Loading...
01-19-2016 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2016 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2015 Burnett Family Trust 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Site Plan No. 59-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp. 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.00-1-54 Site Plan PZ-0038-2015 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 278.-1-20 Site Plan PZ-0040-2015 Robert& Trisha End 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-31, 227.17-1-30 Site Plan PZ-0041-2015 John & Cathy Hodgkins 14. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-1-84 Site Plan PZ-0028-2015 Tom Barber 16. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-34 PUD Site Plan No. 57-2015 Queensbury Partners 23. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) JANUARY 19, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER GEORGE FERONE JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER, MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-CHAZEN ENGINEERING, SEAN DOTY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, January 19, 2016. 1 would like to remind members of the audience to silence your cellphones so that we won't be interrupted during the course of the meeting. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also handouts for public hearing procedures. Much later on the agenda we do have a couple of projects that have public hearings scheduled. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a comment. I wanted to express my appreciation to you and other members of the Planning Board. As you know I missed the last meeting of the month and in my absence I was re-appointed as Vice Chairman and I am very proud of our Planning Board. I think we have a very professional and very strong Board and I'm honored to be a part of it. So thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from November 17th and 19th, 2015. If anyone would like to make a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 17, 2015 November 19, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17TH AND NOVEMBER 19TH, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first one is Subdivision 8-2015, Preliminary and Final, for the Burnett Family Trust. 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. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) & 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. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-15, BP 04-677 (2 DOCKS) WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA, OTHER LGPC, CEA LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM KNAPP, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVEN BURNETT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision. We have tabled it previously, just in regards to adjusting a lot line because there are two different parties involved in this lot line, and they are now at a point where they're ready to present that lot line, and they're subdividing the lots. One lot will be 28,639 square feet. The other lot is approximately 28,754 square feet, and there's a variance associated with this due to where the lot line is very close to both the structures on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. KNAPP-Good evening. Tom Knapp with Stafford, Carr and McNally for the Burnett Family Trust, one of the owners of this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to tell us about the project? MR. KNAPP-Yes. The project, again, it's a subdivision of a single lot. Currently owned by the Burnett Family Trust, and the Estate of David Burnett. At one time this parcel was two properties. It was then merged into one parcel and we're looking basically to subdivide it. The line we have here which I think has been adjusted to provide both parties with their own lot, Lot One or Proposed Lot A and Proposed Lot B. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. KNAPP-We're seeking variances for a number of things here. There's setback requirements, lot size requirements, road frontage and water frontage. One of the parcels does not have access to the main road. They would be using the access, I think it's Parcel A does not have access from the main road and would be using the access point on Parcel B. Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-So you represent one of the individuals in this property separation? MR. KNAPP-That's correct. We represent the Burnett Family Trust. The other owner of the property is represented by Matt Berry, an attorney in Albany who has, I believe, submitted documents stating he is, again, in favor and his clients are in favor of the subdivision application. MR. FERONE-That was going to be my question. MR. KNAPP-The property is also subject to a partition action in the Warren County Supreme Court, but we want to take this route to see if we can come up with some kind of agreement as to the subdivision line, where it can be located, easements associated with the two lots. MR. HUNSINGER-How does the proposed subdivision relate to the original two lot subdivision for the properties? MR. KNAPP-I can have my client, Steve Burnett, who's part of the Burnett Family Trust is here and he may be able to answer that question better than I can, if you don't mind. MR. HUNSINGER-The question I had was how the current subdivision corresponds to the original lot line before the two properties were merged. MR. BURNETT-What I was told by my grandmother and my father was both cottages were on one lot, and there was another lot owned by my grandmother, and when my father inherited, or 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) when my grandmother passed away she was a widow and she gave what we call the vacant lot, the lot to the south, to my father, and the remainder was split, with the two cottages on it, between my father and two brothers, and my father bought them out, but he had to sell half of the lot to the Galley family and they merged that into what is now the Freihofer parcel to the south, and they combined the half of that lot with the original lot with two cottages on it, which then changed everything, because the lot was pretty much equal between the two. When you added 45 feet on to the south, it would change the line so that you would be a little closer to the cottage to the south, the one closer to the lake. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That must have been an interesting family dinner. MR. BURNETT-Pardon, sir? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That must have been an interesting family dinner to figure that out. MR. BURNETT-Well, my father and my mother did that without any knowledge of my brother or myself, and we just got a deed in the mail on the 8th of October in 1973 and that was a surprise. So we've dealt with it for years, but my brother passed away in 2013 and his children just want out. MR. KNAPP-1 think the actual use of the property really isn't going to change with the subdivision. It more or less is it's in the family trust and the estate of Dave Burnett, and it's really been two kind of different owners using the different parts of the property with one cabin on Lot and one cabin on Lot B. MR. BURNETT-My brother took up residence in what was the family cottage, and my grandfather, back in the 20's, had the other cottage built for summer rentals, for people from downstate or New Jersey, and they came in and enjoyed it and it was pretty basic back in the 20's. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? Are there any specific concerns related to the variance requests? MR. KNAPP-And I know one of the variances we're requesting is a setback, because I know it's a little tight in between the properties. We've spoken with the attorney for the other owners, and we're going to have some kind of right of way or easement allowing the owner of one parcel and the other parcel to access for any maintenance concerns or anything like that, to have access from the other property to do maintenance and any upkeep that's necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Has there been any kind of easement agreement drafted for the driveway? MR. KNAPP-We have general terms. Nothing specific yet. We've obviously, because of the fact that the Lot A doesn't have a physical access to the road there's going to obviously be something necessary to allow them to get down to their property. Everybody's aware of that. We don't have anything specific yet, but we are in agreement that there would be an easement allowed for this. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-Nothing. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 51-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: 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, water frontage and setback requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) 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. 51-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, 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 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. KNAPP-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is also a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S) CHUCK MARSHALL OWNER(S) SANDRI REALTY, INC. ZONING CI LOCATION 1433 STATE ROUTE 9 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GAS SERVICE STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE AND REPLACE WITH A NEW 3,897 SQ. FT. STEWART'S SHOP WITH THREE SELF-SERVE MULTI-PRODUCT DISPENSERS UNDER A 1,500 SQ. FT. CANOPY (6 PUMPS). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: AREA VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. ALSO SIGN VARIANCE FOR SET BACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-2015, SV 61-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 0.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040 CHUCK MARSHALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes demolition of the existing store and gas canopy to replace with a new 3,897 square foot Stewart's Shop, also with a 1500 square foot canopy. In reference to the variances that are necessary, there's a building setback variance. There's a rear setback variance, and the fuel canopy also requires a setback variance. The site requires permeability relief, and the applicant is also requesting relief for proposed signage. There are now a number of wall signs changed from one to three. Two will be placed on the canopy. This application was tabled previously because you were discussing the signage. The freestanding sign, the applicant has reduced that size and provided an architectural rendition of the sign for the Board to see. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MARSHALL-Good evening. I'm Chuck Marshall from Stewart's. With me is Steve Kinley, also from my office. Last time we were here was in November. At that time the outstanding items were that we didn't incorporate the Sunoco branding into the signage that was proposed. We have since included the Sunoco branding. In doing that, we incorporate Sunoco on the freestanding sign, and then also on the gas canopy. The gas canopy signing will not be internally illuminated, which was also a problem with our original presentation. So the signage is also externally illuminated. The Sunoco on the canopy will be individual panels. It'll be essentially cut plastic. The other thing that we did was we decreased the freestanding sign square footage from 63 to essentially 58. By decreasing the width of the sign, the sign got slightly longer. Today we did provide Laura with renderings of the sign and placement of where that sign will be in relation to the proposed location. As we discussed at the November 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) meeting, that is the only location really where it can go because it can't slide further to the west, and the property line takes an angle as you go to the south of the property. The only other thing that was outstanding or in consideration, one of the members had requested we eliminate a parking space that was essentially in this vicinity, which would have been numbered 17 or 18 on the originally proposed plan. Because of the truck routing for the gas, or I'm sorry for the dumpster pick up, which is shown on this plan here. So this spot that was in this area was eliminated. We do acknowledge that we have some outstanding engineering comments, but again, I don't think those are insurmountable as far as the overall project. There has been some work done by the site, and that is not Stewart's doing that work. The current owner is doing regulatory work in relation to the, there's a rule at the New York State DEC that if you don't pump gas for one calendar year you have to essentially close down your tanks, and because our contract is based on us doing new tanks anyway, they decided to pull the tanks because of their compliance issue with the State, and at the same time, fix some contamination that was on site. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you see the note on the back water valve? MR. MARSHALL-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was afraid you'd say that. Did anybody see that? MR. TRAVER-I've seen that. It is from Chris Harrington, the Superintendent. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And he's saying as per Code a back water valve needs to be installed on the wastewater collection line since it is upstream of the pump station. That was another engineering issue. I can share with you a copy of that letter if you wish. MR. MARSHALL-Would that be included in? Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've got it right here. MR. MARSHALL-No, the lawyer's very diligent but I'll acknowledge that I didn't see this one, but again I don't think that that's in the realm of. MR. TRAVER-The other question I have, when you were here last time we talked about investigating signage on the canopy. You were going to inquire. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, and the reality is that the canopy itself isn't thick enough, and what you see in the canopy, or not the canopy, what you see in the signage that's proposed is we actually, these are going to be manual letters. So these are going to be the stick letters from before, because there's no mechanical way to achieve changing the pricing. So it's just not achievable. MR. TRAVER-But you did inquiry? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. We tried to do a scroll on the canopy and it was shot down. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for looking into it anyway. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Were there any concerns specific to the variance requests that have been asked for? MR. TRAVER-1 think the only concern I had was the signage and that's been addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-I assume you have a copy of the latest engineering letter? MR. MARSHALL-Again, I'm under the assumption it's in the staff packet. MR. HUNSINGER-It is, yes. MR. TRAVER-1 didn't see any engineering that would affect the design elements. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn't, either. Certainly none that affect the variance requests. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no further questions or comments, then we'll entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 60-2015 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing gas service station/convenience store and replace with a new 3,897 sq. ft. Stewart's Shop with three self-serve multi-product dispensers under a 1,500 sq. ft. canopy (6 pumps). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance. New convenience store with fuel shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Area Variance for setbacks and permeability. Also sign variance for size and set back. 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. 60-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp.: 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 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MARSHALL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We're going to continue on with Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SP PZ-0038-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) YOUNG/SOMMER LLC OWNER(S) RYAN SESSELMAN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 373 RT. 149 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES 199' LATTICE TOWER FOR CELL TOWER. THE PROJECT WILL OCCUR ON 100' X 100' AREA OF AN 11.81 ACRE PARCEL PROJECT INCLUDES UTILIZING AN EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE TO ACCESS THE PROJECT AREA. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS RESIDENTIAL USE AND AN EXISTING 297 FT. TALL RADIO TOWER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-130(c) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR USE VARIANCE WHERE A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE UV PZ-0045-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 11.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-1-20 SECTION 179-5- 130(c) DAVE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 199 foot lattice tower for a cell tower. The project will occur on a 100' by 100' area of an 11.81 acre. The project will include utilizing an existing gravel driveway to access the project area. The site currently has an existing residential use and an existing 297 foot tall radio tower. The variance relief is for a Use Variance where cell 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) towers are not allowed without a Use Variance and going through that criteria with the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BRENNAN-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dave Brennan with the law firm of Young Summer out of Albany. With me this evening is Bob Watson from Techtonic Engineering who's the site acquisition specialist. I'm representing Cellco Partnership which does business as Verizon Wireless, and we're proposing to add a 195 foot lattice tower with a four foot lighting rod at 373 Route 149, an existing property owned by Ryan Sesselman, and in our materials there are a couple of important things. We are proposing a new tower because the investigation that was prepared by the engineering consultant indicated that that existing 297 foot tower is a light duty tower. There is a roughly 30 foot FM antenna on top of it and then there's one set of Sprint PCS around the 200 foot centerline. With that existing loading it is already at 95 to 97% capacity, and with the Verizon Wireless proposed loading it would be up in the, the structural numbers would be at 171% to 180% of the capacity. With enough engineering and rebuilding a tower could certainly, we've gone back and reinforced towers in the past. What we did was an analysis to see if it would work, and it came out to be that it would be in one term more expensive to even re-build this tower but more importantly is it would not leave any additional room or structural capacity for future co-locations, and so part of what got us going on this route when we proposed this is I was contacted by one of the Town Board members and subsequently put me in contact with the Sheriff's Department. They're looking for a place to put another antenna to service fire service and the community in that area, and also as I understand it I believe the Sheriff's Department runs all of the emergency services communications, and so there is a letter request put in by the Sheriff's Department to reserve space on the existing tower as part of the upgrade of the Countywide emergency services radio system, and so what we were proposing to do is to, rather than co-locate on the existing tower, what we propose to do is cluster another existing structure on the site. We did prepare a view shed analysis which was done last December, and we would go through that. You can easily see that there are some areas of visibility, but even with the new tower that visibility is fairly minimal, but this will give us a platform for future co-location of other carriers. I do know that down the road to the east AT&T has a tower, is not close enough to our area to get coverage. It may be something to supplement our coverage to the east, but it's not something that we could place on. At the same time we're proposing to reserve space on the tower for the community service, Sheriff's Department. We need a 22 foot whip antenna to transmit. That would be at the top of the tower, and they need another 22 foot below for the receiver. So we're discussing with them where to put that. Verizon Wireless, in 2016, has eliminated the use of enclosed prefab equipment shelters. So for this proposal we are asking to employ a platform, and so it's a steel grade raised off the ground with exterior equipment cabinets, an exterior generator and then a shed roof over the top of it. What we would do is provide free space elsewhere in the enclosed compound for the County to use. What I've been told is they're about $70,000 for that shelter and this is a cost savings not to put a shelter. Sprint's been doing it for as long as I can remember and it's one of the things we're starting to pay attention to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is it accurate to say that you're not gaining much height but you're gaining capacity? MR. BRENNAN-Well, I'm not sure if I follow the question. The existing tower is 297. We're proposing a 199 foot tall structure with our antenna. We're not going as high. So that existing tower is just about 100 feet taller. It has FAA construction lighting on it as well as markings. So it's painted the orange and white. Because we're below 199 and not in proximity to there we don't require lighting, and my best guess is even above 200 feet because we're roughly 300 feet away from that existing tower that we wouldn't require lighting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you'll have more add on capacity. MR. BRENNAN-Absolutely. There is an existing lack of coverage. So we'll improve both coverage and capacity. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what most of the people are interested in is improved coverage because there's a black hole. MR. BRENNAN-Yes. I'm sorry. I misunderstood the question. We have new coverage where there's not good coverage. We have capacity where there's not good coverage but we don't have enough capacity to cover the users. So the answer is, yes, that'll improve the coverage and capacity for the community in that area of the Town. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that we typically receive with a cell tower application is various propagation maps that show different heights of the antenna and I didn't see that in here. MR. BRENNAN-We have propagation maps on Tab 8. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BRENNAN-But we didn't do additional heights. We could, if the Board wants to see some of those, we were preparing the supplemental materials to reflect the site down the road. We could do some supplemental plots to show that 100 feet won't work, that we'd start losing coverage. We could identify those areas. I think in part because of the existing tall structure next to it. I mean, more height is always typically more coverage. When you start lowering it you find you start opening spots. One thing we might talk about is you could typically drop the antennas 10 or 20 feet and the plots won't identify apparent. It becomes more apparent when you go 40, 50 feet you can start seeing gaps. One thing with the Sheriff's office that we might want to talk about in detail in the future is their whip needs to go on the top of the tower because they don't, it's an omni width. They don't want to transmit and have it right next to the steel of the tower and have interference issues, and so the question would be, and I need to figure this out, is whether we put the whip on top of the 200 foot structure and monitor the lighting or lower our antennas by 20 feet, and put their whip on top of it at 199, change the overall height. They came to the dance a little bit late with their letter in the last month, but we can figure out a way that that works. MR. HUNSINGER-So I assume that you'd have that information for site? MR. BRENNAN-Absolutely, yes. My first preference is probably not to go above the 199. There's no question about the height. So that may answer your question about the additional RF analysis. MR. HUNSINGER-You also just mentioned the potential for inference. Is there any potential for interference with the radio tower? MR. BRENNAN-No, there's not, and we can certainly have that prepared. We're on different frequencies. The FM is, you know, I always say 106.5 megahertz down at Pix 106. They're broadcasting 50,000 watts. We're at the 600 to 700 and higher megahertz, very different, and we're at much lower power. We're at the 100's of watts. So the interference are not there, and in fact because we're a licensed spectrum, we have requirements to make sure there's no interference, and if there is interference to resolve it. So radios in your house, none of those things have interference with cell phones. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? I guess I should say, in full disclosure, Laura had a copy of the Town map up there before. I do live in the neighborhood, and I will see this tower from my property. Actually our house is on that map there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn't glow at night. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it doesn't glow at night. MR. HUNSINGER-Just in terms of full disclosure. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MS. WHITE-1 guess my biggest concern, still. I understand that now the Sheriff's Department, that makes a little bit different, but I'm still not 100% sure you can't build on the existing tower, because you have, I mean, that's something that is commonly done, right? To re-inforce an existing tower so that it can accommodate. MR. BRENNAN-Sure. The problem with that light duty tower is so different from what, you know, with the large antennas that it was never designed, and Sprint got there in 2001 or so and added their antennas and, you know, it's fairly low down. We did look at various permutations of lowering our antennas, flush mounting them, all sorts of things, and each and every turn it fails, and it was failing so terribly that then the next phase is we would have to investigate and rebuild all of the guy anchors, all of the foundation and so it just becomes, and then at that stage, after all that expense, all the community has is a tower that is now built for Verizon and no one else. So what happens, and the best we can tell in talking to folks in the industry, that tower's been routinely bypassed by other carriers because it is just such a low beam tower that there is no way to add to it and make sense. That's why it's sat there unused. If we could re- build it and do it in a fashion, it would have been, I think, done years ago, because vertical 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) space in a community, the last thing you want to do is come in and ask for a new tower if there's something nearby. In this case what we're proposing is to cluster them to minimize, if you look at the view shed analysis and the photo sims, it is so much lower than the existing tower that it is not visible but from a few discrete locations. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'd have guys all over the place, wouldn't you? MR. BRENNAN-Well, the thing is it becomes, it's that light duty tower that is, you know, maybe a foot, it's a post. It's very thin and to re-build it it's just not, to keep the height of the FM station, you don't want to build a self-supporting tower that is 20 feet wide at the base and 12 feet tall at the top at 300 feet. We're going to replace a very slender structure with something that is very oversized and very bulky in comparison. So from our perspective this was a tradeoff so immediately after I met with the tenant I heard from the town Board member saying that there's a need to put more antennas out there, from the community perspective. MR. FERONE-Are there opportunities maybe in the future that whatever services are on that existing tower would be moved over to your tower? MR. BRENNAN-One thing, well, I can't speak to their services. I have not been asked that question exactly like that before. One thing that could be done, and is routinely done is in our materials we do have a statement from Verizon indicating that the tower would be built to accommodate three additional carriers with a smaller loading, but one thing that can be done is that the tower foundation and the steel can be oversized and designed to be extended higher and that could be one thing that we could look at doing for the community, if you have a sense. My sense is that the slender tower is a better, if we could build it so it could be extended in the future, if that were a tower. It's possible that you could add 100 feet to ours and decommission the other one. That would be something that, certainly with monopoles, we routinely over build them early on, and say if we only need 80 feet, we'll build it for 80 and it's extendable to 120 if another carrier comes on in the future. We can certainly provide some more detail in the future if that's what you want. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn't the FM antenna, though, a different design and material? MR. BRENNAN-The FM antenna, as I looked at it on the, and I don't know about FM antennas. The one that's there is about between 20 and 30 feet long. It's a light weight antenna. It's attached at several attachment points and it runs from like 297 feet down to 267 1 think it was. So it's a long antenna. So I think there are other antennas they use, but I do not deal with them very often. The other thing that could be done is the tower could be built to extend with that tower. If the guy tower reaches the end of its useful life, it could be transitioned to one in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're going to get more requests for capacity in the public safety area than anywhere else. We're not really on the top of the list for coverage. MR. BRENNAN-I certainly heard that Verizon Wireless has a gap, but also for the fire service. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The fire service isn't quite as bad as the police service. MR. BRENNAN-Well, from my understanding in speaking with the Sheriff's Department is the Sheriff's Department runs the communications. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Brian runs that. The fire department feeds off of that, because it's all dispatched out of one place. MR. BRENNAN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it's multiple frequencies. MR. HUNSINGER-Any specific concerns with the variance request? Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments, there is a draft resolution in your package if anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: UV PZ-0045-2015 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 199' lattice tower for cell tower. The project will occur on 100' x 100' area of an 11.81 acre parcel. Project includes utilizing an existing gravel drive to access the project area. The site currently has residential use and an existing 297 ft. tall radio tower. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130(c) of the Zoning Ordinance Telecommunications Tower shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for use variance where a telecommunications tower is not an allowed use. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief 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 USE VARIANCE NO. PZ-0045-2015 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. BRENNAN-Okay. Thank you for your time this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. The next project is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SP PZ-0040-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II ROBERT & TRISHA END AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 8 & 10 WATERS EDGE ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH FOOTPRINT OF 4633 SQ. FT., 7042 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA RATIO. PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE OF 35,855 SQ. FT. MAJOR STORM WATER — SITE PLAN REVIEW. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 147-11 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISTURBANCE IN THE LAKE GEORGE BASIN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT, FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WATER BODY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV PZ-0047-2015; AV 4-2001 GARAGE & SEPTIC; SEVERAL GARAGE AV & SP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 APA, CEA, OTHER APA, CEA LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRES (COMBINED) TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-31, 227.17-1- 30 SECTION 147-1; 179-3-040; 179-4-050 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes demolition of multiple buildings on two parcels. This is to construct a single family home with a footprint of 4,633 square feet. This is a 7,042 square foot floor area ratio. The project includes disturbance of a 35,855 square foot area. This is a major stormwater. Site Plan review, it is subject to variances for height, frontage on public road and stormwater management within 100 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design Partnership, representing owners and applicants Bob and Trisha End in this project, requesting a recommendation tonight. With me is Bob End to my right, and Michael Tuck, project architect from Balzar Tuck architectural firm. As indicated in Laura's reading, the Ends own two parcels, at 8 & 10 Waters Edge Drive. It's a property that's off of Seelye Road. It's the Rockhurst area facing the Warner Bay side. The Ends have owned the house at 8 Waters Edge since 1994. Along the way they were able to acquire the property next door at 10 Waters Edge. The recommendation we're seeking is for the three variances we're requesting for the proposed re- development of this property, and those variances are associated with the Zoning Regulations, building height and frontage on a public road, and then in the Stormwater Regulations, Chapter 147, a horizontal setback for the infiltration devices associated in stormwater design. Now again the overall project consists of the two lots, which will be merged pending approval of our property, and that would create an area of a little over an acre, 1.05 acres. There'd be a removal of the house, both houses, which are currently pre-existing nonconforming structures in relation to the shoreline setback. As you can see, the house at 10 Waters Edge Drive is absolutely right on the water. The white house to the right. So those residences would be removed. There's a cottage that would be removed on 8 Waters Edge Drive as well as a garage structure. The overall reduction of impervious area or as it exists now there's close to 11,000 square feet of impervious area on the lot. The re-development of the property would result in impervious area of 7200. So nearly 3800 square feet reduction of impervious area, and the proposed house would meet the shoreline setbacks, and in addition the owners hope to remove the seawall, the existing seawall, which covers about a little over 300 linear feet of shoreline, and replace it with a natural riprap shoreline, and certainly that's very much in favor by the DEC and I suppose the Town. The tendency has been to discourage the use of seawalls for various ecological reasons around the lake. So that's something. That's a significant undertaking. So with this project, again, we're going from two houses and some associated accessory structures to one house, far less impervious area, and a removal of the seawall along the shoreline. With that, we're seeking the building height variances, and I know that the architects worked long and hard with the owners to try to get within the 