Loading...
04-26-2016 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2016 INDEX Site Plan PZ 105-2016 Planned Parenthood Mohawk-Hudson 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.11-1-42 Site Plan PZ 121-2016 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.14-1-80 Subdivision PZ 78-2016 Michael & Cindy Trombley 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 265.-1-16 Site Plan 75-2014 McDonald’s USA, LLC 15. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48, 49 Site Plan PZ 77-2016 Ted & Shari Chrimes 21. Tax Map No. 266.1-1-14.7 Site Plan PZ 89-2016 Brett & Pamela West 23. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Special Use Permit PZ 118-2016 NYSARC, Inc. Warren, Washington, Albany Counties 26. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-20.1 Site Plan PZ 102-2016 Laura Feathers 27. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15 Site Plan PZ 103-2016 Adirondack Rehabilitation Medicine 29. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-11, 10, 9 Site Plan PZ 106-2016 Jason Southwood 34. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-68 DISCUSSION ITEM J & D Marina, LLC 37. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-31.23 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE DAVID DEEB THOMAS FORD JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER -LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There’s also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have several public hearings scheduled later in the meeting. Before we get started I would just ask everyone if they could silence or put their phones on vibrate. I just felt mine go off. So you saw me reach for it as well. At the suggestion of staff, I would like to restructure the agenda and do our Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board first before Old Business. Unless there’s any objections from the Board. MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, before we begin the public session, I want to make an announcement and also a congratulations to Chris Hunsinger as our Chairman. A week ago yesterday he was the recipient of the John O. Cross award for Outstanding Planning Board Chairman in the State of New York. So congratulations. Well deserved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. It was really quite an honor. I really appreciate it. The thrd first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from February 16 and February 23. If anyone would like to move those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 16, 2016 February 23, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF TH FEBRUARY 16 AND FEBRUARY 23, 2016, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Just under Administrative Items, we did have an application that was tabled to this evening, Subdivision 9-2015. That application has been withdrawn, an there’s really no further information. It was withdrawn by the applicant. So if there’s anyone here for that application, it will not be heard. Staff had asked if we could restructure the agenda to do the Planning Board recommendations before Old Business. Is there any objections from anyone on the Board? Okay. So we will go out of order. We will do the Planning Board 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) recommendations first. The first one is Site Plan PZ 105-2016 for Planned Parenthood Mohawk-Hudson. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN PZ 105-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PLANNED PARENTHOOD MOHAWK- HUDSON AGENT(S) GARY MC COOLA, ARCHITECT OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O LOCATION 543 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 X 24 MECHANICAL ROOM ADDITION, 8 X 16 ADDITION AND ENTRY WAY IMPROVEMENTS. ALSO, 70 +/- SQ. FT. NEW LANDING AND RAMP RELOCATION. BUILDING TO HAVE INTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR NEW MEDICAL FACILITY USE. PARKING TO BE AMENDED FOR NEW SPACES AND ARRANGEMENT OF EXISTING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 50-2004 900 SF ADDITION WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE .83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-42 SECTION 179-3-040 GARY MC COOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 16 by 24 mechanical room addition as well as an eight by sixteen addition and also entryway improvements. This is a 70 sq. ft. new landing and ramp location. Buildings to have interior alterations for new medical facility use. The parking area is to be amended for new spaces and arrangement of the existing lot. The applicant is requesting setback relief where 75 feet is required and 13.6 feet is proposed on the south side and 58.8 feet is proposed on the west side. MR. HUNSINGER-Is anyone here from the applicant? If I could have you grab the microphone please. We do tape the meeting and the tape is available on the Town’s website. It’s also used to transcribe the minutes. MR. MC COOLA-My name’s Gary McCoola, Architect, representing Planned Parenthood Mohawk-Hudson. The existing property at 554 Bay Road has an existing one story wood frame building that was formerly used as an office building, and as you can see the building sits generally in the middle of the site here, and there’s an asphalt parking lot on the west side of the building with access points onto Baybridge Drive, access to two locations. The site is very unique in the fact that it’s bound by a street on three sides. So because of that the 75 foot setback is shown here on this yellow line and so the existing building actually encroaches into the setback on all three sides, the east, the west, and the south sides of the building. So the existing building is not compliant in that sense. I realize that we’re going to be talking to you on Thursday, and going through the site plan in great detail. So what I would like to do is just give you a very brief overview of the project right now if that’s okay. So the proposed project looks to renovate the existing one story building, again, into a medical office building, and in full compliance with the New York State Department of Health Codes, the entrances and exists to the building are required to be covered. So in re-working the entrance to the building on the south side right now it’s not an accessible entrance and it’s recessed into the building façade. So what we’re proposing to do is create a new entry porch, concrete porch with a handicap lift that will both be under roof cover and then adjacent to that will be a small addition to the building itself. On this wing of the building where there’s an existing entry, that will become a new exit from the building, and again we’ll be creating a new porch structure that will be under roof cover, with a concrete handicap ramp coming down adjacent to the building. The red right here is the existing wood ramp that’s on the building. That will be demolished as part of the work. So these two blue areas are the additions that we’re proposing to the building that are within the setback area. On the north side of the building is a one story structure that will house a mechanical room and that will be constructed within the setback. So as you can see we’re really proposing these two areas here encroaching into the setback. I just want to point out that the existing wood ramp that extends from the building it’s really part of the building even though it’s not under roof, our proposed structures actually encroach less into the setback than that existing ramp. Other site work that we’re proposing, the parking lot area is generally in the same configuration as the existing parking lot with an entrance on Baywood Drive here and an exit here. We’ll be narrowing this paved driveway to 25 feet from the roughly 35 feet that’s there right now. The parking lot will be re-paved with new asphalt surface and we’ll be expanding it on the north side just to pick up several new parking spaces. From a stormwater standpoint, we will be introducing infiltration trench at the perimeter of the parking on the Baywood Drive side and also some on site detention along the north end of the property line. There will be a fence 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) that runs along the corner, basically separating the parking area from Baywood Drive and also along the side separating the building from that parking area. I just want to find out, in the re- working of the parking lot, we’ll be removing the asphalt strip along this edge of the building to accommodate these two entrances and also the concrete walkway areas. So we’re also reducing the paved area of the building. So overall, with the additions to the building, the new roof areas, the addition and these two additions here, and the reduction of the paving in the parking lot, we’re only increasing the impervious area on the site, overall site, by about one percent. So it’s not a huge impact in terms of the overall site impact. Other site improvements, we will have new site lighting. There’ll be three poles, pole mounted lights at the perimeter of the parking area here, and we will also have parking, building mounted, around the perimeter of the building itself. For the landscaping, all of the overgrown landscaping around the building on both the east and west side, in addition to a large overgrown pine tree on the west side, those will be removed and replaced with new landscaping material, basically lower shrubs and lower landscaping, both on the Bay Road side and also the front parking lot side of the building. MR. FORD-Removal of the tree is necessitated by what? MR. MC COOLA-Excuse me? MR. FORD-The removal of the trees is necessitated by what? MR. MC COOLA-This is a large pine tree that’s actually growing over the building and creates too much shade and actually the needles drop on to the roof and currently all over the mechanical equipment.. So really it’s a maintenance issue. The building, the tree is too close to the building. It’s just one large pine tree that sits right here in front of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not removing any large trees on the eastern side, are you? MR. MC COOLA-No. All of the trees that are on Bay Road stay. The one large pine tree that’s here stays. