Loading...
12-15-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 4-2015 U-Haul 1. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-81 Site Plan No. 67-2015 Robert& Renee Little (Trustees) 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.14-1-9 Subdivision No. 8-2015 Burnett Family Trust 8. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 FINAL STAGE PUD SP 57-2015 Queensbury Partners 9. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 Subdivision No. 22-2005 & Townhouses at Haviland HOA, Inc. 10. Subdivision No. 3-2014 MOD. Tax Map No. 290.17-2-39 Site Plan No. 51-2015 MOD. Smart Wash of Queensbury, LLC 22. 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 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to order on Tuesday, December 15, 2015. 1 would like to ask people to remember to turn off the ringers on your cellphones and devices. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also handouts for public hearing procedures. Several of the items on the agenda do have public hearings scheduled this evening. The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from October 20th and October 27th, 2015, if anyone would like to make a motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 20, 2015 October 27, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20TH & OCTOBER 27TH, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger MR. HUNSINGER-I'm going to abstain because I wasn't here on the 27th. We have an Administrative Item. A tabling consider for Site Plan 4-2015 for U-Haul at 112 Main Street. I'm sorry, not a tabling, a Site Plan extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO AUGUST 20, 2016; SP 4-2015, U-HAUL, 112 MAIN ST. MRS. MOORE-This applicant has asked for an extension to August 20th. I do know the applicant is in the audience if the Board members have any questions. The applicant has indicated that it will allow them to finish up some items on the site if they're given until August 20th. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF SP#4-2015 U-HAUL MOTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION TO AUGUST 20, 2016, FOR SITE PLAN NO. 4- 2015 U-HAUL., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE RYAN CHURCHILL MR. CHURCHILL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Good luck. The first item on the agenda is a Planning Board Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. NEW BUSINESS: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 67-2015 PZ 0032-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II ROBERT & RENEE LITTLE (TRUSTEES) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING, LITTLE & O'CONNOR, PHINNEY DESIGN GROUP ZONING WR LOCATION 20 PIONEER POINT, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TEARDOWN OF SINGLE FAMILY 1,305 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,730 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) TO A TWO STORY MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT WALKOUT AT 2,985 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. APPLICANT PROPOSES SHORELINE PLANTINGS, PERMEABLE PAVERS AND INSTALLATION OF A WELL AS PART OF PROJECT. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES ALSO. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW HOME WITHIN 50 FT. AND 15% SLOPE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, ROAD FRONTAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE NONE WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-19 SECTION 179-6-060 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to teardown a single family residential building and construct a new residential building. The footprint from the original is 1,305 and the new footprint would be 1,730. The applicant proposes shoreline plantings, permeable pavers, and installation of a well as part of the project. The project also includes connection to the existing wastewater system. It's a group system. The relief requested involves floor area ratio, permeability, west side setback, a front side setback, shoreline setbacks as well as having development with a lot that has no road frontage. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of your record I'm Michael O'Connor. I represent the applicants, Robert and Renee Little who also happen to be my neighbors. I think they are at 20 Pioneer Point. I am at 15 Pioneer Point. They also are related to us. They are Betty's son and daughter-in-law. With me at the table is the project engineer, Tom Hutchins, and representatives from the Phinney Design Group who are designing the project, Jace Brown and Nicole Sumpano. Basically there are a number of variances that are requested, but truthfully if you looked at anything that was going to be built on this lot, probably the same number of variances would be requested. It's a small lot, and I think that they've done a number of designs trying to minimize the relief that they are asking for. The most significant part of this is that in actuality they have supported the installation of a septic system, a brand new septic system that serves not only their house, but the Clark house, or Clark and Barton are separate, but they're part of the same project. They did their own system, and the system that serves Robbie and Renee's house serves my house and also serves Betty's house. So all of Pioneer Point is on modern, up to date septic systems. In addition to that, for this particular property, there are additional stormwater controls presently in place. Tom will get into that, but we think we've done a great job of taking care of any stormwater. So why don't I have the project explained to you and then we can answer questions if you have questions. Jace, you want to go ahead? MR. FORD-Take the mic with you, please. JACE BROWN 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. BROWN-Certainly. Again, Jace Brown, Phinney Design Group. The existing lot has, again, is a nonconforming lot on Pioneer Point. The lot is bound with four adjacent properties. Three of which, as Mike mentioned, are part of the septic system that has already been upgraded. The current house is a small, one story structure. As you can see, it's situated on the lot, extremely close to the Hogan property. It is nonconforming in its current arrangement with respect to the lake as well as the current setback and it doesn't meet the one side setback for the one property that is not part of that relief on the septic system. In considering this project, as has been mentioned, we focused on the fact that there's really nothing buildable about it whatsoever. This diagram illustrates that there's two small slivers of property that would be conforming to any setbacks. So it's, for all intents and purposes, it's impractical to design anything that would actually meet those requirements. In consideration of that, we explored several options, one of which is what we're proposing today, that we took the current property, looked at it's nonconformance, and attempted to make no condition worse than it is right now, and in addition to that, of course, to upgrade the site improvements that Tom will talk about in more detail. So we identified those setbacks as being four and a half feet, thirteen feet 11 inches on the front, and then twenty feet ten inches to the lake. So we used that, effectively, as an envelope to, again, make none of these conditions worse, and we designed the new home to fit entirely within that. In fact, we're a little bit further from the lake. We're about six inches away from the lake than we were before, and again, we've upgraded all the systems on the property to prevent any kind of stormwater getting into the lake. We also used the current location of the house as the most appropriate position the property to put the new home. We did rotate it ever so slightly, but we've scrutinized this in great detail, looking at what we would be demolishing a small area of fill that would enable us to produce some of the stormwater retention that would be needed for the project. A small excavated area, and then we came up with our height restriction and designed the roofline and everything to fit within that to the greatest extent possible. It does meet the 28 foot height restriction that's currently required. It is a two story project. We have basically a, the living space on the first level, kitchen, dining, a master bedroom on the first level living room with a deck and a small one car garage with an adjacent storage area. Currently the property has, I think, two outdoor storage sheds. Those are being demolished and consolidated into this structure. So we'd have a little bit less impact from that standpoint. The project then also includes, of course, the finished lower level, which includes a rec room, bunk room, guest room, mechanical area, laundry and bath. One of the most important things that we discussed with the client, Rob and Renee, about situating this project was in their desire to have a little bit more room than they right now we took great pains to create a walkout patio area that would be very visually unobtrusive from the lake. So there's a desire to have that outdoor living space, of course, being near the water, but we've actually used the staircase and some of the retaining walls that are necessary to put the house into the land to actually create this area that is actually, unless you're in the very extreme edge of the cove, you really can't see from anywhere, and I'll demonstrate that here with some of these visualizations in just a moment. This is the front elevation of the building, the side facing the land, not the shore, garage, living room window is right here. The window's in the kitchen. Coming around this side, which would be the north side of the house, this is this elevation. You can see here how the house is situated with respect to the lake down here. This is that stair system and deck that are effectively what's current in terms of the grade, and we're just scooping out kind of behind that stair area so you really don't see that from the water. This is the lakeside elevation that, again, this is that staircase. This is the side facing the cove. The vast majority of views from the water are from this side. So you really actually can't see this very well. Lower level windows. The deck, the deck is actually a little bit smaller than the current deck is. The patio area, that's the garage, and then just in terms of overall visuals, we can come back to this, of course, if you have any questions. Here's some general three dimensional viewpoints. As you can see, this is the most prominent view from the water. This is that staircase. All of that lower level living space, those windows, all of that really very unobtrusive as you view it from the water. This is from within cove. In reality there's a huge stand of trees here. We actually, this is an impossible view, but for clarity we removed the trees in this location. That's that lower area, that's the view from the land side, the front. MR. FORD-But only for that presentation, right? MR. BROWN-What's that? MR. FORD-You only removed the trees on that? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. FORD-1 just wanted to clarify that. MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely. So this is the current landscaping plan. There is a very prominent red oak tree that's right off of the deck. Part of our motivation for rotating the house 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) slightly from what's there right now is actually to keep that tree in place. It's a beautiful specimen tree. We'd like to keep it, and then there is a large extent of woodlands that is being kept intact all along that shore. These are those trees I was just talking about, and then we are basically taking what right now is a somewhat grassy slope and we are going to introduce native plantings entirely up the slope. It's one of these slopes where it's a little bit difficult to actually mow, and so it gets done infrequently and we'd like to actually eliminate that as a maintenance item but we would also like to actually introduce all those native species. That entire grassy slope will be planted all the way up to the house. The current flat area that's on the other side of the deck right here would remain as a small grass patch. The front of the house will also be landscaped heavily to buffer it from the neighbors. This is that patio area. The current front of the lot, and Tom probably can talk about this a little bit more in his presentation, there is an easement for the neighbors' access to their property. This is actually a shed. It's not a garage. It looks like a garage, but they do park in this area. So what we've done is right now this entire area, all the way up to the house, is crushed stone. It's a very large extent of crushed stone. We're trying to green it up, bring in some native plants in the front, and we're going to eliminate a large section of that crushed stone, put in reinforced grass. That will enable the neighbors to have access to that entire easement area, but will be much more naturalistic. It isn't really functionally speaking really used by the neighbor, but we are going to, of course, preserve it and they have that functionality like that. The garage entry right here has really been kept to a minimum. This small area of crushed stone, and you just have a very modest front walk up to the front steps. So in general a major greening of the property. This is not part, as has been made very clear, this is not part of our application, but if in the event of a future need for a dock that would be maybe several years down the road, we have sited that, looked at that with respect to the pathways and make sure that further disturbance would not be created in the future, so the pathway works to a conforming location for the dock. Currently there's a rather broken down little finger of dock down here that will probably be removed if not by Mother Nature, by a contractor. So we'll be eliminating that. There's a small concrete walk down there. We'd be eliminating that as well. So in general greening the shoreline, maintaining as much permeability as we can on the site, minimizing the impact of the house and trying to accommodate the desires of most people's program. Rob and Renee are not unusual in what they're looking for here, a modest size residence on a very difficult lot is effectively the design. So I'd be happy to answer any questions, but if you'd like, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. FORD-Tom, you have not changed your name, have you? MR. HUTCHINS-I have not. I'll get it right. For the record, I am Tom Hutchins. MR. FORD-Not Hutchinson. MR. HUTCHINS-Not Hutchinson. I'll just touch briefly on some of the site things. Again, what Jace said, there's been a lot of thought and options and rotations and variations put into this, and back in May and June of this year, 2015, we had permitted two septic systems to serve the five residences on Pioneer Point, which have been installed. They are advanced treatment systems. This house is included in one of those, a portion of the new septic system for this house is installed. That is the septic tank and the absorption field. All that really remains for here is a small pumping station to pump for the septic tank in this house whether it be the house that's there or the new house that's there, have a modern advanced treatment system that is installed and functional, and presently there are no stormwater controls on this site. Basically I think the Pioneer Point, the number of those places, everything slopes towards the lake. It's kind of a prominent, it just all runs towards the lake, the shortest path, and we have included infiltration trench around the house, much of the rooftop, we've utilized permeable pavers for the patios with stormwater storage beneath. We have minimized the gravel surfaces to the greatest extent we can, and actually since your application we have further been able to reduce the, or increase the permeability of this finished site from what you have in front of you, and so we'll be talking about that with the Zoning Board, but we have further improved it from your application and that consists of utilizing reinforced turf in an area that is part of an access easement. However, realistically will rarely be driven on. By utilizing reinforced turf we can make it so that it can be driven on if it has to be driven on but it's, again, a permeable surface. Again, the wastewater systems all have maintenance agreements and access easements have been developed to the adjoining properties, which was required with the, because, well none of these have any road frontage, right? So there are access easements to all the houses across the other properties, and so we're seeking relief on the side setback, shoreline setback, lake setback and with that I'll turn it over to you for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Question is, comments from the Board? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. DEEB-How much did you increase the permeability by? Do you know? You've got 70.45% proposed. What's that going to go to? MR. HUTCHINS-Right now we're showing, that's going to go to 75. It's going to go to compliance. MR. DEEB-So you won't need a variance. MR. HUTCHINS-So we won't need that variance. MR. DEEB-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Is it, it's reinforced turf? Does it have structures underneath it? MR. HUTCHINS-It has the porous. MRS. MOORE-Right. So it's potential that it only counts for 50%, but we can talk about that. MR. HUTCHINS-That's what we have to go through. MRS. MOORE-So the variance may still exist, but it may be less. MR. HUTCHINS-It will be much less. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you show us where on the site plan you're doing that? MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. Right along here. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be what I was going to ask you. MR. HUTCHINS-The access easement goes right down through here, for this house, and it's this section right here. So we've tightened up this driveway as best we can. It's 17 feet wide. You want to be able to park two cars there, and this area originally in your application was shown as gravel for the access, and basically you go there and look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-It's gravel now. MR. HUTCHINS-It's gravel now, but you go there and look at it in the field and it will not get driven upon frequently. It's just somebody going to that, somebody using this access easement to get to this house isn't likely to drive there. MR. FORD-Is the walkway access to the house permeable? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I believe it is, yes. MR. BROWN-Although the stoop of the house, just for chuck hole purposes, is a slab just under this step. The immediate step to the house, but the steps leading down to the path from their house are all permeable pavers. MR. FORD-The path. MR. BROWN-As the patio and walk out. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The question that I had is on the, along the west boundary line, the proposed paving stones walkway. MR. HUTCHINS-That's gone. MR. O'CONNOR-Those we're going to eliminate. MR. HUTCHINS-That's gone as well. MR. HUNSINGER-But it's gravel now, right? So is that going to be porous, too? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it's, we've made it gravel to the extent that we need to access and again, I'll get you this revised version, but you'll notice a difference between your plan and what it 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) shows right here. We no longer have that walkway around there, okay. We've widened this access to as wide as it needs to be for a driving lane to be able to access this driveway for this resident and this driveway for this resident. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a little bit of a retaining wall that comes along on the common boundary line of Hogan and Little that they've never been on the Hogan side of it for parking. It's always, or have never been on the Little side for parking. It's always been on the other side, our right of way says that they could be, and that's been there 30 years, more than 30 years. It's been there since probably the 1960's that retaining wall that's down through there. MR. FORD-Thank you for your effort to improve permeability. MR. HUNSINGER-Obviously the current house is not winterized. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd have to say, yes, it's not. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The hot water heater was out in the carport. MR. O'CONNOR-They stay there until, well, they used to. They'd be there now if they were alive. Mrs. Hughes died this past summer. That's what made the house available. Bob Hughes died a few years before that. They would stay until it got cold, cold, and they'd be there as soon as it got warm. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. DEEB-So you're going to go for four variances? They're going to need four variances it looks like. MR. O'CONNOR-We may need still a variance on permeability, depending upon how we work out this credit that we get for using structured glass. MR. DEEB-So you're looking for front, shoreline, side, and permeability. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we're going to need front, shoreline, side, lack of road frontage and floor area ratio. MR. O'CONNOR-Anything that's built on that lot is going to need the setback requirements. MR. DEEB-It's a tough lot. MR. O'CONNOR-You can see that by the demonstration that was made, as to what really is the permitted for building. Anything on that lot is going to need the variance because it's not on a Town road. All five of our structures, actually there's six structures there that aren't on a Town road. Most places on the lake aren't on Town roads. The Town built the principle road and everybody built little fingers off of it. The variance because we were building within 50 feet of a 15% slope you would need that. That's not a variance, that just needs site plan approval by you, and I think that purpose of that restrict is so that you don't create some type of ever eroding scar behind the structure, and in this case actually the excavation would be by foundation wall, it would be supported by a foundation wall and covered by the structure. You won't see that there was excavation from the lake or whatever, and there won't be any erosion from that actual construction. So the floor area ratio is a small variance because I think it gives them a reasonable use of the property. They show the bunk rooms, bedroom, they show the other room downstairs and bedroom and they have one bedroom upstairs. So I think probably and I handed out, and I didn't mention for the record, besides myself, both adjoining owners, the Hogan family and Hogan/Clark family and the Barton family have given you written indication that they are aware of the plans, they don't believe it'll affect the quality of life that they have. In fact they and I both think that it'll be an improvement to the neighborhood, as opposed to what's there right now. MR. DEEB-Can you clarify the septic? How many families are using the septic system? MR. O'CONNOR-On, the septic system that serves this property are eight bedrooms. There are three from my house, three house from this house and two from Betty Little's house on, there are two separate systems. On the system that serves Clark/Hogan and Barton there's five bedrooms. MR. DEEB-So eight bedrooms on one, five on another. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. HUTCHINS-Each house has their own septic tank, pump tank. It's just a combined absorption field. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a Presby system. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Or systems. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I think that was a phenomenal idea and join it so you're not trying to put it on the individual lots which weren't big enough anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-1 gave an easement to allow the absorption bed to go on my property. They paid, they're paying a little extra for doing that. Barton gave Hogan/Clark an easement to put the absorption bed on their system. With the initial construction cost we kind of varied it, but with the actual maintenance charges, we do it per bedroom. I pay three-eighths. Robbie pays three-eighths. Betty pays two-eighths. So we've got a system that Mr. Hutchins has guaranteed us will last for my life. If it's not, it's going to be Mr. Hutchins. MR. HUTCHINS-He'll be gone. MR. O'CONNOR-We actually think we've done what a lot of neighborhoods should do. MR. DEEB-It's a nice idea. It's a novel idea. I like it. MR. O'CONNOR-We squeeze each other a little bit by doing it, but I think it'll work out. MR. MAGOWAN-It seems like everybody right around you there, all of you have come in to do major upgrades, and I think the overall look, and I commend your, all the work you did laying that out. That was a lot of work that, like I said, you basically did a lot of planning to get that just perfect. I like the landscaping and everything else. It's overly done, you know, I appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? There's no public hearing since this is just a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So if there's nothing else from the Board, I'll entertain a motion for a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV# PZ-0031-2015 LITTLE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes teardown of single family 1,305 sq. ft. building to construct a new 1,730 sq. ft. (footprint) to a two story main floor and basement walkout at 2,985 sq. ft. floor area. Applicant proposes shoreline plantings, permeable pavers and installation of a sell as part of project. Storm water management measures also. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new home within 50 ft. and 15% slope shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested for setbacks, road frontage and floor area ratio. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0031-2015, ROBERT & RENEE LITTLE (TRUSTEES): 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 15th day of December 2015 by the following vote: 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-May I ask a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-Beg the question if I can. We're on for Thursday night. I would like to be moved to last if we can, as opposed to, I think, the second from last. MRS. MOORE-There is more than one. There's two other items on. So we'll put them first. A subdivision and a discussion. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have to be in Bolton, and they start at 6:30. 1 think I'm first in Bolton, and if I'm not back, this team can do it, and if you have any specific questions, we'd be glad to answer them now if you thought you were holding back something for Thursday that you need to have addressed or whatever, I'd be glad to try and address it. I just can't be in two places at one time. MR. HUNSINGER-1 had some concerns until I went to the site. The site tells the whole story in this case. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) STAFFORD CARR & MC NALLY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 1.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 28,639 SQ. FT. & 28,754 SQ. FT. SUBDIVISION WILL PLACE EXISTING HOUSES ON SEPARATE PARCELS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE LENGTH, PHYSICAL FRONTAGE, WATER FRONTAGE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-15, BP 04-677 (2 DOCKS) WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER LGPC, CEA LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-1 understand we're going to table this. MRS. MOORE-Correct. The applicant has requested a tabling until the first January meeting. This is because there's two parties involved dealing in a trust, and those two parties have now agreed on where the lot line is to be and they're now working out those easement languages between the two attorneys, and I agreed with them that moving it until January's agenda to make sure that the easement language is what both parties want is beneficial to move forward with both the Planning Board recommendation and the Zoning Board and then the Planning Board review for subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-So we want to table until the 19tn? MRS. MOORE-You're tabling until the 19th and you're leaving the public hearing open. It's already been opened. It just needs to be left open. MR. FORD-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB# 8-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) Tabled to the January 19, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show the public hearing will be left open as well. OLD BUSINESS: PUD SP 57-2015 SEAR TYPE I (NEG DECLARATION 10/20 & 10/27/2015) QUEENSBURY PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING FOWLER SQUARE PUD LOCATION SE CORNER OF BAY AND BLIND ROCK ROADS SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONSISTING OF OFFICE, BUSINESS, RETAIL AND MULTI-FAMILY USES. THE PROPOSED MIXED USE DENSITY IS FOR 142 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 56,180 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREAS, PARKING GARAGE, SIDEWALKS AND DRIVE AREAS ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES FOR THE PROJECT. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 13-99, FWW 6-11, AV 61-11, SP 62-11 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-12 PUD MR. HUNSINGER-This is going to be tabled as well because the Town Board has not yet held a public hearing and enacted the local law. Is that a correct statement? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. FORD-For the record, can we please get that moved to the southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Roads? MRS. MOORE-I'm not quite sure why it's southwest. See, I see southeast. MR. FORD-You see southeast? MRS. MOORE-I see southeast. MR. HUNSINGER-That's how it's stated on the. MR. FORD-It was stated that way before, and it was agreed it was southwest. MR. HUNSINGER-It is southwest. MR. DEEB-Southwest. MR. FORD-It's not southeast. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know, we just wanted to see if you were reading it. We changed it once. MRS. MOORE-Southeast corner, to me that's south-east is the Bay Road side. MR. FORD-Does Bay Road run mostly north and south? MRS. MOORE-Right, but it's the southeast side. MR. FORD-No, it's the southwest side. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's the southwest side. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I will correct it. MR. DEEB-Right? It's on the west side. This side's east, that side's west. MR. FERONE-Which meeting in January? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MRS. MOORE-Please table it to the first meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don't know. We're waiting for the Town Board. MRS. MOORE-Right, but please table it to the first meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that would be on the 19th as well. Would anyone like to make that motion to table this to January 19th, 2016? MR. FORD-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING PUD SP# 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS 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 Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of office, business retail and multi-family uses. The proposed mixed use density is for 142 residential units and 56,180sq ft. of commercial space. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of a parking areas, parking garage, sidewalks and drive areas along with associated infrastructure and utilities for the project. Pursuant to Chapter 179.12 PUD of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Developments are subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE PUD SITE PLAN 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft provided by staff. Tabled to the January 19, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 15th day of December 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We did have a public hearing scheduled. The public hearing will be held open and tabled as well. SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 & SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2014 MODIFICATION RE-AFFIRM PREVIOUS SEAR TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC. AGENT(S) SANFORD SEARLEMAN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING PUD LOCATION BEEKMAN PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO ELIMINATE THE WALKING TRAIL AND GAZEBO/SITTING AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE HILAND PARK PUD LOT SIZE 2.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.17-2-39 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 SANFORD SEARLEMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant is requesting an amendment to the subdivision where they would propose to remove the walking trail, and this was tabled at previous meetings because the applicant had indicated that they would be working with adjoining neighbors in reference to the trail and whether there was an amendment to the trail proposal, whether it would be removed completely or whether there'd be an amendment to how it is on the site. I know the applicant is here to talk about this. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SEARLEMAN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. SEARLEMAN-Sure. My name is Sanford Searleman. I'm President of the Townhomes at Haviland Homeowner's Association, Inc. We were here in August for a petition to eliminate the gazebo, walking trails/sitting area, and we're back again. We asked for a couple of 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) adjournments. At our August meeting a representative of the Conkling Center appeared and asked to be heard, and she was, and it seemed that the Conkling Center, which purchased two of the lots adjoining ours, were objecting, at that moment, to granting our petition because they didn't have a chance to see it. I guess they said they just received the notice of the meeting. So it was adjourned. During that period of time we've had several meetings with the Conkling Center representatives and with Mr. Paul Amedore. He represents Amedore Homes who was the one that built the homes, for the most part. He purchased the property, if you remember, from Rich Schermerhorn. Our problem now is that was all done I believe in 2005. Here we are in 2015 and the walkway, paved walkway, and the gazebo have not been established. We're wondering, as a group of Queensbury residents, taxpayers, etc., where the gap is from the time that it was approved as a subdivision until now, who has some kind of responsibility to see that that's actually done? Nothing was done at all. We've had several meetings with Paul Amedore. His position is, and his company's position, is they're not responsibility at all. Now I have, and I presume you have also, minutes stating very clearly that the walkway and the gazebo were supposed to have been started within one year of the first house being built and/or the first CO being given. That was way back in, like I say, 2006, 7, 8, somewhere through there. I know, myself, when I went and purchased my lot, one of the selling points that the Amedore Group had was, oh, we're going to have beautiful trees here. We're going to have a walkway. We're going to do all this wonderful stuff. Sounded good. We looked across the street, of course, and those areas, not the one directly across because that was built after us, but Waverly had a nice, you know, area and so on. So we assumed the same. Well, bottom line, of course, is we're here tonight and none of that has been done, including the fact that 49 trees, according to the site plan, were supposed to have been planted. They were not. We have some trees. We have met with, as I say, the Conkling Group, and they're more concerned with the trees not being planted because eventually they're going to develop their land, and they want to make sure that, you know, it looks nice for us and for them. They'd like to be good neighbors. So we're basically at a