesn't exist. MR. FORD-Yet. MR. MARSHALL-Out of 275 locations with gas, we have a lot of different, I don't know what the word you want to call it would be, none of those. It is, again, I mean, I understand. It's just I can't think of another, truthfully I can't think of another way to do it. I mean, that's, you know, you can't go shorter, and truthfully it doesn't help, and then actually it makes the pricing situation worse because of the ramping. You can't go canopy because then you're into an LED situation. Then you're dealing with the branding. I mean, you could just ask Jolley to go out of business and then I don't need a sign. MR. DEEB-I don't have a problem with the signage. MR. MARSHALL-Again, I'll ask, again, this is, I'm not trying to obviously force the situation upon you, but if I can come up with a solution, I will address it with our design team, and then I have to speak with Laura tomorrow about the color scheme for Sunoco. So if there is a solution I have not visited I will. MR. TRAVER-I'm wondering if the rolling sign, the rolling pricing module of that sign is a component. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, the sign itself. MR. TRAVER-And if so, perhaps your engineers could install just that component of the sign in the canopy. It's probably a modular unit. Right? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. MARSHALL-I'm assuming that it is a modular unit because of this, but what I'm, so this is a 36 inch fascia, and it's a 34 inch, theoretically 34 inch mechanism. MR. TRAVER-Right. Perfect fit. MR. MARSHALL-No, no, no, listen, again, I'm not going to force, I'm very comfortable, unfortunately I guess now it wouldn't be until January, returning if I can find a solution, but I will re-visit this with our design team and see if there's a solution that would be more equitable. MR. TRAVER-If you were to move the pricing from the street sign to the canopy, with it moving the rolling module that would take care of your square footage. You still would be in the setback. MR. MARSHALL-No, no, but I would only need one of two, only one of two relief. MR. TRAVER-And you'd have a Stewart's shop in the history books. You'd be the first one to have a canopy with a rolling. MR. MARSHALL-In my office setting history is not necessarily good. MR. TRAVER-Nor is it with the Planning Board. MR. MARSHALL-Again, the only issue I can think of is that 34 inch, if there's somehow components that extend past the, you know, what we see at the two foot ten inch mark, and it's somehow tied to the electrical of the sign, or something of that nature, because the canopy does not have electrical components, with the exception of the lighting, when it comes to the exterior and the fascia. So without the signage, that would be the only reason to do it, and I'm just concerned with the 36 inch fascia if it's achievable in 34, because as, this 36 inches includes molding. It includes the molding. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got your crown molding and then, you know, you're underneath. So that brings it down, too. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, that 36 probably isn't 36 of white space. MR. TRAVER-It's probably safe to assume that the power consumption of those, that version of the digital sign is no greater than the illumination. MR. MARSHALL-No, no. The components itself are negligible. What I'm saying, though, is that the space, because of the molding, and I don't think that that 36 inches, that looks to be from that dimension on the bottom of the fascia to the top of the crown. So it's probably not 34 inches functional, is my concern, but you can cut, I mean, it's a form of plastic. You can cut it. I just don't want to commit to cutting it here and then have someone tell me I'm an idiot. MR. FORD-You've heard the concern voiced by some of us on the Board, and you've offered a willingness to go back to your design team and address the issues that have been raised. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I would assume I would have to come back for the branding situation anyway. So I'll work with them in the morning and then I'll call Laura and probably see you in December or January. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, one of the things we haven't talked about are the design standards. I don't know if anyone has any comments about the design standards. I assume the colors are the standard gray and brown that you've been using? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. Again in the photo, I think the photo is the best representation. It should be like almost a gray, hardy board siding. So it's like a cream or, it's pretty close to white. I guess when you look at these photos look at the gable, because others are in the shadows, and then the stone veneer is a cobblestone. Actually the stone is very similar to the outlets, the property immediately to the south. The stone, the veneer wrap is essentially the same coloring there. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn't the store on, a couple of miles south of there, isn't that gray? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. MARSHALL-That store was built a couple of years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you've changed the color scheme, too? MR. MARSHALL-We've changed the color scheme. We've changed, you know, and I've only been with Stewart's, I'm sure a number of you are familiar with my predecessor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Tom. MR. MARSHALL-And I built, I've been there coming on four years. Originally the first store that I was responsible for was yellow, and it was hardy board. Then we went to white efface, with stone, which was awful, and now we've come back to white hardy board. So this is where the majority of our colors are, and again, I think, building wise, it looks, color scheme at least, it looks very similar to the outlets to the south. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I haven't seen one of those newer stores, then. I still think of the one on Upper Glen as being the new design with the dark gray and brown. MR. MARSHALL-I mean, unfortunately I've had to make appearances, you know, with building permits in hand saying I'd like to change the colors, but we're pretty comfortable where we are now. MR. DEEB-And what about the lighting height? You've got plans that show 25 feet and Code's 20. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. I think that there's a misinterpretation. Sheet S-8 shows the individual pole lights at 15 feet, and the canopy is 17 feet tall. So all lighting, including the canopy and soffit lighting, is recessed. So I don't know where the 25 feet came from. MRS. MOORE-From the cut sheet. MR. MARSHALL-Sheet S-8 would be, that detail showing the light pole would be the proper, at 15 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you could just focus specifically on the variance request that are being asked for. The building setback and the fuel canopy setback and then permeability. Are there any specific comments, questions on the variance requests? MR. MARSHALL-Again, I understand, but I think turning the gas and putting it on the side of the property is more in tune with the design standards, in addition to putting the delivery area in the rear. It's a very tight site, in comparison to some of the other locations that we're currently building at an acre and a half, but it's a market that we would like to be in, and I think that it's a safe bet that they do pretty well. MR. TRAVER-Would we consider the variances in isolation and leave the sign variances for a later time? Is that what we're looking at, and still sending it to the ZBA for the other variances? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, if you look at the Staff Notes under nature of the variance it doesn't even address the sign variance. MR. TRAVER-Well, the last sentence. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Yes, you're right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Size and setback. MR. TRAVER-So I don't know, I mean, I suppose we could do that, but I don't know if it would be an advantage to the applicant, because he may come back with a, you know, design and we can't go to site plan anyway until we get the updated drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MARSHALL-I would love to tell my wife that I'll be home for dinner the next two nights, two nights versus four is pretty good. MR. TRAVER-It's looking that way. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. MARSHALL-That's fine. So from my perspective what I'll do is I'll deal with, you know, address the size of the sign, the pricing, and then I unfortunately think that the location's fixed. I may have. MR. TRAVER-For the sign. MR. MARSHALL-For the sign. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MARSHALL-I think I may have spoken inappropriately when I said it's not the best sign. It's the best location, it seemingly might be the only location, and unfortunately from a competitive standpoint we can't not do pricing. We just, with another competitor down the road, we just can't have the, you know, can't do a sign without pricing. So I will address those issues. I'll speak to Laura about the color scheme, but if you could for just one second, so I don't have to ask this when I speak to you tomorrow, because of the way the meeting schedule is, I'm into January. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MARSHALL-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think that's where we're at is to a tabling. MRS. MOORE-Right. That's my understanding. MR. HUNSINGER-For new information. MRS. MOORE-Information would be submitted by December 15tH MR. MARSHALL-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board before we consider a tabling motion? MRS. MOORE-Is there any additional information that you would suggest under, they're coming back, in reference to the design guidelines. You talked about the color. Are you looking for anymore specifics on the color or are you looking for any other details on the building that would represent that corridor? MR. FORD-That's an excellent point, Laura, because frequently we get samples of colors or. MR. MARSHALL-I can bring one with me next time. MR. FORD-Good. That's good. MR. DEEB-Wasn't the, when a truck goes back to the dumpster, that's what we're worried about, the 30, is that going to encroach on one of the parking spots where you're, I forgot which one it was. MRS. MOORE-It's possible. There's one parking space that when you look at the turning radius drawing you'll see that there's one parking space that seems to be cut off in that radius. MR. DEEB-It just looks a little close. MR. MARSHALL-So these, that one definitely, and potentially this one? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 tell you I watch a full tractor trailer back up into the Panera loading dock. MR. DEEB-I don't know how they do it. MR. HUNSINGER-A couple of times a week, and that is just unbelievable to see that. So, seeing that. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. DEEB-I'm sure the drivers can do it. I just want to lessen the chance of a mishap. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. I think we may need to lessen the number of, or the severity of the relief I seek from the Zoning Board. The required number of spaces is 26, and the proposed is 29. So I'll eliminate the closest spot, and that should alleviate the concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How often do you need garbage pickup, do you know? MR. MARSHALL-It's like twice a week. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's not like it's every day. MR. MARSHALL-No. So from a Stewart's perspective, deliveries for gas is just about every three days, four days, depending. Obviously it'll peak in the winter and peaking in the summer for tourist season. Goods deliveries every three days from Stewarts and then outside vendors twice a week, depending on the vendor. MR. DEEB-The summer traffic, would you consider having the delivery, the gas delivery at night? MR. MARSHALL-We actually, so we were just going through this with Steve. The safest time for a delivery to take place is when the lot is empty, and the only time that we don't deliver overnight is when we're adjoining, immediately adjoining residential. Because, you know, the lights more than the noise are an issue for our neighbors. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. MARSHALL-So, no, we would probably put it on an overnight delivery anyway. MR. DEEB-Because there's going to be a lot of traffic in the summer. MR. MARSHALL-I know. MR. HUNSINGER-Not in the morning, though. MR. MARSHALL-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Not until 10 o'clock, nine, ten o'clock. MR. SCHONEWOLF-As soon as the Outlets open. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any other questions or comments from the Board? So it looks like we're looking for a tabling motion to table to the January 19th meeting, and the applicant will address the size of the sign as well as provide color samples and color schemes. I made the motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 59-2015 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing gas service station/convenience store and replace with a new 3,897 sq. ft. Stewart's Shop with three self-serve multi-product dispensers under a 1,500 sq. ft. canopy (6 pumps). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance. New convenience store with fuel shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Area Variance for setbacks and permeability. Also sign variance for size and set back. MOTION TO TABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2015 & SIGN VARIANCE 61-2015 AND SITE PLAN NO. 59-2015 for Stewart's Shops Corp.: Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the January 19th 2016 Planning Board meeting, and the applicant will address the size of the sign, as well as provide color samples and color schemes. Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015 by the following vote: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MARSHALL-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And Happy Holidays. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Laura, there was a discrepancy on the numbers, 60 or 59? MRS. MOORE-It should be 59. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. It says 60 on here. MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is also for a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN NO. 60-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II JEFFERY HAMILTON AGENT(S) DEVIN DICKINSON/DEAN HOWLAND OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 61 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOME OF 1,135 SQ. FT., SIDEWALKS AND PATIOS TO REPLACE WITH A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME. ALSO PROPOSING NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE OF GREATER THAN 5,000 SQ. FT., NEW FLOOR AREA OF 2,188 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECTS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND CHAPTER 147 PROJECTS WITH DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN 5,000 SQ. FT. WITHIN 100 FT. OF 15% SLOPE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: AREA VARIANCE REQUIRED, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 63-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 21+ ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-19 SECTION 179-6-060; CHAPTER 147 STORM WATER DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to remove an existing single story home of 1,135 sq. ft. footprint. The sidewalk and patios are also to be removed and replaced with a two story structure. The applicant is also proposing a new septic system and stormwater management in the area. The project includes a disturbance of greater than 5,000 sq. ft. The new floor area will be 2,188 sq. ft. The applicant requests relief for setback on the north and the south side. Relief is also requested from the floor area ratio. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. HOWLAND-Good evening. Dean Howland, the agent for the owner, and what's there now is an existing camp, which is also 5.6 feet off the property line. We're proposing to move the building closer to the building. It's still greater than the setback required. It's still behind the two neighbors to the north and the south. We're also removing all the sidewalks on the property. In fact the concrete patios and stuff, we're proposing a new septic stormwater which is technically not required for this property, and we're changing the parking. What they do now is they park on their lawn on the north side of the property. That's where we want the new leach field to go, and we've proposed a, it's called grass pavers. It's 100% permeable, but with your laws I guess you're only going to count half of that. So that takes us from 20% back to 4. What these grass pavers are, it's a mat that sits on the lawn, and beneath it you've got crushed stone. So that's basically about it. It's only 50 foot wide, the lot. So I mean no matter what you do you're going to have to have relief. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He mentioned in his write up that you have an architect for the plantings and everything that he's going to do? Because he was going to take some trees down and then replace them and so forth, which sounded like a good idea. MR. HOWLAND-There's overgrown hedgerows on the property lines. Is that what you're talking about? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you've got those cedar trees in front. MR. HOWLAND-Right, on the right and the left. Well, what you want to do is to pull those out and replace them. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, exactly. That's why I'm bringing it up because if you take a real close look at, I've looked at a couple of them. They're rotten. MR. HOWLAND-They're terrible. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they're going to fall over on that guy's car or they're going to fall on the road, and I don't want your client listening to the street walkers. MR. HOWLAND-No, they're gone. The bottom 12 feet there's nothing on them. The deer have a field day with them, but the shrubbery, I mean, they're going to plant more shrubs. We've met with the landscaper already. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's okay. I just want to make sure that, there were some questions I want to make sure you listen to your landscaper. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because we've got people that put little signs around that say, you know, you can't seal your driveway, forget it, let the professionals take care of it. MR. FORD-1 applaud the effort to increase permeability near the lake. MR. HOWLAND-We try to do that all the time. MR. FORD-Not everybody does. MR. HOWLAND-This grass paver is a nice thing. I've only used it once before in Bolton Landing and I mean it's just all lawn. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That new house that they put in, that the Kitchen's put in, you'll see those kind of pavers. You'll see two kind of pavers, but you'll see the ones with the grass in it. MR. HOWLAND-But these have no, you don't see anything at all but grass. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. When you get them in, the grass goes in and then of course the grass spreads out over the top of it. So they have those grass pavers then they have the little regular pavers then they have to pave it at the bottom so that the snowplow doesn't tear the whole thing out, but when it gets put in right, it really looks nice. MR. HOWLAND-Well, again, you don't see, all the pavers are actually from beneath the grass. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HOWLAND-Nothing to the surface at all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. That's the Kitchen up on Sunset Lane? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. The Kitchen's are on North Lane. Follow Assembly Point Road. MR. HOWLAND-No, I know where it is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They did a nice job on that. They've got the ponds in the front. I keep telling him that because he loves it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-On that planting that you're coming back with. You've got a steep bank in front and. MR. HOWLAND-On the water side you're talking about? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Are there any buffers? MR. HOWLAND-We weren't going to be touching that at all. There's a, in front of the house there's going to be a small rain garden, something like that, but that part has vegetation on it. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-This house is back further than the ones that it's next to, but I'm glad you've got it demolished because now the grass is around the lake. MRS. MOORE-Yes, but just to clarify, it has been demo'd or it hasn't been demo'd? MR. HOWLAND-No, we've just had the building asbestos tested, but we haven't got the results back yet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's okay. The house is gone. Fine. They had some issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? The only question I had you talked about a little bit is the landscaping, and there really wasn't a landscaping plan provided. It just said. MR. HOWLAND-I can bring one on Thursday night. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be great. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That would be great. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it's going to look nice. You know, that's going to be almost the last house on that entire street that is not going to exit out onto Assembly Point. So they won't be dragging salt and sand into the lake. All the rest of them come out the back. MR. HOWLAND-You're talking one to the north that they're doing? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HOWLAND-Well, this one's much further south of that. This is Number 61 that I'm here for. This is right across from Brayton Road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. You've got two numbers. All right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You have Hartman. Hartman's 71-2014. MRS. MOORE-They're very close to each other, maybe two houses in between. MR. HOWLAND-It's an old red camp that you drive by you hardly even see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Because of all the cedar trees. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know what's holding those things up. MR. HOWLAND-Well, we took one, on the property that you're talking about, we took one down today. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no other questions or comments, a recommendation to the Zoning Board is in order. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Motion to make a positive dec for plan 61, 71-2014 now. MR. MAGOWAN-Isn't it 60-2015? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, 60-2015. MRS. MOOR E-It's Site Plan 60-2015 for Area Variance 63-2015. That's why. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's the confusion. 60-2015? MRS. MOORE-Is the Site Plan number. 63-2015 is the Area Variance. So you're granting the. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I've got the 60-2015. I don't think I've got the other one. MR. MAGOWAN-So what are we granting, the 60 or the 63? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MRS. MOORE-The Area Variance 63. You as the Planning Board are talking about Area Variance No. 63-2015. MR. DEEB-That's the only thing we're sending to the Zoning Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA RE: AV # 63-2015 JEFFREY HAMILTON The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove existing single story home of 1,135 sq. ft., sidewalks and patios to replace with a two story single family home. Also proposing new septic system and storm water management. Project includes disturbance of greater than 5,000 sq. ft., new floor area of 2,188 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the zoning ordinance, projects w/in 50 ft. of 15% slopes and Chapter 147 projects with disturbance of more than 5,000 sq. ft. within 100 ft. of 15% slope shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Area variance required, relief requested for setback and floor area. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2015 Jeffrey Hamilton: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have four items under New Business this evening. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 61-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED RUSSELL W. SMITH OWNER(S) J.E. MONAHAN ZONING CLI LOCATION 559 QUEENSBURY AVENUE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,000 SQ. FT. NEW STORAGE BUILDING. A '/2 ARCHED STORAGE STRUCTURE W/NO DOORS — PURPOSE FOR STORAGE OF CURRENT OUTDOOR MATERIAL UNDERCOVER. STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED ON EXISTING PAVED AREA, NO NEW PERMEABLE SURFACE. NO CHANGES TO LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING OR STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW STORAGE BUILDING AND NO REVIEW IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8- 1-23 SECTION 179-3-040 RUSSELL SMITH, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 3,000 sq. ft. new storage building. This is a Y2 arched storage structure with no doors for purposes of storage of current outdoor material under cover. Structure to be located on an existing paved area. No new permeable surfaces being created. No changes to the lighting, landscaping or stormwater. The applicant is in the process of evaluating plans for a possible future expansion. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SMITH-Good evening. I'm Russ Smith. I'm here to represent J.E. Monahan Metals and J.E. Monahan Fabrication. We started in 1997 operating out of 559 Queensbury Avenue, our current location. We started leasing 12,000 sq. ft. of the building at that time. By 2001 we had grown to lease the whole building. It's 25,000 square feet. In 2003 we purchased the building and an adjoining 1.75 acre lot. At the current time we are at full capacity in the building. We're weighing our options on whether to add on to our existing facility or build a new facility on our acre, 1.75 acre piece of property that's connected to the current facility, but in the interim, we'd like to put up a temporary material storage shelter on a blacktop area where we're currently storing some materials outside. We've looked into several different types of structures. The best one that we've found that would suit our needs is a tent type structure. It's a fabric covered steel frame, it's all pre-fabricated. It's engineered. It's site specific. They come in. They engineer the snow loads, wind loads, to make sure that it'll suit the environment where it's being placed, and that's what we're proposing to do. Until we decide whether we're going to add on to our existing structure or build a new facility. MR. FORD-How long do you expect the tent to exist? MR. SMITH-1 would say probably from the permitting to the construction I would say at least 12 months. MR. HUNSINGER-Then what will you do with it? MR. SMITH-Re-sell it. It's, they're fairly, they're not a cheap item. For a 3,000 sq. ft. tent it's around, I shouldn't call it a tent. It's not a tent. I mean, it's a structure. They're about $30,000. MR. MAGOWAN-They're a tarp structure on a solid steel frame. MR. SMITH-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-But it's not held up with a fan and air. MR. SMITH-No, no. It's got a steel frame. MR. FORD-It's Quonset style. MR. SMITH-Quonset style. Exactly, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So what's on the back then? The front's open, right? MR. SMITH-The back is open as well. So you can drive right through it. Most of our material is in cheap steel form, and those sheets can be anywhere from 12 feet long to six feet wide, and right now we're just storing them on a blacktop area. In the summer it's not so bad, but in the winter of course with the elements it's kind of tough to access them, and plus they get damaged. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you've got to clean them off and they get snow. MR. MAGOWAN-And then you've got to bring them in the day before and you come in the next day and you've got a flood. MR. SMITH-Right, but we're looking for a temporary solution, you know, to a long, you know, we want it done right in the long term. So, I mean, we don't want to rush into this new facility without weighing all our options to know what's economically right for us. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. A lot of municipalities are using these for their salt. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say you see them for salt storage. MR. SMITH-They have a life span of 15 years, you know, that they're guaranteed for. MR. FORD-We're not looking for that, though, are we? MR. SMITH-No. MR. MAGOWAN-And you're tucked out behind the building anyway. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. SMITH-Right. I mean, I don't know if you have that aerial photo, it shows, I have it. You can see in this picture right here, right now we have a storage container, and you can see a few skids of material here. What we're going to do is this area here, this storage tent that we're going to put up is 60 by 50. So it's going to cover, you know, about half. This building is about 100 feet wide right here. So it's going to cover about half of that parking lot, and we're going to do away with this shipping container and consolidate these other things you see underneath that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments or concerns from the Board? MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-WE do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. 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's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. We will open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR. They did do a Short Form. Are there any concerns with any environmental issues on the proposed project? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION RE: NEG DEC SEQR FOR SP# 61-2015 RUSSELL W. SMITH The applicant proposes a 3,000 sq. ft. new storage building. A 1/2 arched storage structure w/no doors — purpose for storage of current outdoor material undercover. Structure to be located on existing paved area, no new permeable surface. No changes to lighting, landscaping or storm water. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, New storage building and no review in the past seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 61-2015 RUSSELL W. SMITH. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: As per the resolution prepared by staff. Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015, by the following vote: 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then if there are no additional questions or comments, a motion is in order. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#61-2015 RUSSELL W. SMITH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 3,000 sq. ft. new storage building. A 1/2 arched storage structure w/no doors — purpose for storage of current outdoor material undercover. Structure to be located on existing paved area, no new permeable surface. No changes to lighting, landscaping or storm water. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, New storage building and no review in the past seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/17/2015 and continued the public hearing to 11/17/2015when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/17/2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 61-2015 RUSSELL W. SMITH, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request rg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. SMITH-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 62-2015 SEAR TYPE REAFFIRM SEAR GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC. AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RC LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES ANEW RIDE ATTRACTION, "GREEZED LIGHTNIN". RIDE IS TO BE 72 FT. HIGH, 67.45 FT. LONG AND IS A 360 DEGREE LOOP ROLLERCOASTER. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF 565 SQ. FT. OF PERMEABLE PAVERS, 745 SQ. FT. WOODEN WALKWAY AREA AND LANDSCAPING OF RIDE AREA. CROSS REFERENCE SEVERAL WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040 RAY SCHRODER, TOM HUTCHINS, & CHARLES DUMAS, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is in reference to the applicant proposes a new ride called "Greezed Lightnin". The ride is to be 72 feet high. This is 67.45 feet long, and it is a 360 degree loop rollercoaster. Project includes installation of a 565 sq. ft. of permeable pavers, 745 sq. ft. wooden walkway area and landscaping of the ride area. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SCHRODER-Good evening. My name is Ray Schroder. I'm the project manager for The Great Escape Spalshwater Kingdom. With me tonight. MR. DUMAS-Charles Dumas, counsel for the project with Lemery Greisler. MR. SCHRODER-As well as. MR. HUTCHINS-Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. MR. SCHRODER-If you'd like we'll talk a little bit about the project itself first, and sort of the purpose behind it, the ride itself, and then a little bit into the site and certainly any questions that you have. What we are proposing for this site is a project we're calling "Greezed Lightnin". It is for the installation of a compact rollercoaster type of amusement device. It's basically a 360 degree loop. It has a 24 passenger train that sits on its track and it basically runs six conversions, three in one direction, three in the other. Riders face in sort of opposing seats in such a manner that several riders will face each other. Other riders will face apart. So everyone will have the opportunity to both experience the ride forwards and backwards, and 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) actually Laura does have a photo on the screen of sort of artistic rendering of what this ride will look like. I don't know if you can scroll down perhaps just a hair. Fun looking thing, huh? MR. MAGOWAN-Looks dizzy to me. MR. DEEB-Are they real flames? Are you going to have real fire on the outside? Is that real fire? Are you going to use real fire? MR. SCHRODER-No, sir. That would be an incredible theming element. Nonetheless, that's something that we actually will have installed on the ride itself. It kind of fits with the theme that we're going for for the ride. I'm trying to think what I haven't covered yet. There is a photo there. The overall actual track itself runs approximately a 33 foot radius, but as Laura had mentioned when she introduced the project, it does scan overall approximately 72 foot tall, from the top of the structure to the base plates that meet the foundation. The ride is being constructed inside of a 200 foot zone per our GIS within the interior of the Park. Boy, oh, boy, Tom, what did I miss? MR. HUTCH INS-Location relative to Boomerang and Sasquatch. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. Of course we had mentioned it's within a 200 foot zone. Actually this particular ride is neighbored to the south by the Boomerang which is approximately 128 feet, and to the north by the Sasquatch which is approximately 192. So thrilling ride, but certainly in a section that has equally thrilling neighbors. The site itself, we're proposing to use permeable surfaces, permeable paver in all the areas that we can. There are some ramps and decking that we will need to do to bring our guests up to the elevation of the loading platform. Anything else site specific? Do you want to cover those? MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. On our Sheet S-3 we've shown a layout of the ride at that particular site. It's an expanded view. We've identified what we're calling the project envelope which is an area of about 22,000 sq. ft., which, for the purpose of this, is not a very big area. This ride is going to be constructed in an area where there's a stream to the north. There's an asphalt walkway that's a high pedestrian traffic way through the Park. To the south of the project there's the old car ride. What's the name of the car ride? MR. SCHRODER-Thunder Alley. MR. HUTCH INS-Thunder Alley across to the southwest, and it's a relatively small area that this is going in. At this point the area is primarily grass, although there are some hard surfaces within the area. We're able to, in actually laying this out, we're able to open up sort of a constrained area of walkway, call it a tight spot, and we've realigned that walkway such that that narrow area can be opened up both for servicing within the Park and pedestrian access. As Ray said, we've maximized the use of permeable materials. It's not a large ride in plan view. It's very small. The permeability, or the impervious increase is, it's, I'd say it's negligible. On a Park wide scale it's a very small percentage in terms of the small project envelope we've outlaid, and with that, I'll, do you have anything to add? MR. SCHRODER-1 was going to add one more thing as well to the history of this particular site. It used to be a location that held the old 99 trains, which is a small children's ride that used to run in that area. The nature of that ride was slow and not as exciting as that, but it did have sort of long and windy concrete paths that the trains would run on. So we're going to a bit of a more modern site with newer materials. MR. FORD-So, Tom, can you give us some sort of a percentage of increase or decrease in permeability of that small site? MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Within our 22,000 sq. ft. area we're increasing by 1835 sq. ft. which is 8.35% increase within that small envelope area. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Is that train ride still? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. SCHRODER-We no longer have that. It's no longer operating. MR. DEEB-Is the concrete still in all the areas that it traveled? MR. SCHRODER-Actually that's actually no longer there as well. We did away with that a few years ago. Yes. Currently it is primarily a grassy space. In the short term we had decorated the area with some fruit trees. The ironic story behind that is the fruit trees came from the site of our Extreme Super Nova that we had installed a few years ago ironically are now on the site of this new proposed ride, but grass and fruit trees is primarily what we have there now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So this doesn't need a specific SEQR review because you're within the limits of what you've already gotten approved. Right? MR. DUMAS-Yes, we can talk about SEQR a little bit because that's a little bit of a Segway to our next topic of discussion. There's a couple of things. This is what's called a 200 foot zone. Under the 2001 Generic Environmental Impact Statement this was designated for potentially tall rides. So this is only 72 feet in a 200 foot zone. So that's an impact that was well beneath the Town limits. In terms of lighting, there will be some lighting associated with the site. There's the typical downcast lighting the Park uses, and there's, I think, cutoffs shown at that. The ride itself has a low voltage, high efficiency LED package as part of it, and in terms of potential impacts for things like noise, there's really no major mechanical apparatus. The loop operates on, is it neoprene? MR. SCHRODER-Urethane wheels. MR. DUMAS-Urethane wheels, which is actually, I'm in formed quieter than the nylon wheels, and certainly quieter than metal or mechanical wheels. So it's not anticipated that, other than an occasional cry of joy. MR. FORD-Yes, about the scream factor. MR. DUMAS-But that's a happy sound, right? MR. MAGOWAN-It is. All summer long I hear it. MR. DUMAS-And it's not anticipated to drive additional traffic or attendance into the site. It's intended to keep the Park fresh. The Park tries to introduce something new and fresh every year for its patrons. So in terms of environmental impacts, I think that they're within the contemplated 2001 GEIS. MR. DEEB-So you're saying that a new ride doesn't attract more visitors? MR. SCHRODER-For us it's certainly a hope that it does. However, Six Flags has a commitment to all of our guests to try to introduce something new and fresh every single year and we certainly, by that means, try to drive attendance. One of the things I know we're talking about alter on this evening is our traffic study, and if you look at the consistency within those numbers, since 2001 the projects that we've brought to the table, the new things that we've built, designed developed within the Park, we've maintained, at least within traffic, consistent levels. Attendance wise we certainly always aim higher. MR. DEEB-Maybe this could be a game changer. MR. SCHRODER-Perhaps. MR. DUMAS-From your lips to God's ears. MR. DEEB-All right. MRS. MOORE-Could I ask a question in regards to the lighting? Is the lighting going to be a flashing or is it steady lighting? The ride itself. MR. SCHRODER-Sure. As Charles had mentioned, it is a low voltage LED package that offers a high efficiency. At the same time with the new LED technology it does allow us to obtain richer colors, but it is a red, green, blue LED system that operates on there. It doesn't particularly really strobe I want to say but it does actually change colors. So it does, when you see its appearance it does actually have a change to it. Actually I think we have a picture of the unit in Washington D.C. or Baltimore I should say. There it is. It's across the evening sky. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) When this particular photo was taken, it's showing blue and white, but certainly it could be all green, all red, and actually with the neat factor of LED, almost any color you wish. MR. TRAVER-Does the color change take place at a high rate per second or how often does the color change? MR. SCHRODER-That's actually pre-programed by the manufacturer. From what we have seen so far, it doesn't produce a strobing effect or anything like that. It's somewhat of a slow transition. MR. TRAVER-Like what? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Like you'd use to keep deer away. That's exactly what they do. Those lights they just go from red and fade into green. Deer are color blind but they don't like that. People use those things to keep deer out of their yard, and I would assume that that's exactly what they're doing there. Not for the deer, but that's how those lights fade from one into another. MR. SCHRODER-Sure. They're intended more for our visual effect than I guess the deer perhaps. MR. DUMAS-Yes, we want to keep the deer off the ride. MR. TRAVER-So to clarify, the lights are not going to be turning on and off, they're going to be changing from one color to the other. MR. SCHRODER-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-And slowly. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Would you say with the ride or something? MR. SCHRODER-Actually the lighting program itself is independent to the ride's operation. So when the ride is either in its loading state or when it is operating the light package itself will be doing its own thing. It does operate independently. MR. HUNSINGER-And I would assume the lights would turn off when the Park is closed. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. MR. DUMAS-And for what it's worth, the GEIS contemplated issues concerning lighting, and deemed in this particular zone lights that illuminated rides, when they were within 20 feet of the limit to be generally acceptable. So this is certainly lower than 180 feet. So in terms of whether or not the lighting package would generate an undesirable impact or material adverse impact, the GEIS use that as being reasonable and part of potential rides in the zone. Were you thinking about the GEIS? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Was I thinking about that? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that's not all of it. I have them at home. MR. SCHRODER-Impressively he fit it all in the briefcase. MR. FERONE-Are there any intentions, in 2016, of changing your operating hours? MR. SCHRODER-The operating hours for us should be consistent with 2015. Roughly thereabouts. I think we're opening approximately a weekend earlier this upcoming year, but in terms of hours, it's roughly the same. MR. FERONE-The same thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments with the proposed ride? So in terms of the two separate site plans, we should probably keep them separate in terms of the discussion and public hearing. MRS. MOORE-I would do so. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-1 just have one question, because it was more the numbers. This was Site Plan 63-2015, and the. MR. SCHONEWOLF-62. MR. MAGOWAN-62 and 63, but I also had, we changed that 63 from, 63-2015 for Assembly Point Road, for Jeffrey Hamilton. MRS. MOORE-Actually you're looking at, in reference to Planning Board recommendations, you're looking at two sets of different numbers. One's an Area Variance number and one's a Site Plan number. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So the Area Variance. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I just saw 63. I'm getting used to texting, all right. These abbreviations are killing me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments on the proposed ride, we will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? I see no takers. Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing, and unless there's a question or concern that has not yet been identified by the Board, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-There is a, did you give us a draft resolution to reaffirm SEQR? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. It's no further SEQR review for Site Plan 62-2015. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things we didn't talk about in any detail really is the stormwater management. I assume that, especially with the site being so close to the stream, that you're capturing all of the stormwater that would be generated. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Obviously with this site we have to be cognizant of the stream and it's, protecting the stream is going to be an integral part of when it gets down to constructing the thing in particular that the foundation, yes, we've maximized permeable areas. We have used permeable products where in the past we have used concrete or asphalt. We're using permeable materials, and what, the stormwater that's flowing into these permeable areas is basically the water that falls upon it. There's no off site runoff directed in this area. It generally flows the other way from the walkways and adjacent works. So what we're doing as best we can to get the water into the ground and keep it away from the stream. We have shown a landscaping plan with a stream buffer over the whole length, the whole length of the envelope between the ride and the stream, which is a landscaped area with plantings and buffer area. So, yes, we have been, we are cognizant of the stream and it's, we're concentrating on keeping stormwater away from there. MR. FORD-Thank you. That's appreciated. MR. HUNSINGER-1 wanted to at least get it on the record that we did discuss it. It is in the Plan. I thought the landscaping plan was very well put together. Any other questions or comments? Were there any SEQR concerns that we have not discussed? Okay. Then if you want to put forward that motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The one on SEQR? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: SEQR SP #62-2015 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) The applicant proposes a new ride attraction, "Greezed Lightnin". Ride is to be 72 ft. high, 67.45 ft. long and is a 360 degree loop rollercoaster. Project includes installation of 565 sq. ft. of permeable pavers, 745 sq. ft. wooden walkway area and landscaping of ride area. Whereas, The Planning Board has determined there's no need for site specific or separate specific SEQRA review because the proposal falls within the thresholds previously approved as part of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The Planning Board has determined the proposed Site Plan does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts from the previous Final General Environmental Impact Statement of 7/11/2001 and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement of 4/10/2004. MOTION THAT NO FURTHER SEAR REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR SITE PLAN 62-2015 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then unless there's any questions or comments, we do have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #62-2015 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a new ride attraction, "Greezed Lightnin". Ride is to be 72 ft. high, 67.45 ft. long and is a 360 degree loop rollercoaster. Project includes installation of 565 sq. ft. of permeable pavers, 745 sq. ft. wooden walkway area and landscaping of ride area. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/17/2015 and continued the public hearing to 11/17/2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/17/2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 62-2015 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request rg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17th day of November by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You're all set. MR. SCHRODER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll move on to Site Plan 63-2015. SITE PLAN NO. 63-2015 SEAR REAFFIRM SEAR GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RC LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 DISCUSSION. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DISCUSS TRAFFIC MONITORING REQUIREMENT FROM 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR PHASE 33 MITIGATION MEASURES. REQUESTING MONITORING TO BE EVERY THREE YEARS INSTEAD OF YEARLY. CROSS REFERENCE SEVERAL WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20; 295.8-1-3; 295.12-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040 RAY SCHRODER & CHARLES DUMAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, do you want to introduce it, please. MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a discussion on the traffic monitoring requirement from the 2004 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Phase III mitigation measures. Requesting monitoring to be every three years instead of yearly. Information in the packet includes data in reference to the past few years. I did have a conversation with A/CFTC, and our conversation, he looked over the information that was provided in the initial packet and in conversation with the applicant and it explains some details in reference to whether one to three years would be suitable. Both myself and A/CFTC felt more comfortable with possibly a two year versus a three year monitoring. Mr. Dumas also supplied additional supporting information which I have copies of that to show the Board, via the projector, if you want to see 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) that information, indicating, his explanation is indicating that those additional monitoring, asking for three years versus the one year, that the traffic hasn't changed, and it actually has gone down. So you'll hear that information from the applicant as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening again. MR. SCHRODER-Good evening. MR. DUMAS-I must say it's great to be back. We weren't here last year. We didn't have our Planning Board fix. MR. FORD-We missed you. MR. DUMAS-Just wanted to talk about the GEIS a little bit, and give you some background. This is really show and tell, but this was the GEIS that was done in 2001, and it's fairly and reasonably comprehensive in the studies that were done. It was updated in 2004 when The Great Escape built the Lodge, and it identified in the original GEIS and modified in the 2004 supplement to it, were three phases of mitigation that would be undertaken by the Park to mitigate potential traffic impacts. Phase I was the construction of a pedestrian bridge, and some signaling changes in some of the traffic control devices, and then Phase II occurred when the Lodge was built and that's where the ring road interfaced with Route 9 and formed a four- way intersection with I think it's Glen Lake Road. MR. MAGOWAN-Glen Lake Road. MR. DUMAS-Then there was a Phase Three that was recommended when the traffic counts reached a certain level, and the Phase Three mitigation was to add I think it's about 300 feet of road at the northbound Exit 20 from the Northway and then to widen Route 9 between Gurney and Glen Lake Road. So that was the Phase Three, and that was to be triggered by traffic counts taken by annual studies during a weekday in August and a weekend in August, and those thresholds, for example during the weekday it was to be taken at two locations. One up by Exit 20 and the other at Route 9 and Gurney Lane, and those are established in the GEIS, the 2004 GEIS, and the threshold that would trigger the Phase Three, the need to make those mitigation measures, on Tuesday or during the weekday, would be 1320 at Exit 20 and 1368 at U.S. Route 9 and Gurney Lane, and then as to weekend it would be 1454 at Exit 20 and 1404 at Gurney Lane. Statistics are I guess kind of an interesting thing and I don't want to bore you with it. I suppose I could read from this for a while and read you a bedtime story, but there's a couple of things that I think are kind of important. From 2003, when the monitoring began, the current levels are down by nearly 20% over the readings that were made in 2003, and the counts for 2015 are only about 60% of the Phase Three thresholds that I read to you. If you were to do the math on this, in order for, in 2015, to have hit those Phase Three thresholds, there would have had to have been another 550 vehicles at those times of measure. That's a lot of traffic. That's a lot of additional traffic. Just to give you an example how far below the threshold we are now, and even in the peak years, and I think one of the peak years was 2006, even in the highest year, the traffic counts were about 25%, 24, 25% below the Phase Three threshold trigger, and, you know, up here you can see the declining numbers from 2013. They have uniformly gone down. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that attendance at the Park has gone down. It was Eric Guilder who pointed out to me that there's probably a good reason for some of the decline. I guess the Park started charging for parking. So naturally when you start charging for parking there's fewer vehicles. People will carpool. Also, you know, there's buses that bring people to the Park. So the traffic counts have uniformly gone down, and, you know, these monitors are not inexpensive. They cost several thousand dollars a year to engage an engineering firm to go out and make the measurements, write the report and so forth. MR. FERONE-I've got a question. There's one variable here that, I don't know if it's taken into consideration. So, as an example, the counts were done on Saturday August the 15th. I tried to find on the Internet and I didn't do a very good job. I did find one site that indicated, that on August the 15th there was .37 inches of rain. So if it's a Saturday in August and it's a rainy day and less people are going to the Park, are these counts really good to have? Unfortunately I couldn't find areal detailed description of what the weather was. Now that rain may have come at 3 a.m. and it was a beautiful sunny day. I don't know. I'm just wondering if that was taken into consideration. If it's a poor weather day on a Saturday, you're not going to get a true count. MR. DUMAS-Well, I think the Park tries to do the measurements on rainy days. No, I'm just being facetious, but I don't know what the weather was, all right, but if you take a look at the trend in 2013, 2014, 2015, it's uniformly decreasing. I would be willing to bet that not all of 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) those years were rainy, and I don't know about the weather on that day, but your point is well taken. MR. FERONE-But it's an important consideration to have. MR. DUMAS-It is an important consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-For what it's worth, I had the same question. MR. DUMAS-But, you know, I go back to the trend, and, you know, if you take a look, you know, even if you go back 10 years, we're materially lower. So I guess the request, and I know that Staff is supportive of an every other year monitor. I believe the case is pretty clear and I respectfully request that you consider an every three year. The Park does not have any current plans to drive another 550 vehicles or 500 vehicles into the Park, and if you do the math on that metric, with say two or three or four people per vehicle, it would have to be an enormous attendance increase in order to drive those kind of vehicle counts, and there's just no immediate plan for that kind of expansion that the Park has in its agenda. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What year was the hotel built? MR. DUMAS-2004. MR. SCHRODER-I believe 2006 actually it opened. MR. DUMAS-Well, yes, the construction began in 2004. MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe that's why the peak traffic was in 2006. MR. DUMAS-Yes, that would be my guess, yes, and, you know, it's interesting, you know, you go back to 2003, 2004, 2005, those numbers are higher, and it was before the hotel and waterpark opened, and you can see that there's been a reasonably steady decline over those years in traffic counts. You don't have to be a traffic engineer to really get the sense of where the traffic problem is. It's not to the south of Exit 20. It's the other direction, and these mitigating measures, while appropriate for these thresholds to be reached, it's, I think, reasonably certain that they're going to be far off. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What would be your recommendation for the amount of time between? MR. DUMAS-Our request is for every three years. I know Staff has been supportive of an every other year count, but I believe that the statistics and what I've offered this evening make the case for every three years. MR. HUNSINGER-What I was about to say, you know, it's always interesting, you know, the view of hindsight, and I'm the only one left on the Board that was still, I don't know if that's good or bad, when the. MR. DUMAS-I did see your fingerprints on this. MR. HUNSINGER-When the initial Environmental Impact Statement was done, and I would have bet then that we never would have been sitting here in 2015 without those mitigation measures triggered. I think it was fully expected by everybody at the time that at some point within the next five to ten years those mitigation measures would have been necessary, and it still really amazes me the benefits of what was done and the impact on the corridor. I mean, if you remember before the pedestrian bridge was up and you had the two red lights, two signal lights right in front of The Great Escape and it was just an awful mess all the time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It took forever to get through. MR. HUNSINGER-And you couldn't get through it, and today 90% of the time traffic just flows right through there, not an issue. I don't think we ever could have anticipated that. MR. DUMAS-And I agree with you. As I was preparing for the meeting this evening I went back and I read the minutes from 2001 and then 2004, and it was a clear expectation on the part of the Board that those mitigation measures would be almost immediately needed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we thought it would be three, four years. MR. TRAVER-And two out of three of them were. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-How would you feel if we went to two years, and then reviewed it in two and considered the three at that time? MR. DUMAS-Well, I, of course, would respectfully request that we go to three years and take a look at it again in three years. MR. DEEB-I'd feel more comfortable going for two years and looking at it to see if the continuing decline continues, and then we could take a harder look at it at that point and say, you know, maybe. MR. FERONE-And the other thing is if we can coordinate now, is it correct, every other year a new ride comes in? MR. SCHRODER-Every year we try to introduce something, yes. MR. FERONE-Every year. I don't think there was one last year because I don't remember you being in. MR. SCHRODER-Last year we didn't present a formalized site plan. What we had done was we had re-developed an existing space within the Park. Formerly Noah's Sprayground became Buccaneer Beach. There was a small addition of impervious cover to that space that we had worked through with Planning Staff, but outside of that, the attraction, in essence, went through a facelift. MR. FERONE-But again, you might hit that one year that does increase your attendance. You might not have had done traffic. MR. DUMAS-Well, you know, that's a good point. I thought about that, and my sense is that if we were in for such a ride that was apparent, you might make, you know, the traffic monitor a condition of that approval. MR. TRAVER-That's what I was going to suggest. Every three years, however, when you have a site plan, that would trigger. MR. DUMAS-Yes, but a site plan review that has an apparent attendance drive to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So here's my concern. I mean, I think your request is pretty reasonable, you know, I mean, based on the numbers, but until you put the numbers up there every year, and you really see the trends, I think if you're only collecting data every three years, you may not see the trends like you can now. MR. TRAVER-Well, that would be a longer term trend obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-But it probably, with their current business model they would be more often than not more often than three years because they would be modifying the Park, but if they, for whatever reason they didn't, one of their concerns is the expense. So if the situation were such that they were not going out and buying new rides, they wouldn't have the expense of the traffic study, but we'd still have that bench mark every three years. If they have an aggressive business model and they're doing something every year, then we'd have current data for that here. MR. FORD-Well, that's what your goal is, right, to add something every year. MR. SCHRODER-It's Six Flags' intention to introduce something new to our guests every single year. However, within the data that we have here, we've since introduced Looney Tunes National Park, full resort hotel with indoor waterpark across the street from the theme park that utilizes the same traffic pattern. Wiggles World, which is now Kidsopolous, Alpine Freefalls, the Sasquatch, essentially we've brought truly something new to the table every single year, including some that I will admit are quite larger than Greezed Lightnin. MR. HUNSINGER-Sasquatch being one. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. The 192 footer that we'll have to work right next to. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Other thoughts, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-So you're talking about maybe three years with a site plan generating a new study? MR. TRAVER-That's what I was thinking after I looked at this. MR. DEEB-So if you come in with a site plan every year. MR. SCHRODER-Therefore it would be essentially every year I suppose, yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, you're looking for, our concern obviously is changes driving, having an impact on traffic. MR. SCHRODER-Understood. MR. TRAVER-One of the things that would trigger that, with regard to your operation is obviously a change in your attraction. Right? That also is driving your return on investment, your current business model. So if you have a down turn for some reason and you're not aggressively modifying the Park to keep your attendance high, you will not have the expense of the, doing the traffic study, which is, I think, underlying why you're here tonight. You want to save the money of doing a traffic study. So if there's not a change to the Park, then we go to a three year arrangement. If, you know, your business is such that it calls for aggressively updating, as you say a facelift every year and it rises to the level of a Planning Board application, well, I think it's appropriate that we have that traffic information to look at, you know, how that's going to affect, potentially affect the Park. MR. DUMAS-1 think the point that Ray was making hopefully addresses your concern. The Park has been in every year, practically, with a new ride and yet the traffic counts have gone down. So, you know, the logic of revisiting it and requiring a traffic study every year when the Park comes in for a new ride every year kind of fails, and the request here, the point was assuming that the Park comes in every year for a new ride that the frequency of the traffic monitor be reduced based upon the trend and the statistic and whether it's, you know, two years and a re-visit at that point with fresh data or every three years and a re-visit with fresh data, I think what we're looking for is some relief from that annual expense regardless of whether we come in for a new ride. MR. FERONE-Well, I think the other consideration is, I mean, you might have a new attraction that is for the young crowd which is an adult ride. You're going to bring a, what is it, a Spiderman or something in here, that's going to generate a lot of interest. That would probably increase traffic. So maybe the consideration is what attraction you're actually bringing in here. MR. TRAVER-The other factor that we have to consider is the whole Exit 20 corridor has a variety of traffic issues, as you know, and inevitably I think there will be some mitigation of some kind at some point, and part of the impact of that may be to drive traffic that currently isn't going through this area through this area. So, and obviously you gentlemen are very much hoping that that trend reverses itself, right? So for all those reasons. MR. DUMAS-Well, I think we're hoping that attendance stays at current levels or increases, not necessarily that we're driving more vehicles to the site. MR. TRAVER-Not necessarily. I agree. MR. DUMAS-Right. MR. TRAVER-Which is why, you know, if you're not, if you are not doing a facelift to the Park or whatever, I think that traffic probably would remain relatively stable. MR. FORD-1 think a nice transition is what I recommended before. Let's review it in two years and determine at that time whether we go to three or continue with three. MR. DEEB-Two years is a compromise, and I think that you go two years and then we'll look at it again, and then if we feel it's still declining. MR. DUMAS-Your thinking is not unreasonable. MR. FORD-Thank you. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-If I was your marketing manager and I had to look at numbers like that, I would be looking at doing something, changing what my offering is to my market. I wouldn't be worried so much about traffic count because it's going the wrong way in the first place, and that is a concern, but there are other concerns that you should be addressing, and I'm sure you are going to, because that's not, those aren't good numbers. MR. DEEB-Yes, but I think they're separate aren't they, the number, the attendance and the traffic are separate. MR. DUMAS-Yes, and that's the point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you divide it out, yes. MR. DEEB-Is attendance the same or up? MR. FORD-The bottom line is not reflected up there. MR. DUMAS-That is correct. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And, see, that was the compromise, you know, back in 2000, 2001 we had asked for attendance numbers. For obvious reasons The Great Escape didn't want to share those. So we said well the issue is traffic. It's not attendance. So we'll make it a measure that they don't mind sharing. Something that we can calculate and analyze. So that's why we went to the traffic numbers. MR. SCHRODER-We certainly didn't indicate in terms of any growth or decline attendance, but we can certainly say that we have noticed, comparing our attendance data and the numbers on our screen with the traffic. There isn't a very direct correlation and certainly especially in our current economic times, they have been improving lately, our guests have learned to also become more efficient and they are packing more folks into one car. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they're also parking in different spots than they've parked before. Because there's a lot of guys with their parking lots that are small and they're feeding off of this. MR. FORD-To the south. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you're not capturing that from that. MR. DEEB-Buses are good. MR. DUMAS-Buses are very good. We love buses. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FERONE-1 did want to take the opportunity, it has nothing to do with this, I mentioned to the gentlemen from the Park that with those other parking lots that were just mentioned, I thought when you had the pedestrian bridge and I said, wow, that's great, yet there's still a lot of people who are crossing Route 9 and there are no crosswalks there, which, I know it's not our purview, but just throw it out there that might be something to look at. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they also come down and cross there on Round Pond, which is also a busy intersection. MR. FERONE-Busy intersection, and there's no crosswalk there either. MR. MAGOWAN-And that becomes very difficult in the summertime with Martha with the people. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that's where the accidents are. If you look at your accident data. MR. SCHRODER-When we originally developed those parking lots it was our intentions that we had abated that with fences that we had installed where we've created essentially barriers where our guests can't cross from our lots straight over and we had developed the pedestrian bridge in that area. Certainly we didn't have any control over what our neighbors had intended 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) to do with their particular spaces, but we certainly have taken every measure. In addition to just the fences, we also do have several signs in that area indicating to please use the pedestrian bridge, and certainly I guess folks will do certainly whatever they wish, but we do make every effort to direct our guests to cross as safely as possible. We have the option of the pedestrian bridge. That's open so that way the guests can cross even if they're on the crosswalk side of the fence. There is a gap where they can enter onto the pedestrian bridge. We've added our fences and certainly if they wish to do it they will. MR. FERONE-1 understand. MR. MAGOWAN-A good example was Texas Roadhouse. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. MAGOWAN-Almost got it the other night, and I was in the first lane closest to Texas Roadhouse, but I don't think they even saw the car that was coming up behind me and boy I'll tell you the horns were honking and that was a close one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And their business was pretty good that night, wasn't it? MR. MAGOWAN-It was booming. MR. DEEB-These are things out of your control. You have no control over that. MR. DUMAS-Water tends to seek its own level. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, you know, in your defense, too, the problem that I see is really up there at the, you know, the Gurney Lane and the corridor. Most of that traffic is just backed up because it's just, it doesn't move through the Million Dollar Mile, and coming off, you can't get off the Northway if nothing's going north, you know, and it flows nice down at our end. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-1 know we haven't reached a conclusion yet. I guess I would lean toward Mr. Ford's recommendation that we go two years and try it. We at least save you from doing the study next year. MR. TRAVER-So that's an option that we have, that we could require them to come back in two years with a report, and we would evaluate it then. MR. HUNSINGER-We don't always officially review the report at a Board meeting either. MR. DUMAS-No, it customarily is reviewed by Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DUMAS-To just determine whether the counts are within the thresholds. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So, you know, the normal procedure is they submit the report to the Town and it doesn't come to the Planning Board unless there's a reason for it to come before the Planning Board. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. TRAVER-Yes, well I guess my concern with that plan, if I understand it, we're almost reading it like a Special Use Permit, and I can understand the initial thought behind it, but if you go back to the reasons that the every year plan was developed, it was to, I believe, to look at the impact of development of the Park. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And the in two years we don't know what changes might be forthcoming, so, I mean, it's like we're going to have the same factors in two years that we have now. The things that are going to drive this are changes to the Park, and potential changes in other surrounding areas and impacts on traffic. So why not have their action drive the requirement for the traffic study. Rather than have it every year, just have it done when they're modifying the Park. Their concern is saving money, not spending money that they don't have to. So if they're not modifying the Park, let them save the money. If they're modifying the Park, then we get the data that we need that was originally planned. MR. FORD-But, Steve, their goal is to modify the Park every year. MR. TRAVER-1 understand that, but last year they didn't come with a plan. We don't know what's going to happen next year. MR. DEEB-Well, they've added an attraction almost every year for the last I don't know how many years, and the traffic study's gone down. So if you go two years, you'd be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-1 see what you're saying. What you're saying I think makes sense. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, right now they do it every year, regardless. Even if only go to almost every year they're still saving a significant amount of money. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, why not go that way for a few years and see how often it, what the numbers look like. MR. DUMAS-Part of the problem with that is that the monitor is done in August, okay, when the Park is open. The Park doesn't always make the decision whether to do a new ride in August. So, you know, then it's a question of timing. The decision isn't usually made to do a new ride until after the August. MR. TRAVER-Understood, but that's in the context where you're doing the traffic study whether or not you're doing a ride. If you know that the traffic study becomes part of the planning for a new ride, you probably will do your evaluation differently. MR. DUMAS-Well, as I say, the evaluation under the GEIS is to be done in August. The Park doesn't always know in August whether it's going to do a new ride. So it would be circular. MR. TRAVER-Well, okay, I guess I'm confused because on the one hand you're saying that you plan on putting in a new ride every single year. Now you're telling me you don't know if you're going to put a new ride in every year. MR. DUMAS-The decision isn't made. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that strengthens my case that if you're not going to put in a ride, save the money for the traffic study. MR. DUMAS-Well, I think the case that we've made is pretty strong based upon the numbers. Each year that we've put a ride in, the numbers have gone down. MR. TRAVER-But we don't know that that's going to continue, and that's why, you know, 14 years ago it was decided it really should be done every year. MR. DEEB-Well, we can't predicate them putting new rides in then saying they have to have a traffic study. I mean, the way it was done originally and set up was that it was every three years to monitor traffic. So I think the fairest compromise is to go two years, let them go two years, and if they want us to look at it in two years, come in with another site plan and let us look at it and then if we have to modify it then, we can modify it, if we see declining figures. Or we can keep it at two years. I mean, I think that's the fairest compromise to make in this whole situation. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. DUMAS-What I would suggest in order to try and meet your concern as well as some of the other comments that I've heard, is if you're willing to allow an every other year monitor, if the Park were to come in two years from now for a new ride we would be coming in with a traffic study and we'd take a look at it at that point. MR. FORD-So you want to come in every time you bring in a new ride? That could be annually, back to annually. MR. DUMAS-Well, but let's play out my thought. So if you were to allow every other year, and there was a no study next year and we came in with a ride, you could, you know, take a look at the ride and approve it. Then the following year we would come in with a study and a ride. MR. DEEB-And it would give us some figures to look at. MR. DUMAS-It would give you some fresh figures. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't think one ride is going to really throw those numbers off. MR. DUMAS-I don't think so. MR. TRAVER-It depends on the ride. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, true, but I mean, how much room do they have to put, you know, put the superman or the. MR. TRAVER-The whole Park. They can always take a ride out there. MR. DEEB-And a relative amount of time, there's a good window of opportunity, even to look at it, if they do put a ride in, the following year. It's not going to be that far off to look at the traffic study. MR. TRAVER-Well, I mean, I guess in my case I feel like I'm swinging after the bell. So Staff already reviewed it and they made a recommendation every other year. The applicant now seems like they're really willing to do that. So if the Board's comfortable with that, I could support that. MR. DUMAS-Thank you. MR. FORD-I'm comfortable with that. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm comfortable with it. MR. DEEB-I'm fine with it. MR. HUNSINGER-As with the last Site Plan, we need to reaffirm SEQR. MRS. MOORE-So in your stapled packet there is a SEQR resolution. They're talking about this being a modification to the Findings Statement, and it indicates the proposed Site Plan modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts than the previous Generic Environmental Impact Statement of 2001 and 2004. MR. HUNSINGER-So here in your sample resolution you've said that requesting monitoring every three years instead of yearly. We're going to say every two years. MRS. MOORE-Now you're modifying it to two. So the next one you would see would be 2017, or Staff would see. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We saved you half. MR. TRAVER-It's interesting. On the Staff Notes it lists the years that the rides were, and if you look at that, you'll see it's not every year. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. TRAVER-In the past anyway. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) RESOLUTION RE: SEQR SP# 63-2015 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to discuss traffic monitoring requirement from 2004 supplemental Generic Environmental Statement for Phase 3 mitigation measures. Requesting monitoring to be every two years instead of yearly. Whereas, The Planning Board has determined the proposed request is a modification to the original and supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, The Planning Board has determined the proposed Site Plan modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts from the previous Final General Environmental Impact Statement of 7/11/2001 and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement of 4/10/2004. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION SEAR FINDINGS FOR SITE PLAN 63-2015 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. SCHONEWOLF-We also have a motion to Approve Site Plan Modification 63-2015 to every two years. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#63-2015 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to discuss traffic monitoring requirement from 2004 supplemental Generic Environmental Statement for Phase 3 mitigation measures. Requesting monitoring to be every two years instead of yearly. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has determined the proposed Site Plan modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts from the previous Final General Environmental Impact Statement of 7/11/2001 and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement of 4/10/2004. The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/17/2015 and continued the public hearing to 11/17/2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/17/2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION SITE PLAN 63-2015 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request rg anted: 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. SCHRODER-Thank you. MR. DUMAS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. I tell the Board all the time, when we did the public hearing in the high school auditorium and all we did was take public comment for four hours. It was more than four hours actually. MR. DUMAS-Yes, I still have all those transcripts and read them from time to time. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2015 (PZ-0005-2015) SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 64-2015 (PZ -0006- 2015) STAN DOBERT AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS; MATT FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) BEN L. ARONSON ZONING MS-MAIN STREET LOCATION 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL 52 SPACE PARKING AREA ON VACANT LAND TO THE EAST OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE NEW LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND STORM WATER CONTROLS. REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL PARKING ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE CROSS REFERENCE SP 21-2012, AV 10-02, SP 49-99, AV 83-99, SP 22-97, AV 19-97, UV 18-97, UV 14-94, AV 15-94, AV 94-92, AV 29-92, AV 1287, VAR. 777 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 66.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-10 SECTION 179-9- 030 TOM JARRETT & MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to install 52 parking spaces on vacant land to the east of the existing building. The proposal includes new lighting landscaping and stormwater controls. Revisions to approved site plans require site plan review and approval. This also a Special Use Permit to install parking on the side of the building which requires Board review as well. I've identified that this was a previously approved site plan in 2012 as well in reference to stormwater and engineering signoff, and at that time they received a signoff in July of 2012, and there's been no changes to that proposed stormwater system. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller with Meyer and Fuller in Lake George, Tom Jarrett and Stan Dobert with Apex Solar Power. This is the formal Double A provisions location with the neighboring lot. There was a previous site plan for the, basically the same thing that we're applying for today that expired, and that, I will tell you, is essentially the reason that we are here. We are under contract to buy that property, but we weren't going to do that with an expired Site Plan for the parking which, if you guys have been out there and done site visits you'll probably see pretty critical for what we've got going on now. Originally started a few properties down on the smaller corner. What's the corner street? MR. MAGOWAN-Richardson. MR. FULLER-Richardson and Main. Moved to this spot, which is a good location for them. They do have the locations down state, up state and out of state now, but this is really the hub of their corporate operation. The one thing we wanted to, 52 spots, two parcels over there about 1.9 acres. I think the plans were clear from before. Tom can go into a little bit, but there is a, as part of the Site Plan there's a pad site right out front along Main Street that we're not going to build straight away. We do plan to build it here eventually but the initial plan would be to install the parking over there. We've got some improvements we need to do to the building we're working on and we'd then come back later to deal with the possible structure out front, 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) and didn't know, in the meantime, if the Planning Board would be willing to allow that to be used as parking, which we could do it, we could use it. If not, it's not a deal breaker to us, but we were talking about it after and thought that if you guys were comfortable with that, we could probably fit eight or ten, twelve spaces, up to twelve out along that area and still have the plantings and things like that that we had shown on the plans, and just for the plans for the area right there. So we fill it with the landscaping and things like that. We don't kick up over the variance, but we wanted to, if the Planning Board was willing to allow that until we built the pad site, we could use it. MR. TRAVER-So this is essentially the same application, isn't it? MR. FULLER-It is. MR. JARRETT-Identical with the exception that we're asking for that temporary parking on the pad site. What we would do, if you're willing to consider that, could you go back to that plan, Laura? If you're willing to consider that, what we would do is move the landscaping from here out to the front and make a continuous screen across the front, which would remain, and then when the building is built, the landscaping would be reviewed for that site plan, and we would leave this green but just make it reinforced turf, and park on grass. So I don't think it would affect the aesthetics of the site, but it would give us some functional capability to use it as parking if we needed it there. MRS. MOORE-How many spaces did you say? MR. JARRETT-Up to 12. MRS. MOORE-Total spaces, and they would align like they are now? MR. JARRETT-In the same configuration as this. We had already figured that as being impervious in the future when we did the stormwater design. So it wouldn't affect stormwater at all, and it really wouldn't affect green except we'd be parking on top of the green when we needed it. MR. FULLER-And it would be overflow. It's not a primary parking, and again it was just an idea that we had when we were talking about the flow of the site. MR. JARRETT-It just makes sense. We're still stipulating that when a building is built, it's built in the front, you know, built to the building setback line, and we're still stipulating that and it's still identified on the plan. MR. FERONE-Does all this parking eliminate the parking that's going on around the front and the west side of the building? So it's kind of like gravel? MR. FULLER-Not completely eliminate it, but alleviate it to a great degree, and like I said, we are working on the improvements to the building that we'll be back for that part of the site. We're going to spruce it up and we've already looked at some improvements to the parking out there, some green space, but that's not close right now. It has been successful. MR. FORD-What's the net impact of this change on impervious surfaces? MR. JARRETT-We would leave it green. We just would park on it. If that's what your question is. We're leaving it green. We're not going to change the. MR. FORD-On the total site. MR. JARRETT-No change because we would leave it green. It's proposed to be green and remain green but we would park on it. We would just make it structurally supportive of parking and park on it when it's needed. MRS. MOORE-But it would still count as impermeable surface. If you're parking on it, it would count as impermeable. So whatever that value is should be calculated. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Well, right now we're proposed at 23. Yes, minimal permeable is required 10 and we're at 23 proposed. So we'd still be compliant. We'd just be closer into compliance than we are now, if that's counted as impermeable. We've not had to count overflow parking 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) on reinforced turf as impermeable before. So that's interesting. We can discuss that, but we would still be compliant. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And other than this temporary area, essentially this same parking plan was reviewed by us a few years ago. MR. JARRETT-2012. MR. FULLER-And it had engineering stamp, zoning stamp, construction plans were drawn. MR. JARRETT-Actually, beg your pardon, Tom. Going back to your question, from a stormwater perspective I know, and I bet we could check it from a zoning, we counted that building footprint in the stormwater calculations and I think we did for permeability, too. So we may still remain at the numbers proposed either way. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-From a stormwater perspective we definitely count it as impermeable. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess I'm still a little confused. You're here because the approval expired and you didn't build the parking. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. FULLER-The current owner never built that. MR. JARRETT-We're just throwing a little wrinkle into the. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You confused me by the opening comments. Yes. MR. FULLER-As part of the closing process, they sent us over those plans, and I got them and I said, these are expired. MR. TRAVER-One little problem, yes. MR. FULLER-We're not closing until I have an approval. MR. HUNSINGER-1 remember when we reviewed the site plan and, you know, we were trying to speculate as to what kind of a business might go into that building. MR. TRAVER-That's right, because that would affect parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We had no idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had no idea. MR. JARRETT-But we were willing to stipulate at that time that the zoning would be met. MR. FORD-You're still going to. MR. JARRETT-And we're still going to. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, it's still a difficult site plan in terms of meeting the requirements of the Main Street plan that's in the Comprehensive Plan. Because you don't have a building built to the build to line. MR. JARRETT-We don't have a building at all. It's not like we're proposing one back. When one is built, it will be built to the build to line. MR. FULLER-And like I said, I think if you think about this phase wise, it allows us to tackle the plans on the actual building site, which is what we're working on. Now we can alleviate the parking there, move it over to here, and it'll allow us I think a little bit more flexibility to get back here with a plan on the actual site. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-So is it likely that you're going to come back in the near future with a building for that site? MR. FULLER-In the immediate future, right out front? No. It would be the corner parcel that we have where the building is. Because you've seen the lot, you've looked at it and it's dirt and they've got some exterior improvements and things that they'll work on, but the site has worked great. I mean, as far as the warehouse and out to the Northway and getting jobs on trucks, I mean, we couldn't get a better location for that. Because, I mean, they're on the Northway and out to the sites. MR. DEEB-It's going to be mostly employee parking. It's not going to be, you're not going to have people coming off the street for business. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, maybe I'm a little confused. You're proposing to build a parking lot in the back. This is the original, right, the 52 spots? MR. JARRETT-Exactly as shown on the plans. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and you want to do something up front for another 12 spots? MR. JARRETT-Where that building pad is shown, until a building is actually located there, we want to park on that green space temporarily as overflow parking. MR. FULLER-Take this, the landscaping that's right there, the trees, shrubs, plant them right here, and then when we get to the point of designing and finally building the building, the building would still stay right where it is and we would move the landscaping back. MR. MAGOWAN-So what you're saying that the building that you're in now, you need more than 52 spots? MR. JARRETT-At times there is a crunch, especially when shifts are changing, so it's not every day I don't think, but I think there are times when you said you have a crunch you could use that additional overflow during peak periods. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because what's confused me is if you go to, do build a building there, then you're really going to be in a crunch. MR. JARRETT-Well, that's going to be looked at hard. MR. FULLER-That's the design of the building, I call it the building lot, the parcel that has the actual structure on it right now, that's what we're looking at is designing that with the permeability requirements and the impervious surface and taking a look at how that's going to shape up. MR. JARRETT-Now eventually this lot will be part of that whole mix that gets considered, but that house lot is grandfathered at the moment. So it's not part of the mix right now, but it will be in the future. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I remember talking about that, but like I said, I was just a little confused. So you actually need 64 spots. MR. JARRETT-It's not every day. MR. FULLER-It's just overflow. MR. MAGOWAN-It's overflow. MR. FULLER-It's a crew timing thing. Stan and I were talking about it. When the guys come in, the crews in the morning get the projects together, they know where the projects are going, get them on the truck and not all of the vehicles leave, but you don't put five work heads in a truck. Some of them take cars and go. So maybe you have five on a crew, five come in, three of those cars leave, two of them stay with the truck. So it's just an overflow. MR. MAGOWAN-So but you're going to still build a parking lot. MR. FULLER-Yes. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-And you just want to use the front as the overflow and bring the shrubs up front for now to kind of hide it. Okay. That's what I thought, but it was just too much. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? We have at least one taker. If you could identify yourself for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes and the tape is also available on the Town's website. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD HILL MR. HILL-My name is Richard Hill, and I own the property at 24 Richardson Street that borders the property there that was previously Double A. I was here back at the meeting when this was originally approved. At that point, there was no speculation what the business may be. Apparently there is a business in there and it's doing I think quite well. I've driven by and seen a lot of vehicles there, trucks. I'm just concerned about my property as far as, you know, setbacks. The survey that had been done on the Site Plan Review, are these going to be commercial vehicles? Are they going to be parked in there using it for turn around, storage area, you know, the lighting, things like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILL-Again, when it was originally approved there was, you know, no business operation on it. I believe it was actually closed at the time. MR. MAGOWAN-So which house are you coming down Richardson? MR. HILL-I'd be the third one. MR. MAGOWAN-So you'd be in the back corner of the lot there. MR. HILL-Yes, it probably borders actually I guess the additional piece of property that they spoke about, and then alongside of that in the back. MRS. MOORE-It would be this corner lot, the back corner of the proposal. That's Mr. Hill's lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll ask the applicant to clarify. MR. HILL-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, was there anything else? MR. HILL-Well, I was curious as far as the buffer zones, you know, what the setbacks would be on that, what type of buffering there'd be and if there would be any type of fencing. Again, I didn't have all the stuff from the plans. I did review previously, but it has been a few years. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. HILL-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-So did you understand where his property is? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I mean, I remember when he was there before. MR. JARRETT-It's that property right there. So as you can see we have landscaping there, and this is actually open area that's not parking. So this corner right here is the one I think that would be of the most concern to him. That would be the area that would probably face him. MRS. MOORE-It would be this corner. This is his corner. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you do have a tree and a couple of shrubs. MR. JARRETT-We're willing to add some shrubs and maybe trees as appropriate in that corner. We can discuss that with Staff. Shrubs are probably more appropriate in the short term and maybe even in the long term for buffering, but a tree or so in that area might work, too. MR. HUNSINGER-And he had also asked about the types of vehicles that would be parked there. I mean, these are just, the way it's laid out it looks like standard automobile parking. There wouldn't be any commercial vehicles. MR. JARRETT-And they aren't there all the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-Well, they do have some of those small little, I say small, like a fleet. Like a little Ford transit. MR. HUNSINGER-Not the big box. MR. JARRETT-Would you have the commercials closer to the building and the employees out in the parking. So this area would probably be more prone to be employee parking, and even ask the employees to park there, and leave the commercial vehicles closer to the building. STAN DOBERT MR. DOBERT-Leaving the commercial vehicles on the west side of the building is what we're looking at. MR. FULLER-Yes, as far as like the bigger, the supply trucks and things, that all comes out of the warehouse here. There really isn't a big warehouse access on that side. MR. FORD-No storage vehicles would be placed there. MR. FULLER-No. Some box trucks, but they'd be over right in here. MR. DOBERT-The real growth that we're experiencing is this serves as a corporate headquarters. So it's all office work and suppliers that come in and it's just more people to maintain more office, outpost warehouses. So the growth is happening more as an office setting as opposed to the warehouse. So that's what that's mainly for. Because our goal is to separate the commercial and the passenger vehicles, because we've had a few accidents in there, and it doesn't make the employees too happy when they get their cars bumped into. MR. MAGOWAN-1 could see where that would make a little ruckus in the office. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR. There was a Short Form submitted with the application. There is a draft SEQR resolution in our package. If you'd like to make a motion. RESOLUTION RE: SEQR NEG DEC SP #64-2015 & SUP# 64-2015 STAN DOBERT The applicant proposes to install 52 space parking area on vacant land to the east of the existing building. Proposal to include new lighting, landscaping, and storm water controls. Revisions to approved site plans require Planning board review and approval. Special Use permit to install parking on the side of the building requires planning board review and approval. In addition, the applicant will provide full screen across the front. The applicant will utilize the building pad as overflow parking with reinforced turf (12 spaces). The applicant will plant additional shrubs at the southeast corner. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 64-2015 & SUP 64- 2015 STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015, by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-Do we have to put in to add more landscaping on that corner? MR. HUNSINGER-Not on the SEQR. MR. MAGOWAN-That was just the SEQR. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a whole mess of things that have to be in the resolution so read them and then I won't have to. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Special conditions. First off we have waivers requested. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And then Items 2 through D. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then it goes on to the next page. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it does. Actually it's 2 through I. Correct? If we make it clear, it's 2 through I? MRS. MOORE-2A through 21. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I also heard the Board discuss. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Up to 12 spaces. MRS. MOORE-Utilizing that building pad for overflow parking. The applicant has offered that that be reinforced turf, and that the landscaping would be moved forward. The Board may consider adding, there appears to be two clumps of plantings at the moment. MR. JARRETT-I said it would be continuous across the front. We'd have full screening. MRS. MOORE-Continuous across the front. So I would add that as part of your resolution when you're making that, and then the applicant has also offered to do, in the southeast corner, either an additional cover of tree to address the neighbor's concern about the buffering in that area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Anything else? Say it no or forever hold your peace. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. TRAVER-1 think that covers it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get it all? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I've got the landscaping, the tree, 12 spaces and all through 1. Did you get one more? MR. HUNSINGER-Additional shrubs at the southwest corner. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, shrubs. MR. FORD-Southeast corner. MR. DEEB-When can I second it? Are we done? MR. FORD-Any time you're ready. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we're done. MR. DEEB-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Is everyone clear what the motion is? MRS. MOORE-Maria? MS. GAGLIARDI-Could you make a formal motion? I didn't hear a motion. I'm sorry. Motion to Approve and the conditions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The motion was made by me and it was seconded by David. MR. HUNSINGER-The motion is in accordance with the draft prepared by Staff. With the waivers granted. The applicant will provide full screen across the front. And utilize the building pad as overflow parking with reinforced turf and they will plant additional shrubs at the southeast corner. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP#64-2015 SUP #64-2015 STAN DOBERT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to install 52 space parking area on vacant land to the east of the existing building. Proposal to include new lighting, landscaping, and storm water controls. Revisions to approved site plans require Planning board review and approval. Special Use permit to install parking on the side of the building requires planning board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/17/2015 and continued the public hearing to 11/17/2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/17/2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 64-2015 & SUP 64-2015 STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request rg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Also, j) The applicant will provide full screen across the front. k) The applicant will utilize the building pad as overflow parking with reinforced turf (12 spaces) I) The applicant will plant additional shrubs at the southeast corner. Duly adopted this 17th day of November 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. MR. FULLER-If anybody has any sets of plans you want to recycle. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be most all of them. Do you wantjust these? MR. DOBERT-I'll take all of them if you've got them. That would be great. MR. HUNSINGER-Some of it's marked up. MR. TRAVER-I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/2015) MR. FERONE-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 2015, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 46