28 foot standard, but for a combination of reasons and a brief explanation is that this lot is unique in a way in that it's a very nicely slight sloped property, low lying in relationship to the lake level. Unlike any of our steeper lots that make their way down to the shoreline, this is very desirable in the fact that it's nice and level, but with that comes close proximity to groundwater, and to be able to have any kind of crawl space, not a basement but only a crawl space, in the design of the structure, pushes us because of the presence of groundwater, and then we're pushed down by the 28 foot standard, height standard. So we're in a situation where we've designed a building that's 29.9 feet. So we're seeking a variance of roughly two foot relief from the building height standard. The other zoning variance is the frontage on a public road, and this really is just a housekeeping measure. The property fronts on Waters Edge Drive which is a private road. Pre-existing. That's the access point to the property. So technically we have zero frontage on a public road, Seelye Road, and therefore we're asking for that relief. Now technically there is, if you've looked at the plan you'll see there's a slight amount of frontage on Seelye Road, in the lower left corner. That's not where our access is. So we're simply requesting for saying it's zero frontage on a public road, and we're seeking a 50 foot relief, as the access is in fact off a private road. A third item, the variance is stormwater related. This is not an unusual situation. You've seen this before where we've needed to seek variances for stormwater device setback from the shoreline. Zoning standards allow a house to be 50 feet from the lake, but the stormwater regulations don't allow the runoff that's generated from those impervious surfaces to be infiltrated into the ground in that 50 to 100 foot area. Being a major stormwater project it requires 100 foot setback. So we're in a situation where we're dealing with the inconsistency of the regulation. Again, I've been here before. I'm sure you've heard it numerous times. This Board is the, or excuse me, the Zoning Board is the mechanism to gain relief from the inconsistency. So that's the third of the variances that we'd be seeking, and looking for your positive recommendation moving forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-What is the exact setback from the lake to the house itself? MR. MAC ELROY-The proposed house? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'm sorry, the proposed house. Didn't I see 84 feet? 54 feet. There's a lot of measurements on this plot. MR. MAC ELROY-Fifty-three feet is the proposed setback from the proposed house to the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. MAC ELROY-Up in the chart in the upper right hand corner of the site plan there's same chart that's in the application. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? I think this is one of the kinds of not specifically this project, but this is, I think, one of the concepts that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan envisioned in requiring larger lakeside lots. It was kind of the hope that some of the smaller lots would be merged to large lots. You're eliminating three, you know, two houses and a cottage, and creating just one house. The overall impact on the lake should be less. Certainly your lot coverage is less. You're taking care of stormwater and some of the other things. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I can't make that point strong enough that there's, with this design is a stormwater system that heretofore has not existed, and not only that but it's designed for full area of impervious which is not required by regulation. So this really is a plus, plus, plus situation. Obviously the owners feel that strongly about that and we hope to share that. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, the existing house that's right on the lake sounds pretty appealing until you go up there on a day like today. It's actually kind of scary with the waves. Much more and they'd be crashing into that screened porch. MR. MAC ELROY-It's not so user friendly. MR. TRAVER-Could you talk about the Iakeshore buffering? It looks like it's somewhat spotty. So I'm wondering, there are some gaps, with what's proposed versus what's there. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I don't want to challenge the Board's knowledge of the Code, but. MR. TRAVER-I'm asking for your knowledge. MR. MAC ELROY-Excuse me? MR. TRAVER-I'm asking for your knowledge. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. I don't want to be argumentative. I think first of all there's a good standing mature trees in that area. The owners have, those trees are important to the owners and they've worked with the architect to try to retain as much of that as possible. There are shrubs. There are plans for shrubs and groundcover. My reading of the shoreline buffer is that it's not a 15 foot property line to property line planting area. There's a certain number of mature trees. There's a certain 100 feet. We meet that. There's a certain amount of shrubs that are to be within that area as well. We meet that. We're supplementing that and covering the groundcover provision of that ordinance as well. So I think that what is shown on the site plan is compliant with the spirit and the reading of those regulations. MR. TRAVER-Well, certainly not using a house as a shoreline buffer. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Has there been any measurements for the waterline up on there, from the groundwater? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. In fact with our test pits I did put in some stand pipes, perforated pipe, that we can continue to read the groundwater through the season as opposed to that one snapshot. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I know, I spent a lot of time up, actually at parties at the white house, but a lot at the neighbors before Phil passed away. So I just, I know that groundat4er's, it's up there. It does fluctuate. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and if I could just give Bob an opportunity to be heard just for a minute or two just to give a little of the background. Bob and Trisha have flown in. They live out of state for the winter. They flew in for this meeting and tomorrow night's meeting, but they won't be here presuming we gain a variance tomorrow night, won't be here next week. So I want to at least give Bob and opportunity to, you know, put a face with a project and give them an 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) opportunity to talk a little bit about what drove them to, you know, going to this proposal. It is unusual, certainly, that some people want to take two lots and create one. I mean, it may be the goal, it may be the hope, but in my experience it's fairly unusual that that's actually happening. MR. TRAVER-We had an applicant earlier this evening that did the opposite. ROBERT END MR. END-First of all, on behalf of Trisha and myself, I just wanted to thank you all for your time and consideration of our project. Clearly if you've been in the white house and in Phil's house you know the site. It is a low-lying site. We have struggled for years, since we bought the white house, we have struggled as to what to do with both properties. In the back of our minds we always thought about doing what we're talking about tonight, but we also were torn that the white house is very unique. It is right on the water. A lot of people probably think we're nuts for doing what we're doing, but ultimately what has motivated us, a couple of things. One is we want our growing family, with kids, spouses, spouses to be, grandchildren, under one roof. We're kind of funny that way but we like everyone to be together, as opposed to in two separate houses and a guest house. We also think de-cluttering, simplifying the site is really important. For the one really important reason is maintenance on those properties. You've got what started out as summer camps. They've been added on to. They're held together by duct tape. In particular we do have some challenges with groundwater and we've lost one furnace a couple of years ago. We are trying to rectify those problems and do it the right way. The one comment, and I acknowledge this is self-serving, but Trish and I grew up on the water all of our lives. We have a deep appreciation for the lake, and just getting rid of the septic system we think is a real plus. Decluttering the property is a real plus, and Dennis has done a terrific job, we think, in terms of designing a stormwater system that meets the scheduling standards. When we started out this project the overriding principle was to do right by the lake, by the neighborhood. We're not trying to just do something just to build a big fancy house. That's not us. That's not our style. We want to do something that we think is a good fit. MR. MAGOWAN-I know the properties, you know, going past it so many times. So, you know, it's going to be a shame. The white house is really beautiful, being on the water, but he does a phenomenal job with his layouts. It's really an improvement. I know the water fluctuates. But you're raising it up and bringing in fill, which I think it would be a mass improvement to both those lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Any Staff issues? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns specific to the variance requests? I was a little concerned with the height request until I read all the materials and saw that the neighboring house was just as high. So it's really not out of character with the neighborhood. MR. END-We are very close to those neighbors and we have shared all of our plans. I think they were going to send a letter. They're down in Florida right now, but they're in full support. MR. HUNSINGER-If there's nothing else from the Board, there is a draft resolution in your package, if anyone would like to make a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: SP PZ-0040-2015 ROBERT & TRISHA END The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of multiple buildings on two parcels to construct a single family home with footprint of 4633 sq. ft., 7042 sq. ft. floor area ratio. Project includes disturbance of 35,855 sq. ft., major stormwater — site plan review. Pursuant to Chapter 147-11 of the Zoning Ordinance, disturbance in the Lake George Basin shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for height, frontage on a public road, stormwater management within 100 ft. of a water body. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) 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-0047-2015 ROBERT & TRISHA END: 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 — other than a review of the relief requested. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. END-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-The last item on the agenda for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is PZ 41-2015. SP PZ-0041-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II JOHN & CATHY HODGKINS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 218 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OF 2,927 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF 1,081 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT; PROJECT WILL INCLUDE NEW STORMWATER, NEW SEPTIC, NEW PLANTINGS AND GRADING ON SITE. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORE. PROJECT INCLUDES RETAINING AN EXISTING GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED AND TWO ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 AND 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 15% SLOPE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV PZ-0049-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 APA, CEA, OTHER APA, CEA LOT SIZE .61 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-84 SECTION 179-6- 060; 179-6-050 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN HODGKINS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes construction of a single family home of 2,927 square foot. The project includes demolition of 1,081 square feet existing building. Project will include new stormwater, new septic, new plantings and grading on the site. The project occurs within 50 feet of 15% slopes, and hard surfacing within 50 feet. Variances requested simply for an existing garage and then to construct a second garage on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. For the record, again, Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design representing Cathy and John Hodgkins on this application for a recommendation for the variances sought on this proposed re-development of the property at 218 Lake Parkway. Lake Parkway is the west shore of Assembly Point facing the main lake. John and Cathy have owned the house at that property for 18 years and are hoping to re-build a year round house. It's been basically a seasonal use for those number of years and they plan to use it as a retirement location. They plan to tear down and re-build with a new wastewater system and a stormwater system. This is a property that's actually split by Lake Parkway. Part of the property is on the other side, on the easterly side of Lake Parkway. That's where this wastewater absorption field will be situated. New pump tank. New septic tank. Now the subject of the variance is a second garage. The new house will have an attached garage, but 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) existing on the site is a detached garage which the preference would be to leave as is. Queensbury's regulations don't allow for a situation like that without variance relief, and that's what the owners would hope to do is to leave that structure intact. It provides valuable storage space. Allows them to perhaps keep the main house at a more reasonable size, and therefore having the storage space. The second garage already, I've been through this several times. I think I understand why it's in the Ordinance, but I also understand that having that second garage gives people a place to put things, and if there isn't that second garage, then they're out, oftentimes out in the open, and therefore it takes away from the look of the properties as well. So there's a double edged sword there I guess with a second garage. So that's the simple request that we're making is to maintain that garage as it is and be able to move on with the re- building of a new residence on the property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Didn't we use to call those boat storage facilities? And then it wasn't a second garage. MR. HUNSINGER-Or if you just make the door smaller. MR. HODGKINS-Well, we did look at these things, but we have designed the house, we kept the size of the two garages below the maximum limit for the zone. So they are, it's a combination. So the garage attached it's not a super large garage, and this garage comes out. There's an 1100 square foot limit and we are below that. Also my electric service does come through that building. So it it's already in the building, 200 amp service. We would bring the electric service underground then into the new structure. It allows us to disturb less of the property by keeping the garages as such instead of increasing the size of the next garage, and we'd like to try to keep that property on the east side of the road void of any structure and any buildings. So any kind of separate shed or anything would not be built. It would be all incorporated into this garage, and as Paul said, you know, I do store a boat in there in the winter, and it's better than having tarps out in the yard, like as you go up and down the area. So that's what we're looking at now. The building, the structure that's there has been there since long before I had it, probably 1960. It fits in to the neighborhood, and in talking to the neighbors they seem to be satisfied with what we're trying to do, on keeping that structure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It fits in with the decor of the area, too. Because you've got houses on both sides, but yours already fits in there. It belongs there. Yes, I built one, I call it a boat storage facility. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? It's nice looking. MR. FERONE-It was colder than heck there today. MR. HUNSINGER-Not as cold as the last site, though. Well, I'm not hearing any significant concerns for the variance request. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: SP PZ-0041-2015 JOHN & CATHY HODGKINS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home of 2,927 sq. ft. Project includes demolition of 1,081 sq. ft. footprint; project will include new storm water, new septic, new plantings and grading on site. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shore. Project includes retaining an existing garage where only one is allowed and two are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 6-060 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 15% slope and the hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for second garage. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief 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-0049-2015 JOHN & CATHY HODGKINS: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; and 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) 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 19th day of January, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. HODGKINS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Our next project under Old Business is Queensbury Partners, PUD Site Plan 57-2015. MRS. MOORE-If it's possible to defer it for a few minutes until Town Counsel shows up. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. I didn't realize they weren't here yet. So we'll put that off until last, then. NEW BUSINESS: SP PZ-0028-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED TOM BARBER AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE ZONING CLI LOCATION 462 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PHASED STORAGE FACILITY WHERE FIRST PHASE WITH 52 WEST AND 46 EAST TWO FACILITIES. THE SECOND PHASE PROPOSED FOR TWO 36 UNITS EACH. CLEARING MORE THAN AN ACRE. PLANS FOR OFFICE AREA AND FIRST AREA UNITS TO BE USED FOR BOUNCE AROUND BUSINESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW STORAGE FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 44-2012; SP 25-2013; PZ 28-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-34 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM BARBER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a phased storage facility where the first phase with 52 units on the west side and 46 units to be built on the east side. A second phase is proposed for two 36 units each. This is to the rear of the property. This is clearing more than one acre and the plans also include plans for office area and the first area units to be used for the bounce around business. That's it. That completes my notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Tom Barber, owner of the project. It is a self-storage facility. It's on a vacant lot, right adjacent to the power line off of Corinth Road. It's shown as a staged development. More than likely once they get started on the first set, they'll start the second set, and then the next one. We have shown it with the paving running around the building, as is typically done. We are proposing a one way traffic pattern in in two directions and out in one direction, which will allow for someone to park in front of one of the units and still have passage to get by. Mr. Barber is going to have an office in the front of one of the buildings and we will use the front portion of one of the buildings for storage. MR. FERONE-A question. As I was looking there trying to the, I couldn't figure it out from this. The property is between the power lines, east of the power lines or west? MR. HALL-West. MR. FERONE-So there's a church. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. HALL-Yes, it's between the power line and the church. There is a small garage there. There was a single family residence that was there that has been previously torn down. It does show on our map. It was part of the original survey that was provided to us. MR. FERONE-Is the garage part of the property? MR. HALL-The garage does still stand, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn't there something else proposed here? MR. HALL-Maynard Baker proposed a funeral home. It was reviewed and approved by this Board back two, three years ago I think it was. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say it wasn't that long ago. MR. HALL-Yes, it wasn't that long ago. MR. BARBER-But they abandoned the project. MR. HUNSINGER-I got out to the site and I said I've looked at this before. MR. HALL-Yes, exactly. It is a relatively low impact as far as traffic goes. The studies that Mr. Barber's done and people that he's talked with show five to seven trips a day. We are proposing some lighting on the building which would be motion activated and time sensored. So it would only come on if somebody drove by it and it would be on for a certain amount of time and it would go back off. They are LED fixtures. They're all downcast, shining along the ground. I've provided the lighting chart that shows what the lighting footprint is. We would have one pole mounted light out front which would be on just for the security of the main entry way. MR. HUNSINGER-So would customers have access 24/7? MR. BARBER-1 actually met with New Hope today just to kind of go over the project and be proactive. My name's Thomas Barber. I'm the owner of this project, but I met with New Hope and just basically I wanted to shed some light on this project since I'm their only neighbor next door. So their concern was more of security in the evening, and I think that could be very easily addressed. It's a very, very low impact, as Ethan was saying. It's actually about three to five cars a day at the very, very most. So my proposal is that a lot of these facilities, about 50% of them, are actually have a security fence around the whole thing. Many don't, and this area is very, very safe. It's more for the customer, for a sense of security to have that fence. It's really not required, but it's for the customer, but my proposal is put a gate with a key pad and we limit the hours, possibly from say 6 a.m. until midnight. I spoke with a large operator in Albany today and that's what they do, and they give access to the business customers 24/7 with a key pad, and that's just for business customers. Or we could just put a security fence around it with a gate, which would solve the whole problem. So either or, and that was his one concern. So we're undecided yet whether we're going to go with a security fence all the way around it or just limit the hours. We'll probably limit the hours. MR. HUNSINGER-How would you enforce that? MR. BARBER-It would be a key pad. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-Just a gate across it. MR. BARBER-A gate, correct. With full surveillance cameras. MR. FERONE-And the fence, just a regular chain link fence? MR. BARBER-Around the perimeter. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my one concern. I think a lot of it's a kind of buffer use between the power lines and the rest of the neighborhood, but I was wondering about the church. MR. BARBER-Yes, I reached out to them. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-You have proposed some plantings out in the front, and then some towards the back. So there are some individual areas. MR. HALL-Yes, we've proposed to put some plantings and some conifer trees all along our eastern property line between us and the church. They're set back a little ways, and they've already got some landscaping around that. That's their stormwater basin right there so they have some planting there. We would just go right along the property line with plantings until we got back to what's already there, what's already standing. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. We'll open the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for people to comment to the Board on their concerns or issues with the project. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to speak their name clearly into the microphone and we do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website. Sir, if you want to come on up and comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE PIRWANA MR. PIRWANA-Hi, Mike Pirwana. I'm the neighbor on the other side of the power line, and I have a concern that the project description is inaccurate. It says there will be clearing of more than an acre. It's already been cleared. It was cleared on my birthday, October 17th last year, on a weekend when Town Boards are typically, or Town offices are typically not open. Now it just may be an accident, you know, two days out of five the Town's closed and you can't call somebody up and say does somebody have clearance to, you know, a permit to clear that lot, but, you know, it could be just a mistake, but I want to know if there was a fine for clearing without a permit or, you know, any sort of action for clearing without a permit, and I'd like to know what the proposed remediation is. I would also, I would like to see a better design of plantings. I haven't seen this yet but I would encourage some naturalistic plantings instead of just plopping some yew trees or something down, and I would prefer not to see a fence around the whole property because there's a lot of wildlife that travels through that corridor. It's adjacent to an area that was like Karner blue butterfly area. Who knows what was there before they started clearing it off. They just came in on a weekend and just started knocking trees down. You can eliminate decade's worth of stuff in a few minutes with an excavator and a chainsaw. So I'm not totally opposed to the project, but I would like to see some remediation for what's already been done, and I know the previous owner would just go off and do stuff on his own without any kind of permits either. So, you know, there needs to be somebody to stop that sort of action on the property. You can't just do whatever you want whenever the hell you want. So that's my comments, and I would like to see some remediation for the problems that have been caused. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to come back to the table. MR. BARBER-Again, my name's Tom Barber. I'd like to address that. That was actually the project, we started cleaning up the lot. I actually wasn't there. It was an excavator I had working at my home, and it was the only time that we could schedule him, and I believe it was Friday that he started. It was Friday afternoon, within business hours, and basically on Monday Craig Brown had called me and we stopped everything, and we just basically wanted to clean up the lot. There's a lot of debris. If you actually drive out there tomorrow, you'll see an incredible, you could fill half this room from the power lines that were brought over the property, and we were just basically trying to clean up the lot. They were digging stump, thick stumps, they put them in holes. We've pulled them out. We spent a lot of money and these guys tried to clean up that parcel. I believe, I was told Pastor Robbie or somebody came over and introduced himself. Like I say, I wasn't there, but we left a buffer of trees between the church. I'll be right up front with you. It's not the Adirondack Park so I was just trying to do something to clean up. We didn't take all the trees down. We were just trying to clean it up, but when Craig Brown called me we stopped everything, and there's still a lot of work to be done. MR. HUNSINGER-So were there any large trees removed? MR. BARBER-They're really small. From what they were telling me they're quite small. I'm not sure if anyone's here from New Hope, but it probably was eight inches, nothing bigger than that. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) It's mostly small saplings. As far as the fence goes, we want to be a good neighbor. I don't have good hearing, so didn't hear the gentleman where he is, what neighbor he is. Is it the boat place? MR. PIRWANA-On the other side of the property. MR. BARBER-Yes, the boat place, right? MR. PIRWANA-The other side. MR. BARBER-The other side. Okay. If we need to put a few more trees up to make it more decorative, but I was just basically trying to match the existing. So with New Hope Church, I believe they're white pines. We'll match them. Like I said, I just want to conform and be a good neighbor. MR. HALL-We have an issue with planting anything along the power line. We really can't plant anything along the power line. They'll just cut it out anyway, because they cut right to their property line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. You can't put it underneath it either. MR. HALL-Right. MR. BARBER-1 apologize for not introducing myself. MR. PIRWANA-Well, it would have been nice to say hi, but can I just point out that it is not the case that the logs that were on that property came off the power line. NiMo deals with it's own stuff. They come in. There's nothing large on that power line. There hasn't been for decades. Any logs that were left there were from Maynard Baker when he was taking things illegally and dragging it back there, and that very well could be his logs. MR. TRAVER-Approximately how much area was cleared? It said more than an acres. MR. BARBER-It was less than two acres. So I'm going to say not even three quarters of an acre. MR. HALL-It was already cleared back to beyond, well, if you look at drawing C-1 on our original site plan, it shows an edge of wood, which is behind where the house was. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I wasn't clear that that was. MR. HALL-And that's kind of where the tree buffer kind of juts out now from behind there, and what was cleared was the space, there's a strip there that's left that's probably maybe 30 or 40 feet wide, and then it's the area from there back to, almost back to the 30 foot setback. That area in the back. It's where, in the end, where the second phase of our buildings wind up and the snow storage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So you're willing to plant some additional trees along the west property line? MR. HALL-As long as they don't interfere with the power line. I think we can get some stuff up front. If you notice, this isn't truly a parallel line. It does get narrower as you go towards the back. So we've got a little space along the property line between where our paving's going to be and the western property line, the adjoining property line. So I think we can get some plantings along that side there, but when we get about halfway back onto the first building, we get to a point where we're too close. It winds up being. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you get about halfway back you'd be past the neighbor's house. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Which would be really. MR. HALL-Yes. I would say we can get an equal number to what we've got proposed on the eastern side on the western side, and there is a small, a very small wedge that's shaded on there that says area of uncertain ownership. From what we gather from the surveyor and from the deed research that was done, there's a, there's 439 square feet of land between this 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) property and what is the National Grid property that's of undetermined ownership. We haven't counted it towards ours but we believe it belongs with this property. It's seven and a half feet wide along Corinth Road and it goes to a point at 216 feet back. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the power company think it's theirs? MR. HALL-No. The power company doesn't think it's theirs and the surveyor believes it belongs with this property. They just can't find it in the deed anymore. So it hasn't been accounted for on our parcel, but it is. MR. HUNSINGER-So typically during the site plan is when we would ask questions about access and fencing and all of those things. So it's kind of hard to finalize your application until you make a determination. MR. HALL-I would say that it's not a necessity to have the. MR. BARBER-We could just put a gate like every other yard does with a punch code. Limit the hours for residential customers, and if the neighbor on the left doesn't want a fence. MR. HALL-I don't believe that the fence is necessary at this point. I mean, there's really only one way into the property. One way in and one way out. So putting a fence, it's not like it's accessed from multiple points, and I don't think anybody can get out there. MR. TRAVER-And you're going to augment with video surveillance. MR. BARBER-Absolutely. MR. FERONE-So that gate will block your driveway. MR. BARBER-Absolutely. MR. HALL-Yes, and we'll put it back behind where our proposed sign and things are going to be so that somebody can pull in off of the road, so that there wouldn't be anybody sitting, facing out into the street or anything. MR. BARBER-And we can bring the trees that are going to be on that western side down to the gate, so that somebody can't ride around the gate. MR. HUNSINGER-So did you identify the tree types on your site plan? MR. HALL-I believe they're on, yes, they're called out to be evergreen trees. We're looking at using a white pine. MR. BARBER-To match the existing. MR. HALL-So that it's the same type of planting in the back there. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that acceptable? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Excuse me. Currently it shows 11 plantings on the east side. So you'll supplement on the west side with 11? MR. HALL-Yes, there'll be at least 11 on the other side. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and in reference to the fencing, if we were to talk about fencing now, you'd have to include that as part of your site plan. So if you were ever to include fencing in the future, it would actually have to come back before the Board because of the zone it's in. So just so you're aware. MR. HALL-No, we won't put a fence around it now. I don't think that it's warranted or needed. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm looking for the height of the proposed trees. MR. HALL-They're going to be two and a half inch caliper. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. BARBER-Which is, and that's at the base. They're balled and burlaped and they're two and a half inch caliper. The height of them varies depending on their age, but it's the size at the ball. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns from the Board? Staff? MRS. MOORE-1 don't have anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-1 didn't ask for any written comments. MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll close the public hearing. This is an Unlisted action. We do have a draft resolution for the SEQR review. Are there any items that anyone's identified as areas of concern? Okay. Do you want to read the motion, then? RESOLUTION RE: SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION SP PZ-0028-2015 TOM BARBER The applicant proposes Applicant proposes to construct a phased storage facility where first phase with 52 west and 46 east two facilities. The second phase proposed for two 36 units each. Clearing more than an acre. Plans for office area and first area units to be used for Bounce Around business. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new storage facility shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ-0028-2015 TOM BARBER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; As per the resolution prepared by staff. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-There are a few engineering comments as well. MR. HALL-Kevin Hastings, our civil engineer, responded to those. Laura, did you get a copy of those this afternoon? MRS. MOORE-1 did not, yet. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. HALL-You did not yet get them? MRS. MOORE-1 did not. MR. HALL-I think they were sent out about quarter to five. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HALL-I had to wait around to get them. I do have a response from Kevin Hastings. He did respond to all the Chazen comments. Kevin was also the engineer that was Maynard Baker's civil engineer. That's why we went with him. MR. HUNSINGER-So are there any items on the Chazen letter that you're concerned with? MR. HALL-No, there was nothing that he said. Most of the stuff had to deal with the stormwater pollution prevention control plan, the NOI. It was things that were in there, things that the Hydro Cad model that Chazen had some questions about. It was nothing that was major. The infiltration and drywells, all that stuff, surrounding soils. All the test pits that were done for the Maynard Baker are still in. So it's not high groundwater. It's pretty much just a response to all those items. So this was sent both to Craig and I think it's going back to Chazen. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any items on that letter that the Board's uncomfortable with? Mostly it's just clarification, and we need to add the plantings on this. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ-0028-2015 TOM BARBER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to construct a phased storage facility where first phase with 52 west and 46 east two facilities. The second phase proposed for two 36 units each. Clearing more than an acre. Plans for office area and first area units to be used for Bounce Around business. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new storage facility 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 1/19/2016 and continued the public hearing to 1/19/2016 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 1/19/2016; 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 PZ-0028-2015 TOM BARBER; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans k) There will be a gate across the driveway that's to be a key pad. We will receive a detail of that gate to include with the final plans. 1) Plantings along the western boundary to match the east. The tree type is to be evergreen on both the east and west, approximately 11 on each and they're to be two and a half inch caliper. m) No fencing without further review by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Can I just clarify your conditions? You indicated that there was to be a gate in the front. That's to be a keypad. Include in your motion that we receive a detail of the gate to include with the final plans, and then just to confirm the tree type is evergreen on both the east and the west, approximately 11 on each, and they're two and a half inch caliper. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's on the site plan. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It's actually right over your head. MRS. MOORE-Right over my head. It's actually because you've now added something to it, to clarify it. Okay. Great. Thanks. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The keypad is only for commercial operations, right? MR. BARBER-Commercial operations, correct. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. Just as a point of reference, those keypads have a Knox override on them so the fire department has 24 hour access. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BARBER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) PUD SP 57-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE I (NEG DECLARATION 10/20 & 10/27/2015) QUEENSBURY PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING 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. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-12 PUD OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PLANNING UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 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 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Town Counsel isn't here yet. We'll get started without him. MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development consisting of office, business, retail and multi-family uses. Proposed mixed use density is for 142 residential units which is 56,180 sq. ft., or, I apologize and commercial of 56,180 square feet. 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. Previously approved was a wetlands permit for this project back in 2013. Engineering part of this received final signoff in January of 2014, and the Town Board approved the PUD in December of 2015, with conditions on the number of units, height and further development, and that information is included in your draft resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, again, I'm Matt Fuller with Meyer and Fuller in Lake George, and I've got Matt Robsin here from the LA Group, and clients. We are here on site plan approval for the PUD, as Laura pointed out. Can you bring up the 1.4? Probably the easiest one. MRS. MOORE-You want the ones that you see or do you want me to draw it from the flash drives? MR. FULLER-Do you have that file? MRS. MOORE-1 can pull it up from what your list is, this list? MR. FULLER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Which one did you ask for? MR. FULLER-L-1.4. Okay. It's not coming up? That's okay. MR. TRAVER-We're somewhat familiar with the project. MR. FULLER-1 was going to say, you guys are familiar with the project. Again, just to recap it, just so we're not assuming anything here. As you guys know, the parcel is just over 34 acres, the corner of Bay and Blind Rock Roads. The tax map parcel is 289.19-1-23 through 35. As part of this application, as in the past, those subdivision parcels will be combined. So that is part of the project as well is to undo, if you will, the prior subdivision and make it one parcel. On the property we've got 10.55 acres of wetlands, 1.28 acres of slopes over 20%, and .39 acres of easements. That leaves us with developable land, under the zoning, of 21.827 acres. That, of course, is where we have come up with the density. As I noted to the Town Board when we were under the actual PUD review, we have stuck to the original zoning that was discussed. As you know probably from looking at the PUD legislation there are some density bonuses and things in there that, you know, an applicant can take advantage of. We are not. This is the maximum density. The maximum density that was allowed under the zoning as is, existed. As Laura said we've got 56,180 square feet of commercial. One hundred and forty- two residential units, and the way the PUD part of the statute works, you back into the commercial allotment by the way of the residential. So the residential uses actually come out 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) on top first, and you're left with the commercial, and under the commercial I believe it was 56,800 square feet, and just worked that from the prior site plan that we've all been reviewing. We are at 56,180. So we are actually under the permitted density, which just, again, evidences the fact that we did not go back and ask for the maximum density with the density bonuses. Just to go through the project, again, Bay Road, Blind Rock on this map, we're looking at L-1.4, Bay Road along the bottom, Blind Rock along what would be the north side, and the right side of this plan. This Building Number One is still here to the south. We've kind of referenced that over the years as the somewhat flexible building. As you guys probably saw from the application materials coming back from the Town Board, as part of the PUD legislation and the Planned Unit Development agreement, the Town Board put a five year cap on that. So the Town Board would like to see that part of the project developed within five years of the issuance of the CO for the overall project. So one way or the other something will happen down here within five years. Now Building Two, as referenced on the plans, is right here. Again, that 38,000 square feet with the parking facility in the middle, and that is the three story. This is the two story. The three story with the commercial office, etc., and as part of the Planned Unit Development legislation we actually have to spell out the allowed uses and what we did is kept the same definitional usages from the zoning. Basically took the office zone allowed uses and included them in the development schedule. So you've got convenience store, bank, business service, daycare, fast food, health related, microbrewery, theatre, office, retail, and those specific uses that are in the Town's Office zoning sections are included and this building and the Buildings One and Two are the buildings that would house those units, and as we head up towards Blind Rock here up to the west, we've got Three, followed by Four, then Five, Six and Seven. Obviously those five buildings there are the residential uses, and then, well, we go out to the back, Eight, Nine, Ten and Eleven are the four buildings that kind of sit on the peninsula there to the, I call it the southern middle part of the property. Coming back with the recommendation that the Planning Board had and even working with the Town Board, the height on this Building Number Two here at the corner will stay at 54 feet, and again, that wasn't to accommodate more living space or anything like that. That was to hide the utilities. So the HVAC and the things that need to be on the roof will now be hidden by that roof, but the PUD did also build in permission for, and remember some of the plans had suggested pergolas and things along the side, call it the side of Blind Rock and Bay, in case a restaurant or something wanted some screening out there, and also allowed the architectural features, little awnings, light fixtures. MR. FERONE-Outdoor seating, I think, in one of them. MR. FULLER-Yes, exactly. Those, particular the architectural features along the road, so you're not at, if you were a strict 75 feet and light fixtures had to be then back, we push the building back 18 inches, the way we report to the Town Board, and again, in your recommendation, you know, all those features along Bay and that Blind Rock part of those buildings are allowed. So we don't have to have variances or modifications to the plan. Those light fixtures and things that are shown will be if a small business wanted a small awning outside of a building. Obviously we'd have to get that approved to put that on there, but it would be allowed. It wouldn't be an end run around that. So that would be, 54 had to be the max I there. I believe the side buildings are still at two stories. The max is 32.7. Again, that's the more residential structures. Turning lane, that has been a topic of the plans over the past. Obviously you'll see here one of the conditions we would expect is that the to be built construction drawings are going to show that on there, but part of this, working with this Board and the Town Board, we're not going to be penalized for that little loss of space there, and we will, part of the commitment that we have going back to this Board's prior decision, was at the commencement of the project. So you, the Planning Board or the Town Board on the PUD legislation, when we commence the site work, because obviously we don't want to do limited site work here and then go back. When we start cutting in the site work along Bay, Blind Rock, and to get the earth work out, that's when the commencement is. We're going to get that done, that site prep work in there. I don't know if the Town Board has awarded it yet, but there is enough room to allow the replacement of the wooden pole that's out there now, and the one that got a couple of years ago now. I think the wooden one still stands but I don't know if they've replaced the other one yet. I drove by it earlier it looked like it was still there. I talked about the five year here, and the other condition obviously was, you know, some people have said the commitment to build this is an end run to try to build the residential first and this structure along the corner, if built with the project, the first phase of the project will be residential. That was the PUD legislation and our agreement with the Town, in terms of phasing and things like that. Payments. We've got, what with the Town's engineer and Chris Harrington, Wastewater Superintendent, of 37,000 gallons a day. That's the average. We've got $120,990 sewer buy in that we'll have to pay. As we've, in the past, committed to $30,000 towards upgrades in the sewer system, and that's to be used for stations and things downstream, and we've also got a rec fee of $120,700 based on, since the pendency of this project's Iifespan, that changed a little bit to our detriment but we are certainly stuck with the new number of $850. So our total, really to get, is $270,690. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) That's on top, obviously, of the sewer work, on Bay Road that's allowed other people to tie in. Water, sewer, obviously we've made it through the water process. No issues there, gas, electric, utilities, no issues there. We did have prior approvals for the cuts here on Bay and Blind Rock. It'll obviously go back for the final highway permit for the turning lane along Bay Road. At the Town Board it was asked if we would be opposed to if somebody wanted to build a roundabout or something there, and I said I'm not opposed to that. That wasn't in the plan. That wasn't suggested certainly by the County when we were there, but that does not pose an issue by this project. Sewer obviously is the last big thing. Again, you might hear some comments here tonight about the numbers and what favors what argument, but I do think that, at the end of the day, we have satisfied that. There is capacity in the system for this project. Some people don't like that. I understand that, but, you know, frankly our client has paid in and will pay in a lot more, and Chris Harrington has issued his opinion that, you know, we will be okay, that this isn't doomsday for the sewer system, that there's capacity for us. We've been through the SEQR. The Planning Board previously issued a Neg Dec that allowed us to go forward with the PUD. We're through that part of the process. With that, if you've got further questions, we'll do our best to answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-1 just wanted to point out, for the benefit of the Board, we do have the Town Engineer, Sean Doty, and our Town Counsel, if there's any legal questions or engineering questions related to the project. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-Just as a point of interest, outside of Building One that you said there's a five year window on that, from start to finish, how long do you think the project will take? DAN GALUSHA MR. GALUSHA-Hopefully not 10 years, but I don't believe we really have a construction schedule. MR. FULLER-For the record, that was my client, Dan Galusha who answered we don't have a set timeframe on construction, but to answer that question, there was a question that came up at the Town Board that we did commit to, which was a neighbor, I think it was down Blind Rock, had a concern about construction traffic, and we did commit to route the truck traffic down Bay and not out Blind Rock, obviously to the extent that we can possibly do it. So you may see an entrance on Bay and Blind Rock, but depending on site work, but that was the commitment was that we would use Bay Road. MR. HUNSINGER-So the construction entrance would be on Bay Road? Because currently it's on Blind Rock. MR. FULLER-Yes, that was the SWPPP and the site but the actual construction entrance would be off of Bay. MR. HUNSINGER-1 assume you would do a similar thing and have gravel? MR. FULLER-That was a part of the original SWPPP. MR. HUNSINGER-When we had the, not to belabor the same issue we went over, but when we had the public hearing a few months ago, the main concerns that came up, that one person had mentioned, was sewer capacity and then there was traffic, and that was particularly why I felt we should have the Town Engineer here in case there were specific questions related to sewer capacity, because I know the studies have been prepared by the Town and have been reviewed by the Town. MR. FULLER-Yes, that's a good point, too. Previously, as part of the permits that we had, going to DOT, we had a traffic study done. We did provide the Town traffic engineer, the same gentleman who does the City's, to actually do the timing and things like that, provided that, and the timing, that also led to the discovery that the sensors weren't working, which I understand have been fixed since then. Those are still on a daytime kind of control. The sensors aren't consistent all day long because of the programming that's in the box out there. The times of day can override the sensors based on traffic study, but that was instituted, and some people don't like the timing at that intersection. I don't like the timing at the corner of Ridge and Quaker, but I think it's gotten better and I think the turning lane will help. It wasn't part of the engineering study or the DOT obligation of the permit, but it's going to help. It will allow you to do more things with the timing in the future if you want to, and I think there was a discussion, too, about the width and the stacking ability, but that was acceptable, too, at Blind Rock. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from Board members? Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening for this project. Again, the purpose of the public hearing is for people to provide comments to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to comment to direct your comments to the Board and to clearly identify your name for the record. Please speak clearly into the microphone. The microphone is used to tape the meeting. The tape is also put on the Town website and it's used to transcribe the minutes. So without any further ado, is there anyone that wanted to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no comments, let the record show no comments were received. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any items that any members of the Board feel that have not been properly addressed or there are any outstanding questions on? MR. TRAVER-This is the sixth hearing of this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no further questions or comments, Staff had prepared a draft resolution that was distributed this evening, with some corrections. There were some technical corrections made to the prior draft. Do we need to read the whole thing? MR. SCHACHNER-You don't have to. You often do, but you don't have to. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to volunteer to read it? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The whole thing or just the first paragraph? MR. HUNSINGER-You can read the first paragraph. RESOLUTION APPROVING PUD SP# 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town Zoning Ordinance for: 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 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. The PUD is subject to the following conditions of the Town Board legislative approval granted on December 21, 2015: a. Residential density. No more than 142 residential dwelling units as set forth on the plans and specifications shall be permitted. b. Commercial density. No more than 56,180 square feet shall be permitted. c. Site Plan Approval. Site plan approval will be required for all development of the project. d. Phase III Approval. Any construction for Phase III shall require approval from the Town Board for conformity with the Planned Unit Development contained herein and shall require site plan approval from the Planning Board. e. Setbacks: 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) i. Setbacks along Blind Rock Road shall be no less than 53 feet. ii. Setbacks along Bay Road shall be no less than 75 feet, provided that this shall not include roof hangover, light fixtures, deck overhangs, and provided that pergolas shall be permitted off Blind Rock Road as shown on drawing L2.2-Layout. iii. Setbacks from all wetlands for building locations shall be at least 75 feet. f. Height Limits: i. For the commercial/residential structures, height shall be limited to 54 feet. g. Modifications. Any changes to the plans and specifications shall require Site Plan 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 reaffirmed a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance on (October 20 and October 27, 2015); The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on December 15, 2015 and continued the public hearing to January 19, 2016, 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 January 19, 2016; 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, This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The limits of clearing shown on the applicant's plans will constitute a no-cut buffer zone. During construction, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development Staff. 2. Any sanitary sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 3. If curb cuts are added or changed, a driveway permit shall be required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been submitted to the Planning Office. 4. Engineering sign-off shall be required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on the approved plans. 5. A right-turn lane shall be installed at the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road at the inception of construction. 6. All construction traffic shall use Bay Road. 7. If required, copies of the following will be submitted to the Planning Office: 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) Project Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work; Project Notice of Termination (NOT) upon completion of the project. 8. The following must be maintained on the project site for review by Town Staff: a. Approved final plans that have been stamped by the Zoning Administrator, including the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). b. Project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Construction Activity or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 9. Final approved plans in compliance with any Site Plan approval must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 10. The project developer and contractor must meet with Planning Department Staff after approval and prior to issuance of any building permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 11. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, is dependent on compliance with the foregoing conditions. 12. As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans is to be provided prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I think you can just say the rest is in accordance with the draft prepared by Staff. MR. TRAVER-Or in accordance with the legislative approval granted on. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, your draft resolution, the next part of your draft resolution recites conditions that the PUD is subject to by virtue of the Town Board's prior approval. They're not conditions that this Board is adding. They're conditions by virtue of the Town Board's prior approval. MR. FULLER-If I could, I know we want to get this adopted as well. If we could just hit on the history at the top of that second page on the draft, just for SEQR and the referral that you guys have gone through. Just to have those in there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why don't I read the whole thing, then I don't miss anything. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. SCHONEWOLF-All that for nine and a half years of work. MR. FULLER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/19/2016) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I make a motion we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 31