situation whereby the Amedores very nicely employed Albany help. Apollo Heating came out of Albany. Marcella Appliances came out of Albany. A Pro Tech sprinkling system, Albany. I'm only citing the fact that it seems to me that most of the money they earn went down to Albany, where the rest of us live here in Queensbury, as I said, pay taxes, water taxes, shop here, and so we feel that there's been a mis-happening, so to speak, that the Amedores were not forced, quite frankly, to put in what they said they were going to do when they took over from Rich Schermerhorn. So I guess we're here at this particular point trying to get an answer as to why it wasn't done. I don't know the power, quite frankly, of your Board. I don't know if you have the power to enforce it or not, but I know at the meeting, according to the minutes that were sent to us, the minutes very clearly state that that was supposed to have been done. At this point, we still would like to have our original motion request to eliminate the sitting trail, the walking trail, the sitting area and the gazebo eliminated. We have canvased our constituents and for the most part they still would like to have that eliminated. We don't see any need to put it in at this particular point. As you well know, if it is built, there'll be a liability situation. There's maintenance situations and things of that nature, and we also know that right down the road from us, on Meadowbrook, the Town of Queensbury put in a wonderful walking trail, etc., etc. So we don't feel the need for that, but the Conkling Center has requested that the 49 trees that was on the site plan originally, that that be enforced. So I'm here tonight basically to say we'd like to request, again, the vote on the elimination of the trail, the gazebo, but not the trees. Gentlemen, that's where we are. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The two are tied together, aren't they? MR. SEARLEMAN-I'm sorry? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Aren't the two requests tied together? Aren't the two requests, the trees and everything, that's all tied together as one request? MR. MAGOWAN-The trees, the walkway and the gazebo are all on the site plan review. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes, it was. Yes, it was, and we had a new map drawn up at the request of the Board, of Craig Brown, where we've shown the elimination of the walking trail and the gazebo, and that was presented, I guess, back in August. MR. MAGOWAN-Now you spoke to Craig Brown. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And did you ask him the same question you asked us? Because that's their enforcement is the Building Department to enforce it. MR. FORD-What was his response to that? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. SEARLEMAN-His reply to me was, and I'm not flippant, but we're a day late and a buck short. He said we should have pressed for that before our Board took over in January and said it's the corporation's responsibility to make sure that's done. Well, up until January, the Amedore's had it from the beginning until January, and then, according to the documents, after, and don't quote me specifically, but after a certain percentage of, I think 75% of the houses being built, or something like six or seven years, it is then handed over to the residents, and so that's what we did. We took it over. We had an elected Board and we took it over as of January. That's when we started the press, when we figured that there's only about four or five more lots at that time to be built on. Well since then all of the houses have been built. Thirty- seven have been sold. There's one house on Bogart that has not, which they're kind of using now as a model, but I'm sure they'll be selling it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any leverage with Amedore at this point? MRS. MOORE-Well, we have been, as Staff, we've been in communications with them over, I believe the last few years, if not longer than that, explaining to them the details of what they need to install, but if the Homeowners Association has accepted that offering, Amedore is now finished with their ownership. The Homeowners Association now owns that property. So it just turns to the next owner, no different than Rich Schermerhorn selling to Amedore. Amedore was responsible. Now Amedore turns that property over to the Homeowners Association. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, clearly they didn't understand the details of the site plan. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. FORD-Or they ignored it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they got hosed over because they didn't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Well, Amedore has, we have had phone conversations and assorted items talking to the entire corporation, explained to them what they needed to install, and they chose to wait until the last minute, and the reason why we did not enforce, someone says enforced, is if you installed all the plantings that were explained within the six month timeframe, then you would be digging up those plants to install new houses. So, the idea is you built as they came along, constructed new homes, and then you would install at the final all these plantings so you're not disrupting the site. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they weren't done at the final, every time we gave a CO for them to move into a house. They would have planted the plantings as they built the house. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. They would have done the plantings in a grouping I would think. Not just necessarily for each home. MR. DEEB-So am I to understand then that for your site plan modification you're asking to eliminate the trail and the gazebo, but you still want the trees to go in there because Conkling would like that, but getting the trees in there is going to be between you and Amedore. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-Which means we're talking maybe litigation. MR. SEARLEMAN-We've had several meetings with Mr. Amedore, and his position at this point is, no, they're not responsible to do any of that. They'd like to sell the last house and again, not to be flippant, but get out of dodge. MR. DEEB-So, but that's going to be your responsivity as a Homeowners Association. MR. MAGOWAN-Put a lien on the house. MR. DEEB-I would think, to go after him. MR. MAGOWAN-Then they can't sell it. MR. HUNSINGER-The developers wonder why they get a bad reputation. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-When I first your proposal, my understanding was you just didn't want to build it. We had some issues across the street where they didn't want to build it because of liability issues. MR. SEARLEMAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And I was not at all inclined to want to grant your request, but this is a whole different story. MR. SEARLEMAN-Well, we were lead to believe by Amedore, up to that point, that there might have been some compensation for it. He sat on our Board. He was at our meetings when we talked about this, and while he never came out and actually gave us a dollar value, he did say, well, go pick out a gazebo and we'll see what it would cost, etc., etc. So based on that, we kept going and going and going, but by then the last four or five houses were being sold, and all of a sudden it dawned on us, wait a minute, they're not going to do anything, and our last meeting we had with him about a week ago, he pretty much got up at the meeting, our meeting, and said I'd like to resign and I'm out of here. So that's when I called Craig Brown and said where do we stand, and he said, I've got a CO sitting on my desk and I'm not so sure how long I can hold it. He says legally he said I suspect if they want to press it legally he said I'd have to hand it over to them. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I asked what leverage we have. MRS. MOORE-1 will say as Staff we've had some flags in our database explaining that please don't issue the last CO until we resolve these planting issues, but legally I'm not quite certain, and that's what Craig's position is, how long can you hold a CO. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they have lead on the Town, the Building Department, that they were going to do it. They lead on to these people that they were going to do it. MR. TRAVER-There might be a cause of action for a breach of contract or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Something. MR. DEEB-Well, that's what I was thinking. It would have to go between the Homeowners Association and Amedore. MR. SEARLEMAN-When we asked to see the agreement between Amedore and Rich Schermerhorn, I guess the agreement was between the father, Mr. Amedore, and Rich, and we were lead to believe, in absolute honesty, but I don't believe it as a businessman, it was a handshake. We said, can we see something in writing where you agreed to take over. He said, no, they pretty much agreed to do it on their own, which there's no way we can force legally to see their contract, if there was in fact a contract. We asked for it but we were lead to believe there really was none. MR. HUNSINGER-Part of that walking trail and, you know, the Conkling Center made comments to you, I mean, it was all part of a Planned Unit Development. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes, it was. MR. HUNSINGER-And one of the, the advantages of that walking trail was that not only could the homeowners of your Homeowners Association could use it, but so could the residents of the property to the south and it was all part of the Planned Unit Development and it all tied in nicely together and it was good planning, good for everybody, good for the community, and now they're just walking away. I don't understand. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think it looks nice. MR. SEARLEMAN-There was supposed to be a bridge built from the end of our walking trail over to the Glen, and we understand that's, I don't know where that is. The Conkling Center is talking about that particular situation. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I feel if we were to approve their request, we're just letting Amedore off the hook. Right? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. SEARLEMAN-See, at this particular point, well, let's go back. Let's assume that it had been built when it was supposed to have been. We wouldn't be here tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEARLEMAN-We would have said thank you very much, Amedores, you built a nice thing, and we would have built the liability insurance into our budget and gone on, but since then, we've decided, the majority of us, we took a survey, the majority of us have decided now I guess we don't want it. In part, to be absolutely candid again, my particular lot, I'm on Pollazzo Court, if it's built, it would literally be where you gentleman are sitting versus my property, and our bedroom is here. So there's a whole group of us who are, that's one of the reasons we decided, wait a minute, I'm not so sure I want the walking trail now from where it's going to be because the Glen's property abuts up against ours, and they certainly don't want, they're not going to give up any property for a walking trail. So quite frankly, again, I'm an accountant. I'm not anybody that does this, but I think somebody should have looked at the distances and said, wait a minute, that walking trail really is going to be in their backyard, and it will be. I've got some of my neighbors here, and that's the whole reason we decided no. MR. FORD-How close would it be? MR. SEARLEMAN-I'm sorry? MR. FORD-How close would it be, the trail? Has it been measured out? Have you measured? MR. SEARLEMAN-No, I haven't. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I look at Waverly Place and, you know, the same thing, they're staggered back and forth and you have some close ones, but, you know, it's not like I see 100 people walking on it a day, and it's usually a group, and if you're in there putting on your deodorant, you just wave back to them. I mean, I understand. I realize there's a walking trail. I drive up and down Meadowbrook. I see it. I see what they're going to do because, you know, being health conscious and getting out of the house and, you know, you guys aren't in the era of video games and that, which is great, you know, but the gazebo, you know, I looked it up the corner, I see the gazebo being used as the people are coming all the way up Waverly Place, cross over Meadowbrook and go up there and they get up there and they, you know, might want to take a little rest, but I am more upset that, you know, that it's taken so long to come to this. MR. SEARLEMAN-That's our point, too. MR. MAGOWAN-Somebody, that's just not right, and that bothers me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who are the six people that came in and bought the houses in a hurry? MR. SEARLEMAN-I'm sorry, sir. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who are the six people who came in and bought the last six houses? MR. SEARLEMAN-The six people that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Didn't you say the last six houses were bought recently? MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That forced the issue. MR. SEARLEMAN-I don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the commercial property? See there was even a tie down there to the. MR. SEARLEMAN-They were on Beekman. MR. SCHONEWOLF-All right. MR. SEARLEMAN-There's one on Bogart, which is in the back. I could show you the ones that are. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're scattered all over the place. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MRS. MOORE-As I put it up here, the trail runs along this, the edge here. MR. HUNSINGER-But see there's even a connection right there where your cursor is, too, to the property to the south. MRS. MOORE-There's a connection here. There's a connection, I believe over here somewhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Let's put some clarification on this, then. You're question that you don't want the gazebo or the walking trail, which hasn't been built, and in all likelihood you're going to have to go to litigation if you're going to get it built, if we do not approve the site plan modification, or if you do, if the Board agrees to your site plan modification, you still need to have those trees planted. MR. SEARLEMAN-We'd like the trees. MR. DEEB-Which is supposed to be Amedore's responsibility also, which puts you in the same boat that he's not going to do that. So Conkling would like you to do that. Would the Homeowners Association go ahead and do that? MR. SEARLEMAN-Plant the trees? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. SEARLEMAN-We have put in our budget for this coming year a line item for replacement and improvement. I mean, yes, worse comes to worse, I guess over the next couple of years, and the trees mainly are on Haviland Road. They're not really too much in our development itself. You see the line of trees over there on Haviland? Those are basically the trees that we're talking about that they didn't put in. It will probably be more of like a barrier for the people who live there versus the road. What they did do, and again I'm not going to go on, but what they did do is they put rocks. All of a sudden we wake up one morning and we've got boulders sitting there. So we asked them what happened with the boulders. Well, when they built the last couple of houses over there, they brought up some boulders and they thought it would look nice. Never consulted us. So then we've got boulders sitting there. MR. FORD-There have been trees planted, however, on the property parallel to Haviland. MR. SEARLEMAN-There were a couple of trees, but not. MR. FORD-A couple of trees? That's all that's been planted? MR. SEARLEMAN-That they planted when we complained about it. MR. FORD-So were they planted by Amedore or by the individual homeowners or by the Association? MR. SEARLEMAN-Some were planted by the private citizens, but I don't know that for a fact, but the fact is that. MR. FORD-Because there's more than two trees that are new there, newly planted. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, some of those places right along there, there's some expansion backyard landscaping and a pool, and, you know, I mean, I watched them go up, so you're right. Some were planted by them and some, you know, and it looks nice, and the boulders, you know, if you like a big rock in your yard. Like I said, they don't stick out like a sore thumb. No, I mean, the landscaping is really beautiful around there. Now, what about the trees and the plantings along the Conkling side, along the path? MR. SEARLEMAN-No, see, that's not our property, and so the Conkling people would have to be responsible for that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the path is on your property. I see the property line. MR. SEARLEMAN-But the property stops at this point. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MRS. MOORE-Right here. MR. MAGOWAN-No, no. I'm talking along the back where. MR. FORD-1 see a lot of trees along that. MR. SEARLEMAN-There are some trees there, but nowhere near what the site plan called for. MR. FORD-Those are existing then? MR. MAGOWAN-And those trees were basically supposed to plant along the walkway, and if I look at them, you know, they're there to deter people from looking in the bedrooms when you're putting on your deodorant. MR. SEARLEMAN-Sure, but they're spaced so far apart that, you know, it's not a barrier at all. We counted up, we had the person in charge, our Vice President, count up the number of trees, and he came up with 49 that were basically missing visa vie the plot plan. MR. DEEB-So you're saying there's about 75 trees that need to be planted? Say 75? MR. SEARLEMAN-I'll be honest, sir, I don't know how many the total was. MR. DEEB-I thought that was the number that was thrown out. I'm not sure. MR. SEARLEMAN-You have the plans. MR. FORD-It's tough testing one's memory when it goes back that many years, and we would have to go back into the minutes to verify it, but it seemed to me that the trees and the walkway and so forth were part of the finishing of this project, to be done very close to the end, after the majority of the bulldozers were gone, which wouldn't be tearing up the trees or the soil or going over and above the walkway. That's why the original plan, from my recollection, was that it was to be done late in the project. MR. SEARLEMAN-The walkway and the gazebo? Because I've got minutes of January 24, 2006 where it states explicitly, all site related improvements such as, but not limited to, landscaping and lighting shown on the plans shall be completed within one year of obtaining a building permit, no later than six months after receiving a building permit, from the minutes. MR. FORD-A building permit. Was that referring to the first one or the last one? MR. SEARLEMAN-These are the minutes so I can't interpret them, but if it's the last one, that's fine too, then in that sense here we are again. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we haven't solved anything. MR. HUNSINGER-So what's the Town's position with Code Enforcement on this, Laura? MRS. MOORE-We're still looking at it and trying to find a benefit to the applicant, and again, if we can't withhold that CO and the Homeowners Association owns that property, then the landscaping plan needs to be implemented or modified by the Homeowners Association. So right now the only thing that's on the table is the proposed removal of that pathway and the gazebo. If they're proposing to modify the landscaping plan, that would be a new item added to this modification and you would need to re-advertise that piece. So if they realize there's plantings that are missing or that, you know, Code Enforcement, Bruce can come out and evaluate the number of plantings, as a Code Compliance issue, and work with determining if they're going to plant additional plantings or work with the Conkling Center to determine if there's some other planting scheme that Conkling would agree upon or, you know, it's their neighbor. So it's really all up to the Homeowners Association, the plantings that they wish to plant, is all up to the Homeowner's Association at this time. It does need to, if they are going to change it and modify it and not plant it as proposed, then they need to come in with an alternate plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEARLEMAN-1 can answer that question, Mr. Ford. Further, in the Planning Board approval resolution for the subdivision the site work was to be completed within one year, the first building permit or within six months of the first certificate of occupancy. So I think it was at the beginning, not at the end. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. FORD-Thank you. That clarifies it. Thank you. MR. FERONE-At this time, have you completely decided against taking any kind of legal action against these folks to try to force you into providing you these things? MR. FORD-Why would they? They don't want it. MR. FERONE-Well, they want the trees. MR. TRAVER-Well, they want the trees. MR. SEARLEMAN-We and the Conkling Center would like the trees, as a halfway measure, if we can get them to do at least the trees. MR. TRAVER-So if you initiate, hypothetically, if you initiate litigation regarding the completion of the site plan. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And obviously Amedore or whoever comes back and says, well, we don't want to make the investment to put in the trail and gazebo and all the trees and the rest of it, conceivably you could come back and say, well, we're willing to compromise and we'll accept the trees only. MR. SEARLEMAN-We've done that, at the last meeting he was at, and he just shook his head and said, no, we're not responsible for any of it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, now you're into a legal matter. I think it should be referred to the Town Attorney. We're not going to be able to decide it. MR. TRAVER-Well, he can stand up and say well, I'm not responsible. That's fine, but it's a very different thing when there's legal expenses and the potential for litigation. He may be, or their group may be in a different mood in terms of trying to accommodate something to end this. Right now if you're only8 asking for the trees and you're not asking for the very expensive walkway and gazebo and so on, they may be amenable to some compromise in order to end it. MR. FORD-And we, just to reinforce this issue, we are not an enforcement Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. That's right. MR. FERONE-The other consideration, and you might have thought of this, is, and usually there's a gentleman here from the Post Star newspaper, Maury Thompson, but it might be something just to bring to their attention. It might be a story they'd be interested in, and, you know, again, at the end because, you know, I'm sure he would not want to have something like that advertised in terms of other developments he's going to have out there. MR. TRAVER-And further, there's no threat that this trail and/or gazebo are going to be constructed any time in the near future. MR. SEARLEMAN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So we might want to, again, table this in order to allow other options to be pursued, until we're clear on what remains. MR. HUNSINGER-Has Town Counsel looked at this at all? MRS. MOORE-I'd have to speak with Craig. I do not know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, something doesn't sound right here, and it sounds like they were supposed to put it in at the beginning and now they're here at the end and they ran away and something doesn't sound, it just doesn't sound right. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, I feel like all we're doing is letting Amedore off the hook for something he agreed to do. We're on the side of the Homeowner's Association. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. DEEB-But they don't want the gazebo or the trail. MR. HUNSINGER-They're saying that because they don't have the money to do it. MR. DEEB-My understanding is the Homeowner's Association doesn't want it at all. They don't want it at all. MR. SEARLEMAN-At this time we do not. MR. DEEB-Okay, and so, I mean, and it doesn't sound like they're going to get it either way. MR. SEARLEMAN-We're not. MR. DEEB-So I'm wondering do you really need to file for an amended site plan if you're not going to get it anyway. MRS. MOORE-In reference to landscaping, the entire project is subject to this landscaping plan, this particular plan that I have. MR. DEEB-That I understand. MRS. MOORE-So no matter what proceeds, you know, whether they have legal action with the Amedores or not, at some point there needs to be a completion, and they need to provide enough information, whether it be a modification or installation, of the landscaping plan, and that includes the trail, the gazebo and the plantings. So it needs to come back before the Board to explain about the plantings because that's new now. MR. FERONE-So if we don't act on this, in terms of the gazebo and the walkway, and it stayed out there, would the Town, then, require all of that to be done? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-So it sounds like we have to make a decision tonight, whether or not to modify the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess where my difficulty is, is you purchased these townhomes with the understanding the walking trail was going to be there. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that was part of the approved site plan, and now you're here saying you don't want it. MR. TRAVER-They don't want all of it. They want some of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEARLEMAN-Had it been put in, it would have been fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. SEARLEMAN-But at this particular point now most of us are saying because of the distance, etc., etc., you know, if it's not going to be done, we don't want it. MR. TRAVER-And it sounds as though they may have a breach of contract which represents a financial value. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Which they could translate into trees or whatever they want, and then they could submit an updated plan saying here's what we now want with the trees perhaps trees different than are reflected in that landscape plan where the walkway is shown, or shielding and so on, and the expense and the money, or some of the money to cover the cost of doing so. MR. FORD-We ought to have a plan presented to us and then we can yes or no it. MR. TRAVER-Right. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I'd rather have Code Enforcement and Town Counsel weigh in on this before we take action. MR. TRAVER-1 agree. Well, having somebody verbally say in a meeting, well, I'm not responsible, I mean, with all due respect, is not an answer. MR. HUNSINGER-They have an approved site plan. MR. TRAVER-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-They're obligated to build it. MR. DEEB-Well, then at the last meeting Conkling said they did want the trail, if I remember correctly. MR. SEARLEMAN-Who? MR. DEEB-Conkling. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they're the neighbor. MR. DEEB-The neighbor. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-But they said it was part of the PUD and that they wanted the trail built. They were against you changing the site plan. MR. SEARLEMAN-In August because they didn't know. MR. DEEB-Right. Now you're saying they're okay with you. MR. SEARLEMAN-We've had meetings with representatives of the Conkling board. MR. DEEB-Is there anybody here from Conkling tonight? No? MR. SEARLEMAN-And they've agreed, at this point, I don't know how much I want to get into our meeting, but I believe their position is that they don't think their clientele would be using it like they thought they would originally, quite frankly, is what they were saying, and when I say their clientele, remember, now, they own half The Glen and there's another group that owns the other half, so they're kind of speaking for The Glen. I've been in contact with, I'll never remember his name, Jackoski. MRS. MOORE-Steve Jackoski. MR. SEARLEMAN-And he said, no, he's on the Board of the Conkling Center and whatever they agreed to with us is okay for The Glen. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He said it that night. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But the bottom line is, this development, as reflected in this approved plan, at this point really just represents a financial interest. MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So you want to take that X number of dollars represented by the gazebo and the trail and the trees and translate that into trees. MR. SEARLEMAN-Trees. MR. TRAVER-Basically. Okay. So, and we're not there yet. All that's happened so far is somebody's stood up in a meeting and said, well, I don't think I'm responsible. MR. SEARLEMAN-Okay, but again, that was my question. In a sense, if you don't have the enforcement power, then we're trying to find somebody who would be responsible to see that it was done from the beginning is what we're looking for. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. TRAVER-Right. It's sounds as though that's still being investigated. MR. SCHONEWOLF-By the Town. MR. TRAVER-By the Town. That's right. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you have Laura's number? MR. SEARLEMAN-Yes, I'm afraid I do. She's afraid I do, and Mr. Brown's number, too. MR. DEEB-I'm mulling over in my mind why we cannot modify the site plan if they don't want it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because it's not our purview. MR. DEEB-They're here for a site plan modification. MRS. MOORE-It's a subdivision modification, and the potential is that you could, but there's still this activity of planting. So they're still subject to those. MR. DEEB-That still will be in it. That's not what they're calling for. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. DEEB-The plantings are still part of it. So it still has to be completed. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-So we can still modify it and leave the plantings in there. MR. FORD-But we don't know what the modification is. They're not saying we want the plantings as is. MR. DEEB-That's already part of it. That's part of the plan now. All we have to do is modify it. MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't think we should touch it right now. MR. FERONE-Chris said that kind of lets Amedore off the hook, so we want to keep this all together right now. I think it's advantageous to you. It's a bargaining. MR. SEARLEMAN-If they get that last CO on Bogart, he's as much as said they're out of here. Which means if we sue them, I guess, we're looking at going to Albany or, no, we could sue them up here, obviously, but that's what we're talking about. Now I'm not sure the homeowners want to go into a legal expense on something that, quite frankly, we thought should have been done to begin with. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEARLEMAN-It costs us X number of dollars to sue. MR. TRAVER-We still don't know the answer to that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don't know the answer to that, and we're here, and they're there. So you're going to have to go to court. MRS. MOORE-But is the Board, if they're considering tabling it, I've seen you in the past add additional information saying, asking Staff to review information, not necessarily in the motion, but as a comment during your minutes, that Staff should be able to report back to you in reference to this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think the Town Attorney should take a look at it. MR. FORD-Yes, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Weigh in on where they feel the liability is. MR. FORD-And who has the enforcement capacity and the need to do so. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-What we're saying is that it was told that it had to be done within a certain amount of time, so many months, and it wasn't done. So, somebody was sleeping at the post. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and if that enforcement capacity, in terms of the construction, at least the contractual liability or the obligation, because, again, at this point it just represents dollars and cents. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-Again, but the litigation doesn't involve us, if there's going to be litigation. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it may. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It may. MR. FERONE-If may if the Town Attorney thinks there's something there. MR. FORD-Let's table it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone other than someone from the Homeowners Association that wanted to comment on the project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. Did you have any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we need to get more information before we can act on this, personally, both from Code Enforcement and the Town Attorney. When do we table it to? MR. SCHONEWOLF-February? MRS. MOORE-You can table it until the first meeting in February. That gives them a month, from now until January. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You're not going to do any plantings this time of year anyway. MR. SEARLEMAN-Excuse me. Could we table it until March? Because I've made plans to be away most of February. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm okay with that. MRS. MOORE-That's not a problem. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB #22-2015 & SUB# 3-2014 MODIFICATION TOWNHOUSES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved subdivision to eliminate the walking trail and gazebo/sitting area. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance any Modification to an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/25/2015, 10/27/2015, 11/19/2015 and 12/15/2015 and remains open. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION 22-2005 & 3-2014 TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the March 15, 2016 Planning Board meeting, for purposes of a legal and further review. Duly adopted this 15th day of December 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. SEARLEMAN-Could I just ask one quick question at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SEARLEMAN-Is somebody from your group going to contact me? MR. TRAVER-Someone from the Town. MR. SEARLEMAN-The Town to find out what happened. So at least if we decide we're going to sue we'll have some basis to begin with. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEARLEMAN-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You should keep in touch with Laura. MR. SEARLEMAN-We appreciate that. Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2015 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY, LLC AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SE REALTY CO., LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 708 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SITE PLAN FOR AN AUTOMATED FACILITY FOR CAR WASH AND TO INCLUDE SIXTEEN NEW CANOPY VACUUM SYSTEMS — EACH UNIT TO CONTAIN INTERIOR LIGHTING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 15-260, SPX- 2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2015 LOT SIZE 3.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-12 SECTION 179-9-120 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes modification to an existing site plan. You did review this application earlier in 2015. You understood that it would be an automated facility for car wash that would include canopy vacuum systems. Those canopy vacuum systems have been upgraded. So there's 16 new canopy vacuum systems and each of these units contains interior lighting. This is why it's back before the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Smart Wash of Queensbury. As Laura has stated, this was in front of you, I believe it was back in August, because we put the approval notes on in September. MR. HUNSINGER-August 25tH MR. STEVES-We were here for the site plan update in August. We got the approval for that. Subsequent to that the owner, he is also the current owner of the one in South Glens Falls next to the bowling alley. With the different types of products he was looking at, he got together with the ones he wanted to put there and here and the supplier came up with a scenario that he 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) thought would be a better suitable, doesn't take up as much room as all these big concrete islands on the vacuums, if you've seen those, and these are canopy. I think we passed you out a couple of photos of that. Laura, did he bring those in to you? MRS. MOORE-No, I did not get that. MR. DEEB-We didn't get that. MR. STEVES-This is an extreme one. It shows a lot more than 16. What it does is just allows for more space between the vehicles for less damage to the vehicles and such, and then Mr. Greeno, the owner of the facility, came in to me and said, geez, I know I need to go back in front of the Planning Board for this, but I think it's a better plan, and at one time they were talking about a canopy, when you look at these things it's like a little arm that has a strip LED light in it so it lights up the area that you're working in. It's a very low broadcast light, but instead of putting the vinyl canopy over the top of it just use the arm with the light bar in it, and during the summertime and during the winter their maximum hours are eight to eight. So during the summertime you really don't even have to worry about them coming on. It would only be this time of year until eight o'clock, and obviously we're not in a residential area or anything down there. We don't expect any kind of pollution on to residences. With a car dealership and everything else in the general vicinity, you have tons and tons of lights down there, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't look at lighting, but in this instance it doesn't add much to the project whatsoever, and that right there, and those bars. MR. FORD-And the lights will be off after 8 p.m., the power will be off? MR. STEVES-Yes, correct. The lights are on timers. They go off at eight o'clock. MR. FERONE-And so the light sits under the canopy? MR. STEVES-The light's actually into that bar right there. MRS. MOORE-On the outside bar? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That was my question. MR. STEVES-1 think if you look at the photo that's being passed around it kind of shows. MR. HUNSINGER-So there's no tent covering? MR. STEVES-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-No, the manufacturer, after talking with Mr. Greeno this morning, said that they have two options for that. One with these canopies and one without, and obviously in the North Country with snow and sleet and ice and everything else it's probably better without. Southern parts, if you look in western parts of the country I'm sure that the canopies are much appreciated but here I think you'd just be more of a nuisance to them than anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my question, how long the canopies would last. MRS. MOORE-So this is like one unit, so the bar would, the light would be from here? MR. STEVES-Correct. Well, it's two units. There's a vacuum in each one and then the light goes between the two of them. Correct. MRS. MOORE-So there's no canopy now? MR. STEVES-No. No canopy. MRS. MOORE-Just those archie bars. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. FORD-What's the potential for those lights to be motion activated? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. STEVES-That's a good question. I do not know that answer. MR. FORD-Wouldn't that make sense, though? If you've got eight of them and one car pulls in, you've got eight light bars, but you only need one. MR. STEVES-You drive in and you pull in, you pull out, and you drive by them all and they'd all be flashing on and off. MR. DEEB-I don't know if motion detectors would work. MR. STEVES-It would be more like a strobe light, in my opinion. I think something of a low LED light like that that's constantly on from four to eight o'clock this time of year then shutting off at eight o'clock is a better scenario than something that alternates in there. I think that would be more disruptive to people driving up and down the road, personally. I can understand the point, but I don't think this application would be suitable. That would be my personal experience and my professional experience. I don't think. MR. FERONE-There might not be a sufficient amount of light either. I don't know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Can you only turn one of them on at a time? MR. STEVES-You go in a vacuum island and you put your coins in just like you do a regular. MR. MAGOWAN-When you do that the light comes on? MR. FORD-No, the light is on. MR. STEVES-The light is on. MR. FORD-All lights are on. That was my point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-For the full time. MR. STEVES-What we could do, like I say, the motion sensor, I don't know how the manufacturer, or what we could do is try it, say put every other wand on and see if you have enough light. MR. DEEB-So you're saying they're all on at one time? MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. MOORE-So it's on the arch itself? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. FORD-Regardless, it would be on for four hours whether any car went through or not. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So how bright is it? That's the question I have. MR. STEVES-Not very bright. I think you have the foot candle spread there that he dropped off. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-It only covers about eight feet by twelve feet. MRS. MOORE-1 still, I didn't get information today. MR. STEVES-It's a low voltage LED light. I don't have that with me right now, but it's an eight foot by twelve foot spread. Kind of similar to the low cut offs that they have near their parking areas now. These would be switched to LED's as well, and everybody knows they're cost effective. I mean, they used to be expense, and then I researched LED's and I couldn't afford them and just the last year I replaced 78 light fixtures with LED's because the cost is unbelievable. MR. FORD-You'll never replace them again, probably. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. STEVES-No, and this is, like I say, from personal experience it's about $500 to $600 a month less in lighting cost because just like this place you're on demand because you're a commercial use. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. Wow. MR. FORD-That's one of the things, where I was going with this, if it could be a motion detector or something that could be a cost savings financially. MR. STEVES-And I don't disagree with that. I really don't. I know it's a car wash. It's a facility you want to try to attract people in there, get in there, get their cars cleaned. It's only for a few hours. It's in a commercial district. I don't think there's anybody that's going to complain about it. We're no spilling light off of Quaker Road at all. MR. HUNSINGER-It's the other way around. The big street lights. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How much noise is this? MR. STEVES-Actually I don't have the db's on that at all. I would imagine the industry in general, if you drive down through, I think they're the same manufacturer as the ones that are at Hoffman's. If you drive down the road by Hoffman's in the summertime, I don't hear the vacuums. I hear the traffic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I ask you that because we just got a new unit that's only got one unit that fires off, but it does make considerable noise. It's got three functions. It's kind of a Cadillac. No complaints, but it's inside, so that's probably why. MR. STEVES-Yes, that would be a big factor inside of a concrete building. This site definitely needs a little bit of a facelift, and he bought it and he wants to do it. He's done a nice job. I'm only speaking from experience seeing his facility over in South Glens Falls, it is neat as a pin, and it doesn't look dilapidated, and this one is in definite need of repair and that end of the Town. MR. FERONE-Could you refresh my memory? So when we originally approved for nine or eight? MR. STEVES-I believe it was six and eight. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sixteen spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-I think there were 14 before. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I'd have to look. MR. STEVES-I believe it was 14 and now we're going to 16, because, again, you remove those big islands, and you use this corner. MR. FORD-You've got space available. MR. STEVES-Correct. As a matter of fact with this plan, if you look at the actual plan, the islands on the northwest corner actually grew because we were able to increase a little bit more green space because we didn't need as much asphalt to accommodate the islands. So if you look at that island where the flagpole is, those signs are a little wider, and we narrowed it down, because there's a gate to come in, nobody coming in off the street can use this facility unless they come in and use the car wash. You use the car wash, you wash your car, then you vacuum your car. MR. DEEB-So you can't vacuum without getting a car wash? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. DEEB-I was looking at the hoses, you had the hoses that went out. Where did they store the debris that they pick up? Where does that go? MR. STEVES-They go into the canisters. If you look at that, there's these canisters in there. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. DEEB-I didn't see the canisters. MR. STEVES-And they mount to the pole. MR. FERONE-So, just for point of information, is the vacuum part of the cost of when you go through the car wash or is it coin operated? MR. STEVES-Coin operated. MR. FERONE-Like other ones. MR. STEVES-When you come through the kiosks in the front, you can pick out anything you want. You go through, you go through and you vacuum your car. It's a pretty sleek system. MRS. MOORE-So that front parking area, is that gated? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-Do you feel like you're losing customers for people that just want to vacuum their cars and not get it washed? MR. STEVES-I'm not in that business so I couldn't tell you. Again, he's done a very successful one in South Glens Falls. I think he knows, you know, he's trying to emulate what he did over there. It seems to work extremely well for him. I mean, he took that old one there that really needed a lot of work and it's a lot nicer than it has been in 20 years. So I just have to look at that and just like you were saying with other applications in front of you, I've got to look at the proof that's in the pudding and I know the other facility he has. So I don't mind standing up here and speaking, because I know what he's done. MRS. MOORE-Could I ask one more question about the lighting? Is it a cut off light? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. It is a cut off. In this picture it has a deception that it's spread out. MR. STEVES-No. It's a, like a tubular and then it has a box around it. Like I say, it's just a miniaturized version of a box cut off light. Instead of being square, it's just a longer rectangle, and also if you look at the revised plan, too, these, not the 30 and 40 foot pole lights that are on the car dealerships that surround this, but a 12 to 16 foot pole light with the same cut off LED fixture as this one here. He had also proposed on either side of the entry canopies. It is in fact the same thing. You're going to be in there looking at it. During the summertime a lot of people wash their cars, but this time of year a lot of people go and wash their car so they just want a little bit more light around that area, and again, that's in the back of the building behind, right about in the middle of the property. There's no luminars at the single M pattern 2.7 foot candles in 20 feet. So it's not very bright. MRS. MOORE-So it's on the entry? I guess, I have light poles on this plan. MR. STEVES-Those are all the existing poles. MRS. MOORE-And then you have, you're adding new poles? MR. STEVES-Right. On either side of the bays, where the sign is there, Laura, and right at the end of that grass. MRS. MOORE-Because I guess they don't appear on this one. MR. STEVES-They appear on mine, unless I inadvertently copied the wrong plan, which I've been known to do. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STEVES-And I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, it's not on these. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MR. STEVES-1 can't blame anybody else. MR. MAGOWAN-So you basically moved it up from what it shows us on our plan, going on either side. So there and there? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the S-2 I have has the same date on it, but it doesn't have those. Pass that around. MR. STEVES-And again, that's my bad. My mistake. I've been scrambling around the last month and a half. I sold my house back in early November and have been commuting back and forth from Edinburgh from my summer camp and I'm very thankful that December's been a warm December, but I actually was able to close on my house and move in Friday. Now my commute is really short, and there's no excuse, but that was me. MR. HUNSINGER-So where'd you move to? MR. STEVES-Sweet Road, the new subdivision. MR. DEEB-Cerrone's. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's nice in there. MR. STEVES-Yes, it's nice. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks much better than the plans. MR. STEVES-1 was going to say, do you want to talk about something on the entrance there was not even on the plan. He did almost double the plantings that were required. We love it. We were the first to move in there. There's two other people there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I miss the truck that sat there for 20 years. MR. HUNSINGER-I know, me too. MR. STEVES-And the other ironic part, now you have this nice warm December and in there it's also maintenance free, and I lived in a house with a 12, 14% driveway and snow blowing it for all these years. After 28 years I move into one where the snow maintenance is taken care of, we don't get snow. MR. DEEB-Don't worry, you'll get it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments, concerns? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. There's no one left to comment. Were there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you want a Negative Dec on this? If you look, it says accordingly this Negative Dec is issued. That was the last time? MR. DEEB-Yes, we have to reaffirm it. MRS. MOORE-You can reaffirm your declaration if you wish to or you can prepare a new one. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they gave us a sample resolution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've got two of them. I've got a Negative and, I've got a motion to approve or disapprove the site plan modification. Then I've got one with a Negative Dec. Which one do you want? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) MRS. MOORE-You're going to end up doing both of them, but the first one you're going to do is a SEQR one, and if the Board agrees that it's a Negative Dec after your discussion, if there's any environmental review, and the second one is in reference to the site plan modification, and in that one, if I can take a moment. There's a few things that you may wish to add to that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Go right ahead. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The updated plans that were submitted this evening that showed two new lampposts, the plans, final plans should be updated to show the gate. Final plans should show the information about the type of, the new vacuum systems with no canopy and the lighting in reference to its light candle power and wattage. MR. FERONE-Foot candle. MRS. MOORE-That's all I have. MR. FORD-That's enough. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So this is a motion to grant a Positive Dec. MR. DEEB-Negative. MR. HUNSINGER-First I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SCHONEWOLF-This one says accordingly this Negative Dec is issued. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the motion is granted for that. Now do we have to go back to this? MR. FORD-Have we voted on the Negative Dec? MR. FERONE-I'll second. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. I just want to get it in the right order. I'm not sure that's in the right order. MRS. MOORE-It is in the right order. If you're looking at the first resolution that says SEQR resolution, that's the one you're going to start with. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you want to do the Neg Dec first. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Which part? MRS. MOORE-It's the Part 11, and it's the Short EAF that you can review, and you do not need to do Part 111. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I didn't hear the conditions. MR. STEVES-The gate, no canopy. MR. MAGOWAN-The gate with no canopy and the lights and the candle power. RESOLUTION RE: SEQR NEGATIVE DEC SP 51-2015 MODIFICATION SMART WASH OF QSBY MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE SEAR DECLARATION FOR MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 51-2015 SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is for the Site Plan modification. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 51-2015 MODIFICATION SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY 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 modifications to an existing site plan for an automated facility for car wash and to include sixteen new canopy vacuum systems — each unit to contain interior lighting. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/15/2015 and continued the public hearing to 12/15/2015 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 12/15/2015. 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 51-2015 MODIFICATION, SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY, LLC., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following where the property owner is responsible for the following: 1) Waivers request rg anted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, I. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q soil logs, r construction/demolition disposal, s. snow removal 2) The resolution is to be on Page 1 of final submitted plans. 3) The applicant must meet with the Code Compliance Officer after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 4) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff, the approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator and all documentation as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan —including an NOI, SPDES General/Individual Permit if part of project. 5) Prc)jeGt and Site development as determined by the Planning Beard (Beard to review and strike items that are not applinahle\ shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development &taff 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) b. Sanitary SeweF GenneGtien plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Departmen for its review approval, and inspentien• 0 0 0 G. Waterline GenneGtien plan must be submitted to the Water Department for its , approval permitting and inspentien• d. When GUrb Guts are being added OF Ghanngged a driveway permit is required.A building hermit will not he issued unto! the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Offine• 0 e.Engine i cign_off required prier to signature_of Zening Administrator of the The aapplliGant must submit an approved pl�Tpnert of the following to the Town fro pproje�#hat a hbiert t��ppter 147 Stnrm�e`i''aff''ter for disti irhanGe: i The preient SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan); , TrhTG prGJert AIv N01( vviiGe-of intent) and preef of GOverage ironer the G irren+ NYSDEG SDDES General Permit, nr an individual SD IlTDES permiissued for f1T 1VT the project if required The preient NOT (NE)tine of Termination) i open nnmpletion of the preient• , 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with the project as proposed and all other conditions of this resolution; 7) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 8) Submission of 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/ certificate of completion/ code compliance approval. 9) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution 10) Final plans to show: a. Light poles at the automated booth entrance area b. A gate bar should be shown on the plan at the vacuum pumps area c. Lighting candle/wattage of the vacuum unit d. Image of vacuum area without a canopy Duly adopted this 15th day of December 2015 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-It's the draft prepared by Staff, but we need these addition conditions that includes the updated plans with the two lampposts. MRS. MOORE-You're going to strike, under Number Five you're striking a through f. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Board members, before you end your meeting, I've got updated dates. You need to approve those dates for 2016. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to approve the meeting dates for 2016 that have been presented? MR. FERONE-So moved. MR. HUNSINGER-1 asked all my questions before the meeting started. Why so many months with the deviations, because of primaries. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES FOR 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE CALENDAR YEAR 2016 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Laura passed out the Save The Date flyer for the Saratoga County Planning and Zoning Conference. I know I'll go. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is it 9 o'clock, because there's no time on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this is just Save the Date. So I'm sure later on they'll come out with the agenda. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, who have we got to let know that we'll be attending, you'll put me down, do I sign my name. MRS. MOORE-If you would like to sign one of those, if everybody puts their name on one sheet, then I can turn that sheet in. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want me to start passing that down? MRS. MOORE-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business to come before the Board this evening? MR. FERONE-We were talking about term limits and all that good stuff. Now, did you have to do anything if you want the Town to reappoint you as Chairman every January? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, usually we vote on officers. MRS. MOORE-And on Thursday. MR. FERONE-This Thursday? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. FERONE-So then that's submitted? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-There's another planning conference in April, the New York State Planning Conference, Federation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This one's good. You get four points. MR. DEEB-You do with the other one, too. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-That's the one Laura had last year up at The Sagamore. So I was going to the one at The Gideon Putnam in April, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's a bunch of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Town limit the ones we can attend? MRS. MOORE-They have not limited it yet. MR. DEEB-I went to both of them last year. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, you're certainly welcome to attend more than one. Any other business, any other questions, comments? Maria, thank you for the fudge. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you very much, Maria. MR. HUNSINGER-If anyone would like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2015) Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 33