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MC COOLA-It’s just this one pine that’s up front of the building, and then in the back there are some smaller trees and larger shrubs that are around five or six feet. Those will be removed and replaced with lower shrubs and ground cover. MR. TRAVER-But I understand for access you’d have both a lift for one entrance and a ramp on the other? MR. MC COOLA-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Is there a reason for that? MR. MC COOLA-Well, we put a lift in over here because we wanted to keep it under cover, and because of the difference in grade from the site paving up to the finished floor, it’s about a two foot difference. So to do that with a ramp, there’s 24 feet of ramp plus landings, and it’s too large of a structure to put under roof. . We would basically be encroaching well into the parking are at that point. So it really did take up less site space. MR. TRAVER-What does the ramp that you’ll be removing, what is it’s condition? MR. MC COOLA-It’s an open wood ramp that’s been covered with carpets and very poor shape. It would have to be completely re-built if it were to be re-used, but the problem is it’s, right now that is the entrance to the building and it’s, we wanted to have the entrance under cover and have the lift mechanism under cover, too. MR. TRAVER-I was just wondering if it could be re-purposed for some family that needs it. They’re very expensive. MR. MC COOLA-Yes. It doesn’t sit on a concrete foundation. It’s just posts in the ground, and I think it’s been there for at least 15, 20 years and probably to deteriorated to be re-used. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. FERONE-That was in pretty bad shape. I did look at that. So where the other ramp is going, that’s only going to be for egress? It’s not going to be an entrance area? You only have the one entrance. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. MC COOLA-Right. This’ll be the main entrance. This will be used for ingress. MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Now your fence, what fence are you talking about? MR. MC COOLA-It will just be a decorative fence. So it’ll be a metal fence, four feet high, top and bottom rail with small pickets and roughly four, five inches off center. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, could you refresh my memory on the pole height for the lighting? MR. MC COOLA-The lights will be 20 foot poles. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. MC COOLA-No, that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Talk about the surfacing of the pavement. MR. MC COOLA-This existing pavement is in very rough condition. So it will be ground on site and that material used as a sub base for the new asphalt pavement placed on top of that. MR. FORD-Has permeable surface been considered? MR. MC COOLA-We have not considered that. MR. FORD-Would you? MR. MC COOLA-We haven’t for. MR. FORD-The reason I’m asking is that that is relatively low land. It was a low land meadow before any building occurred, and I’m just concerned about increasing hard surface runoff and that sort of thing. MC COOLA-Yes, well, as I said earlier, we’re actually not increasing the impermeable area of the site. MR. FORD-But you are improving it. MR. MC COOLA-We are improving it, yes. MR. FORD-So now is the opportunity to consider a permeable surface. Wouldn’t you agree? MR. MC COOLA-Yes, we haven’t really considered it, mainly because of cost, and the fact that there’s the existing paving there. So to put that surface there we’d have to really take out all that paving and all of the sub base and that could become pretty expensive. We decided to deal with it with perimeter infiltration trenches. MR. DEEB-So the cost factor is what you’re considering, because you have to remove all the old and then put new to do that. MR. FORD-To do either. MR. DEEB-Well, no, what they’re doing now is they’re going to grade what’s in there, you’re going to grade, and then just cap it. MR. FORD-I thought you said you were going to dig it up and out. MR. MC COOLA-No, what we will do is basically grind the top surface of the asphalt and then basically use that as a, leave it there as a sub base, and then put new pavement over the top of that. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. DEEB-Just much less expensive. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. FORD-I misunderstood you. MR. MC COOLA-Yes, that’s less expensive. MR. FORD-I thought you were taking it all and grinding. MR. MC COOLA-No, it will be done all right on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional questions or comments from the Board? Any specific questions or comments relative to the variance requests? Both reference setback requirements. Okay. I don’t hear any. Any other site plan questions or comments from the Board? Okay. Hearing none, would anyone like to put forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board? RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA RE: AV PZ-0122-2016 PLANNED PARENTHOOD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 16 x 24 mechanical room addition, 8 x 16 addition and entry way improvements. Also, 70 +/- sq. ft. new landing and ramp relocation. Building to have interior alterations for new medical facility use. Parking to be amended for new spaces and arrangement of existing lot. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance alterations to an existing building and site work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the Office zoning district. 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 122-2016 PLANNED PARENTHOOD MOHAWK-HUDSON: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; 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 - th Duly adopted this 26day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MC COOLA-Okay. Thank you very much and I hope to see you all later. MR. HUNSINGER-The next project on the agenda is also for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN PZ 121-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. AGENT(S) CAROLYN PARKER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MS LOCATION 110 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 8 ADDITIONAL SIGNS THAT ARE LED LIGHTED UNITS ON TOP OF GAS PUMPS. THE LED’S ARE FOR GAS PRICES AND WILL SHOW PRICE ON EACH SIDE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 140 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SIGNAGE IN MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LED SIGNAGE AS NOT PERMITTED. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SV 95-2001, SP 49-2001 & AV 94-2001 DEMO OF BUS. THEN CONST. OF CONV. STORE W/GAS PUMPS, SP 38-2001 MOD. FOR RE-BRANDING, AV PZ 119-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 1.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-80 SECTION 140 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) CAROLYN PARKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes eight additional signs that are LED lighted units on top of gas pumps. The LED’s are for gas prices and will show a price on each side. Pursuant to Chapter 140 of the Zoning Ordinance signage in Main Street requires Planning Board review and approval. The nature of the variance, the applicant requests relief for placement of 8 LED price signs on top of the existing pumps and under Section 140 Sign Code prohibits LED signage Town-wide. MS. PARKER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. PARKER-My name is Carolyn Parker. I’m here representing Cumberland Farms, and we’re here asking for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are filing for a variance with them to install these LED pump toppers. Basically they’re located on the dispenser at the pump. Currently they are manual pump toppers that are there right now, yet the main sign on the roadway is what we call a scroller price sign. That sign can be changed from within the building, and the way that works is you know what a scroll looked like in the old days, you turn it sideways and there are three scrolling mechanisms, and then what happens is the numbers scroll. When you push the button they go to whatever the price is. Unfortunately with the pump toppers, they can’t make that mechanism that small to fit on the pump. So the only way to have the pump toppers is to have it LED. Now what we’ve done, I’ve been going to hearings for about two and a half years, with these pump toppers, normal what we would be, you know, some towns we’d ask for is Cumberland Farms has that Smart Pay program. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that where you get ten cents off a gallon. So normally the top of that thing would say Smart Pay and Non-Member and it would alternate. So the prices would alternate. These we’re going to have remain static. So what we’ve come up with over going over main towns that don’t like the LED is what we’ve done is we’ve lowered the, where the area of brightness with the attachment, we’ve lowered the brightness to a three, and then we’ve also put two coats of a film on top of the numbers to, you know, kind of dim the, you know, take the glare away even further. These signs are within the property. For this particular site, I am going for three locations to the Zoning Board, but this is the only one that happened to be in the Main Street zone. So therefore needing Planning Board recommendation. So, you know, basically I did stop by the store and I asked the kid, you know, how long does it take you guys, because this particular location has eight dispensers. So I said how long does it take you to go out there and change these pump toppers every day, and he said at least a half an hour. So they basically have to put a cone down in front of that lane so no one can come driving in. They have to go over there, change the numbers with the magnets right now, where they can change the prices within the store. So we’re asking to be able to change the, install these LED pump toppers. We can’t really dim it any further than a three because then basically the bulbs would burn out constantly. MR. FORD-What level is that, may I ask? MS. PARKER-That’s supposed to be a level three. I can show you the film if you want. MR. FORD-That’s a three, I can see it. MS. PARKER-So like I said, they’re not meant to be seen from the roadway. They’re meant to be seen by the people at the pump. They’re required by the State to have a pump topper on the pump. It doesn’t say that they have to be LED, but we would, you know, like to have the LED, you know, it’s bad weather or whatever, they have to go out there and freeze in icy weather and change these things every day. It is technology moving forward I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that the actual size? MS. PARKER-That’s the actual size, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because on the plan it shows four and a half feet, four and a half inches tall. MS. PARKER-That’s what the numbers would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MS. PARKER-And I did go by the site and the current magnetic numbers are about four and a half inches. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. FERONE-Does the sign, the LED’s have to be red? MS. PARKER-We’ve had a Town ask us to have them amber, which is more orangey. MR. FERONE-Well, I was going to say, in the City of Glens Falls they have the topper on there now, but they’re more of a white, which is less harsh. MS. PARKER-Well, see, there’s a little box over and basically that white strip on the top, that’s what would be white and say Smart Pay and Non-Member. I don’t think. MR. FERONE-I thought the numbers were not red? MS. PARKER-I know in Keene, New Hampshire we had to do amber. So we’d be willing to do amber. White is actually going to be more bright. Believe it or not. MR. FORD-Sitting here looking at those I can see why we have them restricted in the Town of Queensbury. MS. PARKER-Like I said, with these particular site they’re 50 feet off the roadway. They’re within the dispenser, you know, and then the pumps are just going 24, you know, 100 feet back off the road. MR. FORD-And there would be how many of those? MS. PARKER-There would be eight of those. MR. MAGOWAN-You said you have the lens covers? MS. PARKER-Well, that is supposed to have two coats on it. This is the film. So we put two coats. I can throw it on there and see what it does for. MR. HUNSINGER-So right now it doesn’t have any film on it? MS. PARKER-It does have two coats of it. That’s why I was checking. Yes, that does have it. We can put three if needed. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-We’ll they’ve got them on the Bay Street Cumberland Farms. MR. HUNSINGER-They do, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It gets me every time because when I look at it it’s ten cents cheaper. MR. HUNSINGER-They have the red, too, right? MS. PARKER-Yes, we call those Smart Pay alternators but we know that, you know, your by- laws talk about internally lit flashing and this and that, but, you know, the main part is digital billboards, electronic display panels and similar digital advertising. So we’re really not advertising, you know, where you’ve got a guy running by with a cup of coffee in his hand. It’s not on the main, you know, we’re not looking to put this large message board that would change, you know, every so often. This is going to change once or twice daily, according to the price of gas. MR. FORD-I can appreciate the ease of changing the prices and I appreciate the prices that you’ve demonstrated here tonight. MS. PARKER-Those are the prices in Worcester. No. MR. FORD-But for a half-hour’s time for someone paying them labor to go out and change. MR. TRAVER-Job security. MS. PARKER-Not if you get hit by a car. No. MR. FORD-I would just raise a flag of caution for everybody on the Board. IF this is approved for one, this will bring in a deluge of every gas station in the Town of Queensbury asking for the same thing, and to approve one and not all would be something that I’m not interested in. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MS. PARKER-Well, I mean, this particular location is across the street from a graveyard. So it’s not like we have a neighborhood, like we have a post behind us or anything like that, that we’re surrounded by a U-Haul and all commercial zones, and when I drive down the road I see signs in people’s windows, you know, you can have them in the window at your store but, so what’s the difference if this is within the property line? We’re not trying to put it on the main roadway. MR. FORD-I’m sure that was taken into consideration when it was restricted in our Code. MS. PARKER-Well, I mean, you know, I think what happens is, and it happens a lot because like I said I’ve been to a lot of towns and, you know, to just say no LED or, you know what I mean? It’s like you’re restricted where, yes, you don’t want a big message board, a big lighted sign, you know, blinking and flashing and causing people to, this is, you know, I think it’s a different, and they were never permitted. They were never considered a sign. They just were put up because they were part of a gas station. You want to put a gas station up, that’s what you have to install. So now because we want to have LED, all of a sudden there’s signs, you know. MR. MAGOWAN-Could you tone that down even more? Like you said, you put four coats? MS. PARKER-Yes, I mean, I can go back and get some scissors and do that. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, make it opaque. MS. PARKER-But like I said, if it was orange, amber, unfortunately I can’t change that right now. It would definitely be, there’s a control. I can call Cumberland Farms and go back to my room and play with it, but it takes a very long time. I don’t want to waste your time doing it here, you know what I mean? MR. TRAVER-Well, one of the issues, I think, for us as well, and this has to do, unfortunately, with the application of the film that you’re talking about and with the weather and so on, that’s probably not going to last very long, and enforcement becomes an issue. If you offer to put bulbs in that are a different color, when those bulbs wear out, they may be replaced with something more convenient, perhaps a more annoying color than we’re seeing here this evening. I think the issue here is fundamentally the LED for this purpose. I mean, we have LED lighting for parking lots and things like that where, you know, for a better application, but in this case there’s something that goes beyond the, I think the moving signs. Those are particularly annoying, but there’s something about the frequency and the spectrum of the LED that is, I think, a bit of a distraction and certainly annoying to your eye, and that’s why I think it began being used. It attracts attention. When you’re driving down the road and you see this you’re almost drawn to it. So it serves that function very well, but I think Mr. Ford’s point is well made in that, you know, you come in and you’re giving us the explanation that we have heard frequently, and from your standpoint it’s very reasonable and you’re saving time by being able to make it maybe more expensive but simpler to change the costs on pumps and so on, but, again, it becomes an enforcement issue, and if we do allow this then we face the risk of it being perceived as a, even though we’re not adjudicative body, there’s a perception that there’s somehow a precedent set, and how can we deny another gas station that comes in with the same argument. MR. MAGOWAN-Where they’re pumps are closer. MS. PARKER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And they’re not across the street from a graveyard, for example. Where the dead may not be annoyed by the LED. MS. PARKER-I mean, I don’t know. MR. FORD-Well, you’re not trying to attract them either, are you? MS. PARKER-No. MR. DEEB-Yes, you are. We’ve been down this road before and we’ve already denied two applications for LED lighting. MS. PARKER-Can I ask what they were for? MR. DEEB-One was for Dollar General when they wanted to put the back lits on, and the other one was Subway when he came in. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MS. PARKER-And what did he want, a Subway LED? MR. DEEB-Yes, back lit LED’s, and we said there’d be a slippery slope. If we start approving LED lighting in the Town of Queensbury, especially Main Street, then we’re setting a precedent that’s going to come back to really haunt us. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Stewart’s wanted to put an LED price sign. MR. DEEB-Yes, they did. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, not on the pump, on the canopy. MS. PARKER-On the canopy, yes. MR. DEEB-It puts us in a difficult situation is what it does, and I think we really have to be careful with this one and not set a precedent. I think this brings up the point that maybe this is a good starting point to address this issue and it’s something that would be taken up with the Zoning Code, sign zoning code for lighting and maybe it should be addressed, since we’re going to be seeing this more and more. MR. FORD-Again, it was addressed once and that’s why the Code. MR. DEEB-Well, maybe it’s time to look at the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-And just in the applicant’s defense, too, though, when the Code was written, this application could not have been anticipated. I mean, it was really the message boards. It was really the message signs. It wasn’t something like this. MR. DEEB-I agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s always going to be a new application that we can’t anticipate or that we don’t know about today that comes, you know, down the road in the future. MS. PARKER-And that’s why the variance so everyone else has to come in front of you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FORD-Correct. MS. PARKER-Can I address? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MS. PARKER-As far as Cumberland Farms and the maintenance of stuff, as you notice they’re doing all their gas stations over and they look really wonderful and they’re very proud of them and they would maintain that, you know what I mean, and if you want amber. I will go home and play with that thing. It does take a while, and that’s how they control the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s not actually a different bulb, it’s different programming that you use to change the color. MS. PARKER-It is. I have a controller in there, but it does take a while, about 10, 15 minutes. I’ll go back to the hotel. MR. TRAVER-I didn’t mean to infer that you have somehow sloppy maintenance or something. It’s just been a matter of experience that like entropy, you know, things left on their own tend to become into a state of disorder, and with no, you know, ill intent, it could very well be, particularly if there’s a proliferation of these around the Town, that we’re going to end up, which I think, personally, would be a worse situation, with every color in the rainbow of these things all over the place. MS. PARKER-Yes, you could say set them all to be the same. MR. TRAVER-Well, we’ve already done that. We’ve already decided to make them all the same. MS. PARKER-Can I ask when the zoning was changed, what year? MR. HUNSINGER-Boy, I’m not sure. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. DEEB-While she’s looking, do you have a, are you still going before the Zoning Board for the other two tomorrow night? MS. PARKER-I am. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and this one, too. I mean, we just make the recommendation. MR. DEEB-I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t have the final say. MR. DEEB-But you’re still going before the Zoning Board tomorrow night for the other two. MS. PARKER-Right. MR. DEEB-Okay. I’ll be interested to see how that comes out. MS. PARKER-Me, too. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it was after the Comprehensive Plan, if I recall. MS. PARKER-Any further questions? MR. TRAVER-Thank you for bringing in the demonstration. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this is really helpful. MS. PARKER-Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. MR. FORD-It was helpful to us. MS. PARKER-Well, I’ve been down the Cape where they’ve just gone, whoa, and that wasn’t good, but I mean, everybody’s different. MR. MAGOWAN-If you could tone it down a bit so you’d have to be up on the pump to see them, you know, and not, you know, on the road. I mean, to me they’re just. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think part of the purpose for having this display is for consumers that are going by to notice that your prices are competitive with your next door neighbor. Right? So if you have them so they’re only visible when you’re right up at the pump, that’s not exactly going to be. MS. PARKER-Well, no, that’s not the reason for those. The reason for those is because they’re required by law to have them on there, but the main pylon sign is what is used to attract people. I mean, that’s, you know, the scroller price sign. That’s what’s there to attract them. That’s what I’m trying to say. These are not meant to attract anybody, you know what I mean? Obviously we have sites that, you know, back in the day, the pump was right on top of the street, you know. Now you go to a gas station you have pumps that are 100 feet away. No one’s going to see with this thing. So we’re dealing with pre-existing conditions on some sites and they’re a little closer to the roadway then they would build now. No one’s going to build on a 100 by 100 site anymore. They’re going to have a larger gas station. MR. HUNSINGER-So does the State designate the size of the letters and the size of the numbers of the tops of the pump? MS. PARKER-No. Just that you have to have a minimum of this and a minimum of that. I mean, this is like a standard, like everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-You could make them smaller. MS. PARKER-People have asked when we have the Smart Pay to put two on top of each other. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you find it, Laura? MRS. MOORE-My Code is not the most recent one. MS. PARKER-Yes, I’ll go back and play with it. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-So our standard resolution for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals either we select either A or B. I don’t mean to speak for the Board, but it sounds like we’re leaning towards B, based on our limited review we identified the following areas of concern. I guess I’d be looking for the Board to identify the specific language that you want. MS. PARKER-Can I get some yes and some no, or are they all? MR. TRAVER-I would make two points. One of my concerns is that it would lead to other applications on this same grounds, that would be difficult for us to, having granted approval for this one, to deny, number one, and number two I also would be concerned, because of the, one of the strengths of the LED displays for us is also a weakness, in that you can adjust the frequency and the brightness and so on. So my other concern would be not merely that we would end up with a large number of LED displays, but they could very well end up being all kinds of frequencies and, you know, more of an annoyance. I mean, I can imagine say 50 of these added to the light pollution in the Town would be bad enough, but imagine 50 of these all different colors, maybe, you know, different types of displays. I just think that it’s opening all kinds of issues that we can’t anticipate with this one application this evening. I would rather have, with the employment situation, I would rather have the kids out there working their extra half hour, to be honest, than have the LED. MS. PARKER-When it’s minus two. MR. FORD-And if I may add a third point, and that is, it’s a basic point, and that is it’s in direct and specific opposition to the Town Code. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-I’d like to refer to the Warren County Planning Department, just a suggestion, Staff Notes, the Town Sign Ordinance limits the use of LED signs and incorporates such regulations as part of site plan review. County Planning Department concur with local ordinance. So that’s another Planning Department weighing in on this also. MS. PARKER-Can I ask one more questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MS. PARKER-If I got an amber light, would I be better off coming back with a better sample? MR. FORD-Which of those three items that were just identified would that be addressing? MS. PARKER-Well, no, I mean, to bring to the Zoning Board to show them instead of saying, we could do this, we could do that. I’m just asking. Are you still going to be negative? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can’t really speak for the Zoning Board. MS. PARKER-No, no, no. All right. Well, I guess we’ll see what happens. MR. TRAVER-I think what you’re up against, too, if I may speculate, I think, I mean, for me I think you’re up against two fundamental issues. One is that they are the LED, which is specifically prohibited, and the other aspect of it is that it raises a concern that if we approve this particular application then we’re going to lead to inevitably numerous other applications which may not be as generous as you are in terms of offering to try different frequencies and you know what I mean. That’s great, but do we really want to have to be concerned with that? It becomes an enforcement action that we don’t currently have. MS. PARKER-And I’ve been, for five years, I started with LED price signs, you know, we gave you the scrollers, yes, but now I’m basically down to 300 gas stations, down to the last 20 or 25 that said no, and now we’re going back and saying do you want to try and get it or do you not want to try and get it. So that’s what we’re trying to do. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s interesting. MS. PARKER-I’m driving a lot. MR. FERONE-So had you been before this Planning Board or the Zoning Board before? MS. PARKER-No. You were up in the NO column. So, you know, when the Cumberland Farms makes a decision whether they want to invest in trying to get a variance. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. TRAVER-Could you invest in some alternative other than manual? There seems like there must be some innovator out there that could come up with something in between the glaring LED and the manual going out with a magnet and changing them. MS. PARKER-Well, right, but then you get to the thing where now you have one Cumberland Farms that has a different type of pump topper than the other and then you’ve got a maintenance, you know what I mean. MR. TRAVER-Isn’t that the situation that you’re currently in? Just a thought. MS. PARKER-I don’t know. Maybe that’s our third phase. MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to make a recommendation? MR. FERONE-I think the recommendation is that we’re denying the application? MR. TRAVER-It’s not an application. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, we’re asked to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Again, typically we pick either A or B on the draft, and so we typically we either say we have no adverse impacts or we have identified the following areas of concern. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: SV PZ-0114-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 8 additional signs that are LED lighted units on top of gas pumps. The LED’s are for gas prices and will show price on each side. Pursuant to Chapter 140 of the Zoning Ordinance, signage in main street zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from LED signage as not permitted. 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 SIGN VARIANCE PZ 119-2016 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.: Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; and b)The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Concerns this may lead to other applications from other stations in Town 2)The strength of the LED’s and that they will have the ability to be different colors, brightness, etc. 3)It is in direct and specific opposition to the current Town Code. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Deeb MR. HUNSINGER-So I just have a question of Staff. So this will not be coming back to us for Site Plan Review. It just goes to the Zoning Board for sign. MRS. MOORE-No, you’ll see it on Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. PARKER-So if I get denied, obviously I don’t come back, but if I get approved, why do I come back to you. So you can deny me again? No. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. DEEB-You weren’t denied. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe you’re going to tone that down and put some opaque in. Maybe make us happy. MR. HUNSINGER-We just make a recommendation. MS. PARKER-All right. Well, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. The next and last item for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is Subdivision PZ 78-2016. SUBDIVISION PZ 78-2016 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 80 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 6.97 ACRE LOT. LOT ONE TO RETAIN OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, 3.75 ACRES: LOT TWO TO BECOME NEW VACANT LOT OF 3.22 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM LOT WIDTH OR ROAD FRONTAGE. RELIEF IS ALSO FOR A SECOND GARAGE ON LOT NUMBER 1. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 54-2007 & AV 66-2007 KENNEL; BP 3/28/13 COMM. BLDG. VOIDED BY APPLICANT; BP 2002-781 CONST. OF SINGLE FAMILY W/GARAGE WARREN CO. REFERRAL LOT SIZE 6.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-16 SECTION CHAPTER 183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.97 acre lot. Lot One is to be retained by the owner, at 3.75 acres, and Lot Two is the new vacant lot at 3.22 acres. Under the Nature of the Variance, Lot 1 is for lot width where 303.8 ft. is proposed and Lot 2 is proposed for 250 ft. where is required 400 is required. Road frontage relief is also requested for Lot 1 108.7 ft. and Lot 2 is 250 ft., where 400 ft. is required. The applicant requires relief for an nd already constructed 2 garage that was constructed in 2006. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, with Mike Trombley and his wife Cindy and their daughter Brianna are also with us. The Trombley’s own their primary residence at 80 Ellsworth Lane is a 6.97 acre parcel in an RR-3 zone. The Trombley’s wish to subdivide that into two lots, so that they could provide a lot for their daughter. On Lot One is their present residence. It’s right at the end of Ellsworth Lane, and the proposed lot is shown below it. The new lot will be 3.22 acres, and the Trombley’s would retain their residence at 3.75 acres. We’re here because, we’re here requesting relief from the 400 foot lot width requirement in the RR-3 zone and the new lot would be 250 feet and the remaining would be just over 300 feet, and of course with the lot width is road frontage as well. I think if you look at the overall, and I don’t have the tax map of the parcel, but if you look at the overall lot break up along Ellsworth Lane, it’s very much in character with the neighborhood, and we’d ask your support with request for a variance to the Zoning Board. Mike, did you want to add anything? MICHAEL TROMBLEY MR. TROMBLEY-I don’t think so. I think we’ve been around, and I have documentation, to visit all the neighbors in the area, explained what we‘re trying to do, and they all signed a petition giving us their blessing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-This is for a residential, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. TRAVER-So it’s not for a kennel operation? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. TROMBLEY-No. If you remember we were here to get that approved, and that’s since been scrapped. My wife has her business out on Bay Road now, which is working very well. So, you know, we thought we’d help our daughter out a little bit and give her a leg up, see if we can’t make something happen. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. MR. FERONE-When I was reviewing the property, I saw your home there, but as you drive back up Ellsworth Lane I think it is, the elevation, the road goes up and the property is way down. Are you going to do something there to mitigate that difference in the road? MR. HUTCHINS-At the new lot? MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. The driveway will, it’ll be a down sloping driveway and we’ll keep that, we haven’t laid it out in its entirety. We do show it, as you can see, we show it curving across the slope and that’s the reason for that, to minimize the grade of the driveway. MR. FERONE-Any concerns with stormwater runoff there, with everything going down right into that? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it’ll need to be addressed at the time that they put together a permit application, yes. MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. FORD-Do you have a range that you’re considering percent of slope? Or is it too early for that? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t have detailed topography, but I can estimate a six to eight, maybe ten percent, probably not that much, six to eight percent. MR. FORD-In your experience you’ve got a good eyeballing. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s true. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? One of the main reasons why we have the lot front requirement is so the driveways are spaced far enough apart so that you don’t have traffic issues on roads. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sight distance. MR. HUNSINGER-The development on this road, I mean, it’s a dead end road. MR. TRAVER-And they are right at the dead end. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. So unless there’s any other concerns identified by the Board, we’ll entertain a recommendation to the Zoning Board. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ-0083-2016 TROMBLEY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.97 acre lot. Lot one to retain owner occupied residence, 3.75 acres; lot two to become new vacant lot of 3.22 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, Variance: subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Relief is sought from lot width or road frontage. Relief is also for second garage on lot number 1. 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; 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 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 PZ 78-2016 MICHAEL & CINDY TROMBLEY: Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, seconded by Jamie White; 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 - th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. TROMBLEY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Going back to the agenda, we’ll pick up with Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 75-2014 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MCDONALD’S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MCDONALD’S CORP. – RENE REARDON; MICHAEL FREEBURN; JEAN FREEBERN, WILLIAM FREEBERN, ROBERT FREEBURN ZONING CI LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 4,800 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH DRIVE THRU AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,900 SQ. FT. MCDONALD’S BUILDING ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, PARKING, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FAST FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 88-14, SV 87-2014, SP 16- 93; BP 1101, BP 1535 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.30 ACRES; 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-48, 49 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RENE REARDON, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to remove an existing 4,800 square foot building and drive thru to construct a new 3,900 square foot McDonald’s building, which is with associated site work, parking, lighting and landscaping. The applicant did receive their Area Variance previously for both the sign and for the location. MR. BOYEA-Okay. Good evening. For the record, I’m Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering, and here with me tonight is Rene Reardon. She’s the co-owner and operator of this McDonald’s and Exit 18, which we had done in the previous four renovations, and it’s been a while, but this is exciting. I’m excited about tonight. Because it was October 10, 2014 when we started this process. The other two McDonald’s in the Town of Queensbury we got done in two months. So we were thrown a little curve ball with this one. It’s taken a little bit longer to get through the process, but I think we’re there, and we’ve made a lot of progress since this Board has seen this application. So just to recap, because it’s been over a year, a year and a half, it’s been a while. So where we left off was Rene has decided to make a very large investment at this McDonald’s and actually tear it right down and then re-build the facility with a brand new building. The building gets smaller, and it does, than is out there today. The out buildings go away. We’re just going to have a trash enclosure. There’s no more basement. We’re reducing parking. This Board has seen the application two, maybe three times and then it was just tabled for the last year, and this Board was satisfied with the plan and referred it to the Zoning Board. We needed a variance. It’s a very odd shaped lot that’s here, as you can see. We needed a variance for some building setbacks. We needed a variance for lot coverage, and now we need a variance for signage. When we went to the Zoning Board, they were okay with everything except the lot coverage. They thought it was just a bit too much, the percentage or, you know, the amount of lot coverage was too much. So at that time we were reducing it even more than it is there today, and keep in mind we are making the building smaller. We are losing parking, but they just wanted more, and we couldn’t give anymore, and that’s why you haven’t seen us for a while. It was just physically impossible to tell Rene, hey, you’re going to have to pay two million dollars, get a smaller building, less parking, sign on the 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) line here. It wasn’t really working for her. So it took a while and the way we got here today with the variances approved now for the project, is we had to close an access. So today, as you can see down here, there is one, two, three accesses to Route 9 that’s there. again, we couldn’t lose any more parking. They wanted more green spacing, green space. So the only way that we could really accomplish that is to lose an entrance that’s here. So the exit here has been closed, and when we close that exit and now we’re going to force all the traffic here, we were able to pick up the green space, achieve the recirculation lane, and obtain variances. So that’s the only change in the plan, substantial change that you’re seeing in this plan that’s happened since you guys were satisfied and referred it to the Zoning Board. There is one more piece to this puzzle, and that is there is an access out the rear. We had reviewed this with the Planning Board that there is currently a one way in here. When we first came before the Board we had proposed to make it a two way in out. We had a neighbor show up at public hearings. We’ve had a lot of those, and, that lives back in the neighborhood. It’s a residential area behind us, and had a concern and said, well, if it’s one way in now, how come you can’t keep it just a one way in, and so we went back and we had made that change in front of this Board and agreed to make that a one way in, and that’s what made this Board satisfied with where we were at. Going through the Zoning Board process, it still came up about the access. So what ended up happening was is the access got narrower. So it’s very well defined right now here, and the access slid closer or further down Old Aviation from its current configuration over here. So that it prevents any type of cut through. So there was this access here that we got rid of, and no longer can somebody go like this. So it’s a pretty good thing that came out of it. There wasn’t any cut through traffic that would be there, and it still serves as redundancy so that somebody can come in and then back out. So we’ve worked out that detail, and I actually know that the neighbor’s here tonight. So I spoke to him briefly in the hall and so I feel like we should send him a Christmas card, too. We know each other fairly well at this point, but we’ve worked together. We’ve solved a lot of those issues. So we’re happy. We’re back here now in hopes to answer any questions or comments or concerns that may have arisen over the last year, but it has developed nicely, and those are the things that have developed is we’ve added the green space. We’ve closed an exit and we’ve worked with the neighbor to move that access to a one way in, well defined and further down Aviation. So with that, I’ll turn it back over to the Board, but we’ve come a long way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-Is there anything that prevents someone from using that driveway on Old Aviation Road, from using that as an exit instead of just an entrance? MR. BOYEA-There is no physical barrier. There will be a sign that says do not enter on our side of it, so that when you’re going there you’ll have to go by the sign, and then the other item is that with the current design you would be going the wrong way one way. In other words, it’s not just going out the entrance, this is all one way coming down here and signed as such. So we can’t prevent people from breaking the law, but it’s about as good as we can and that’s been well thought out over the last. MR. FERONE-Thank you, and when you say the driveway was narrowed, how wide was it? MR. BOYEA-This driveway here? MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. BOYEA-It’s now 20 feet. When we had it here before we were using it for the truck swing to go around the back, and it was about 30 feet. So we’ve narrowed it.’ MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. DEEB-I’m not sure if cars are going to stop going through from there to the other exit, but at least you tried to mitigate it. There’s nothing you can do with the public. They always find a way. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I have to say, you’re not going to stop the traffic, but this design, Rene, thank you for hanging in there, because this makes a lot of sense, and you’ve gained as much green as you can on a macadam alley anyway. So hopefully more people that renovate will follow you because I think this is a wonderful design and it’s really the best you can put on that lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree with those comments. I think it has been a struggle, and in our defense, I would say it has not only been our struggle, but glad to see you here this evening. It’s a good job with a difficult site, and a bit of trivia. Do I recall, perhaps this is from October of 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 2014 I think you said, that the existing facility is one of the original McDonald’s that were constructed in the United States? MS. REARDON-Yes. MR. BOYEA-Well, what’s the store number? MS. REARDON-The Store Number is 677 and there are 38,000 worldwide. So Ray Kraft numbered them by when he purchased the real estate. MR. BOYEA-Okay. So 677 out of over 38,000 restaurants. MR. TRAVER-I swear that I can remember going there like in high school or something and getting hamburgers. There used to be a, not Wendy’s, but Carroll’s next door. Anyway. MR. DEEB-Carroll’s was across the street. MR. TRAVER-I would ask a request, on behalf of the Town, and that is that, understanding what you say about the building, if you’re going to just knock it down and have it hauled away, if possible would you save some of the red and white tiles from the interior and maybe donate them to the Town Historical Society? They may not mean much today, but someday I’m sure that they will, and if they’re just going to go to the landfill, you know, if one of the guys could go over and pick up a few and put it to one side, I think that might be something that would be appreciated someday. MS. REARDON-Funny you should ask. We’re working with the Ronald McDonald House to do something. There’s a lot of red and white tiles in there from the original building, which was 1964. So we’re working with the Ronald McDonald House to do something fun with that for a fundraiser. So I would be happy to donate as much as you like to the Town. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-You said there’s also like hidden walls that have been built out around and cavities in there. MR. TRAVER-Maybe Ronald’s in there somewhere. MR. DEEB-Actually Carroll’s is where Kentucky Fried Chicken is now. Because I worked there in high school. I remember, and I remember McDonald’s right across the way, the original McDonald’s. MR. FORD-This is a real accomplishment. I was here at the onset of this and I didn’t miss a beat because I kept track of it online when I wasn’t here for the meetings. So I know what you’ve been going through, and from my perspective it has been worth it. I hope it turns out for the applicant to be as worthwhile. I was one of the ones who was most concerned with access or egress on Old Aviation Road because we’d addressed that with KFC and made certain demands on them, but as I said, this is a real accomplishment and I appreciate your perseverance. MS. REARDON-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had, could you walk us through how customers would go through the drive thru and just the traffic pattern going through he drive thru? I certainly understand the two lanes to order, but then if you could just show us where they would drive around and pick up their food and then exit the site. MR. BOYEA-So our main entrance is here. We do have a second area of access here, but the lion’s share of our business we hope will enter as it does today, enter in through here, menu board, pre-pay window here. Again, this building is getting even better than the ones that we’ve done over the last. The longer we waited on this, the more technology that came out actually which is funny. So we do have a pre-pay window here, which is pretty common now, you’ve got them at all the other ones, and we’ve got a pick up window here, but now, had we gotten this approved two years ago, you wouldn’t have had this, but now we have a pull forward window here. So that’s so that you don’t even have to pull off to the right, if you’ve got a very large order. We could pull that person forward and there’s actually a hallway now that we can handout the food to that longer extended person. So that’s a new feature that’s just been added. When they leave, they’re going to have two choices here. They could either head this direction and go south on 9, they could use the restroom or the phone rings or something like 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) that, they can easily pull around here, enter here and walk into the building or they can circle the building and find a parking spot and park, or they could circle all the way around and leave here. This is the only exit. So all of our customers are going to exit through here and they just have two redundant ways to get to that. if somebody enters, a secondary customer I would say, let’s say they enter here, they will have the ability to come up and around and then enter and then back out. So here’s a couple of different traffic patterns that could happen. If they want to use the drive thru they can come straight through, enter into our queue, and then again they’re going to want to leave here. MR. FORD-With all those improvements and technologies over 2014, you probably wouldn’t want to extend the application for another year or so, right? MR. BOYEA-No, sir. The dollar menu will be gone by then. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments for the applicant? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Yes, sir. The purpose of a public hearing is for members of the audience to provide comments to the Planning Board. I would ask that you address your comments to the Board and I would also ask that you state your name clearly for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD SPOERL MR. SPOERL-My name’s Richard Spoerl. I live at 21 Old Aviation Road. Been with this since 2014. I want to commend the Board, the Zoning Board and Chris and Rene for working with myself especially on the back entrance. What we have here I think is sufficient meets the deterrents to a freeway up Old Aviation Road. Like you said, you’re not going to stop everybody. People are still going to do it. They still come out of Kentucky Fried Chicken, but I think this works best, and we’ll put a little bit of thought process into people just using that as a short cut to the Mall. So I want to commend you all for working with this, and thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes. I appreciate it. Did anyone else wish to address the Board? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is actually an Unlisted SEQR action. MRS. MOORE-So I did, sorry to interrupt you, but I did pull the previous SEQR form back from 2014. So do you want me to just pop that up, you can look at it, but I do have a blank form if you’re going to go through the SEQR individually, or if you’re going to go do the draft resolution. So just let me know how you wish to proceed. MR. HUNSINGER-We already approved the SEQR, right? Before we made the recommendation to the Zoning Board, or no? MR. TRAVER-So it would just be a matter of whether to re-affirm with slight modifications to the site design. MR. FORD-Are you confirming that SEQR has been completed, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I’d have to look that up. Give me a second and I’ll look that up. MR. BOYEA-Well, the Zoning Board couldn’t take an action without you doing SEQR. MRS. MOORE-Because we did a coordinated review. Is that correct? MR. BOYEA-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Then it has been completed. I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wanted to make sure. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. TRAVER-But we do have a modified application. So we’d have to either re-do or re-affirm it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, I believe that we did SEQR in December of 2014. MR. TRAVER-That would follow, and that would have been the old form, too. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Geez. MR. TRAVER-Maybe that’ll be our last legacy of the old SEQR. The DEC updated the form about, what, a year and a half ago now. So there’s a new procedure. Same end result. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you were right, Steve, it was the old forms. MR. TRAVER-Which is all right. It’s still valid. MR. HUNSINGER-So would we just re-affirm the SEQR findings, or would we do a new SEQR resolution? Which would be cleaner? MRS. MOORE-I don’t see SEQR completed here. MR. DEEB-George has got. MR. FERONE-Well, I have their form they submitted. MRS. MOORE-You have their form that they submitted, but I don’t have. MR. FERONE-Yes, I don’t have. MR. DEEB-Well, why don’t we re-do it. Let’s just re-do it and we’ve got ourselves covered. It would be the easiest thing. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I see the old SEQR here and usually I’ll circle it or, but I don’t see. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I was going to say, it’s possible because it was just a Sign Variance, that I didn’t, they did it independently. MR. TRAVER-Well, we have a SEQR resolution in here. It’s no big deal. I didn’t want to upset the applecart. MR. DEEB-So you have a SEQR form. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any environmental concerns that have been identified by anyone on the Board? MR. FORD-Not that haven’t been addressed. MR. TRAVER-Right, I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft SEQR resolution in our Staff package if anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP # 75-2014 MC DONALD’S USA The applicant proposes to remove existing 4,800 sq. ft. building with drive thru and construct a new 3,900 sq. ft. McDonald’s building along with associated site work, parking, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Fast Food establishment 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; 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 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 75-2014 MCDONALD’S USA, LLC, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And there is also a draft resolution in our Staff package, if anyone would like to make a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 75-2014 MC DONALD’S USA 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 remove existing 4,800 sq. ft. building with drive thru and construct a new 3,900 sq. ft. McDonald’s building along with associated site work, parking, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Fast Food establishment shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/18, 14; 2/24/15, 3/24/15, 8/25/15 and continued the public hearing to 4/26/2016 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 4/26/2016; 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 75-2014 MCDONALD’S USA, LLC, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 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) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) b) 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; c) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans d) 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. e) 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; f) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; g) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; h) 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. i) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. The other thing that has changed since you started is when you first told us how quickly you were going to demolish and re-build the building I said I would watch. Well we moved our office. I no longer work across the street. I’ll have to take your word for it. Good luck. SITE PLAN PZ 77-2016 FRESH WATER WETLANDS PERMIT 101-2016 SEQR TYPE TYPE II TED & SHARI CHRIMES AGENT(S) MARK J. TABER OWNER(S) TED & SHARI CHRIMES ZONING RR-3A LOCATION LOT 3 OAK VALLEY WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,398 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 438 SQ. FT. PATIO AREA TO THE REAR OF HOME. THERE IS A WETLAND AND SEVERAL SETBACKS ON THE PROPERTY LIMITING THE AREA IN WHICH THE HOME CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. PROJECT INCLUDES EARTHWORK, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UTILITY INSTALLATION AND PLANTING INCLUDING ADDITIONAL VEGETATED BUFFER ALONG THE WETLAND EDGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 94 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE SUB 3-87 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2016 APA, CEA, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 2.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-14.7 SECTION CHAPTER 94 & 179-6-050 & FRESHWATER PERMIT MARK TABOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes construction of a 4,398 sq. ft. home with a 438 sq. ft. patio area to the rear. There is a wetland and several setbacks on the property limiting the area in which the home can be constructed. The applicant did receive a variance in March 2016. The applicant requested shoreline setback relief where 75 foot is required and 43 feet is requested. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. TABOR-Good evening. Mark Tabor. I’m with the LA Group, landscape architecture and engineering. With me tonight is Charlotte Abnosky and Ted Chrimes who’s proposing to build a single family home on an existing vacant lot. As Laura said we were before you in March and then on to the Zoning Board. We received the necessary variances. When we were before you in March I did give a pretty detailed presentation. I wasn’t necessarily planning on re- hashing that, but I can. I have it with me if you’d like me to review the details. Other than that, we’re here to answer any questions. So if you’d like me to go through the presentation, like I said, I can do it, or we could just answer your questions. I’d be comfortable just asking questions. MR. FORD-I’ve already read it. MR. TABOR-Okay. Sounds good. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I don’t see that the ZBA requested any changes to the plan, so I think we’ve reviewed it pretty well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. FERONE-Agreed. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said I don’t think you can do any better designing it. I even drove by it again, because I had the visual in my mind. MR. TABOR-And you’ve got it staked out there. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I was on my bike. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any hands. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR so no SEQR review is necessary, and unless there’s anything else from the Board, we can entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 77-2016 TED & SHARI CHRIMES 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 construction of a 4,398 sq. ft. home with a 438 sq. ft. patio area to the rear of home. There is a wetland and several setbacks on the property limiting the area in which the home can be constructed. Project includes earthwork, erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, utility installation and planting including additional vegetated buffer along the wetland edge. Pursuant to Chapter 94 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new construction 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; 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 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 4/26/2016 and continued the public hearing to 4/26/2016, 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 4/26/2016; 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 77-2016 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT PZ 101-2016 TED & SHARI CHRIMES, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: 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; 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 th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So I see in this resolution that didn’t get amended that it talks about SEQR. So that’s going to be stricken from that resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-So the reference to SEQR will be stricken from the motion. MR. TABOR-One quick question, the wetlands permit that’s wrapped in as part of this, that’s all part of this. Is that part of the resolution as well? I want to make sure. MRS. MOORE-Thanks for reminding us. I think the Board should add that, the Freshwater Wetlands Permit identification. I don’t see a number for it but that is part of the application. Under Site Plan, it would be Site Plan and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 77-2016. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. FORD-Good catch. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. TABOR-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN PZ 89-2016 SEQR TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 785 SQ. FT. THREE SEASON PORCH ADDITION SHORELINE SIDE, AND 880 SQ. FT. OF NEW PORCHES AND A PORTE COCHERE. ALSO, TO MAINTAIN AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 158 +/- SQ. FT. DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW DRIVEWAY PERMEABLE PAVERS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AROUND NEW CONSTRUCTION. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PLANTINGS ON NORTHEAST SHORE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 39-2007, SP 37-2009, AV 47-2007, MISC. PB’S – ALL FOR DOCKS, BOATHOUSES, ETC.; BP 2007-359 RES. ALT.; BP 2007-571-DECK WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2016 PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN APA & CEA LOT SIZE .91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-6-050 ANDREW ALLISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 785 square foot three season porch addition on the shoreline side and then an 880 square foot new porch and a porte cochere along the house frontage. The applicant did receive the variances, this included relief for building setbacks where 50 feet is required and 25.7 feet was proposed. Relief was also granted for construction of an already built deck that was 19.6 feet from the shoreline and a second garage is also requested for relief, and then I apologize stormwater relief was also requested where greater than 100 feet and proposed is 49.6 feet, and groundwater separation was also granted where two feet is required and one foot was proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ALLISON-Good evening. I’m Andrew Allison with A.J. Architecture and Planning, representing Brett and Pamela, and Tom Hutchins with Hutchins Engineering is here this evening. Kind of similar to the last project. We’d be more than happy to walk through a presentation of the project again, but I think we’ve introduced you to it previously so I’m open to answering any additional questions you might have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, as the applicant says, unless there were changes, and it doesn’t appear there were, from the ZBA, we’ve looked at this pretty thoroughly. MR. HUNSINGER-Has there been any further communication with the Town Engineer Chazen? MR. ALLISON-None that was required. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any concerns with their comments in their comment letter of th May 9? MR. ALLISON-No, they were pretty complimentary. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, mostly just a couple of clarifications. Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? We have a public hearing scheduled for this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This also is a Type II SEQR. So unless there’s any additional questions or comments, a motion for approval would be in order. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 89-2016 BRETT & PAMELA WEST The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 785 sq. ft. three season porch addition shoreline side, and 880 sq. ft. of new porches and a porte cochere. Also, to maintain an already constructed 158 +/- sq. ft. deck. Project includes new driveway permeable pavers, stormwater management around new construction. Project includes new plantings on Northeast shore. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline 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 4/26/2016 and continued the public hearing to 4/26/2016, 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 4/26/2016; 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 89-2016 BRETT & PAMELA WEST , Introduced by George Ferone 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; 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; 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 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 th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Just like the last one, the reference to SEQR should be stricken from the draft resolution. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. TABOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items under New Business this evening. NEW BUSINESS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 118-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NYSARC INC. WARREN, WASHINGTON & ALBANY COUNTIES AGENT(S) STEPHEN W. TRAVER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION 436 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT’S SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS VALID FOR TWO YEARS FROM MAY 20, 2014. APPLICANT REQUESTS SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF BOTTLE REDEMPTION CENTER AND FUTURE PAPER DESTRUCTION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & ARTICLE 10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, RECYCLING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP’S, NYS DEC REDEMPTION CENTER REG. # 57-030 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 6.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-20.1 SECTION 179-3-040 & ARTICLE 10 STEPHEN TRAVER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MR. TRAVER-And, Mr. Chairman, if I can recuse myself and make a brief comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-And Laura also can add to our discussion. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Under this application, it was for a Special Use Permit. However, after further review, we noted that in the, it was a process where it was required to come back before this Board in reference to the recycling piece, and at this time the applicant has chosen not to pursue the recycling piece as document destruction. The bottle redemption was already determined to be a retail use, and that was to be continued. Therefore if he’s not going to pursue the Special Use Permit, we thought that it was not necessary to have it on for the agenda. The only thing that was on for this agenda was for him to report back about what the status of the projects are on that site, and that was all that was requested. So we sort of narrowed it down to like it’s okay, we’re going to come back at a later date for a Special Use Permit. MR. TRAVER-Thanks, Laura. So for the record, Stephen Traver, Chief Operating Officer of Warren Washington, Albany County Chapter of NYSARC, Inc., and as Laura explained, I assumed, evidently incorrectly, that when we did the initial application that the Special Use Permit was required both for the bottle redemption and also for the proposed secure document 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) destruction project that we hope to pursue. The bottle redemption was much easier in a lot of ways for us to institute because it really just required sectioning off an area of our warehouse on Quaker Road and putting up some chain link fencing and it took, one of the issues was developing a way to count the containers for persons with special needs that wouldn’t necessarily be able to count, and our Building and Grounds Department, with some help from another Chapter of NYSARC, came up with an idea for making a custom table with a hole in the center and an infrared beam on the bottom with a digital counter, and all they had to do was drop the container through the hole and it would add up on the counter and then with a reset button, and it’s worked extremely well. Proud to announce that my part of it was coming up with a crazy name for the business, which is Gone for Good. We have invested a lot more money than we’ve made, but it’s been a lot of fun, and we have three of our individuals are extremely happy to be working nearly full time, adding people all the time. We’re picking up more and more customers from the community. Different businesses and other non-profits are helping us out. So the secure document destruction requires quite a large financial investment on the order of probably about a quarter of a million dollars to get going because the main barrier is the fact that it has to be secure, so that the documents need to be proven by Federal standards to be in a place where there’s no way that their protected health information or HIPPA information or tax information or whatever is going to ever be exposed to public scrutiny. So it has to be secured with video and audio surveillance. Lot containers. You may have seen in some office buildings they have roll offs with a slot in them and they’re locked and you put paper in there and it only goes to a secure facility where it’s unlocked and so we could have made that work, except that at least for the time being the recyclable value of paper is prohibitively low for us to make money on that. So that project is at least on hold. We might be pursuing another possibility. You might notice if you go by our facility there is a sign out front for a, I guess they’re calling it a consignment sale for clothing this weekend, weekend coming up in May, which we’re doing in partnership with the City mission out of Troy I think it is to sell clothing, used clothing, and if that works as a weekend sale, it might be something that we would come back to the Board and either use a, I’m not sure if we decided that would be a Special Use Permit or another Site Plan application, but in any case, that might be another venture with another application before us, but in the meantime, and I think there were a couple of pictures in the application that I gave you of the Gone for Good program before we realized that we didn’t need this formal application. So my report on that is that it’s going very well after two years. It took us almost a year after we got approval to really get fully set up. A lot of that had to do with figuring out how we were going to be staffing the support that the individuals that we wanted to employ would need because there wasn’t a clear funding source through the State to support their vocational needs right away. It was kind of a chicken or the egg kind of thing, they were already working then we could maybe get some funding but they weren’t working but we needed the staff to get them working. So how do we make that work. So that took some creativity, but right now it’s working well and we’re very proud of it, and I just, I thank the Board for allowing us to get it off the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions? It sounds like a great project. MR. FORD-Keep up the good work. MR. TRAVER-Thanks. SITE PLAN PZ 102-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LAURA FEATHERS OWNER(S) GORDON DEVELOPMENT ZONING CI LOCATION 1500 STATE RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 20 FT. X 20 FT. TENT SALE FOR AUGUST 2016 & 2017. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TENT SALES IN EXCESS OF A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS AND MORE THAN TWICE A YEAR SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 9-2015 RENOVATIONS; 2005 TO PRESENT MULTI SSE WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 1.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9-020 LAURIE BURNETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 20 x 20 tent sale for August 2016 & August 2017. Tent sales in excess of a maximum of seven consecutive days and more than twice a year shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval, and in your packet. This is similar to previous applications that the applicant has made, and again it’s a tent of 54 square feet and the tent is to have a red and white top potentially and the tent will operate during normal business hours and have no electricity. The tent will have signs attached to it, 18 by 3 feet. Those are definitely in your packet and the applicant has requested waivers from grading, lighting, stormwater management and landscaping. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Hi. MS. BURNETT-Laurie Burnett, representing Family Footwear Center and Laura Feathers is our owner. She could not attend tonight. I’m here to answer any questions about our tent sale. It will be exactly as it has been for the past 10 years. The purpose is to draw people in so we can gain new customers, and we sell various footwear for women and children through the tent sale. Nothing fancy, just a 20 by 20 tent. It’s intended to be the same as it’s been. If anybody’s been by our store, we did a lot of renovating recently. The front is all stone now and there’s peaks on the top of the roofs. So if you haven’t been through that area you might want to look at that. They’ve upgraded the property. MR. FORD-It looks more attractive. MR. MAGOWAN-You really did a nice job finishing it up. Really changed the look of the building. It kind of fits more on that corner. MS. BURNETT-Yes, it dresses it up nicely. MR. MAGOWAN-You did a nice job. MR. FORD-It’s much more attractive, but could you specify the hours of operation? What are the normal hours? MS. BURNETT-Yes. Monday through Saturday nine a.m. to nine p.m. and Sunday ten a.m. to six p.m. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And that’s the same as it’s been traditionally, right? MS. BURNETT-Yes, it’ll be the same. MR. FORD-I just wanted you to get specific. MS. WHITE-Yes, we pull things in as it gets dark. It’s just during daylight hours. The County did want to make sure that the tent would not impede internal traffic or pedestrian safety. With those changes that were mentioned, landscaping, would this create any problems? MS. BURNETT-No. I think we use either two or three parking lot spaces. It would be in exactly the same location. The Fire Marshal approves it, the ropes, he specifies they need to be a certain distance from any trees. We put cones around it on corners and tape so that there can be no potential accidents. The posts they use will be clearly marked so the traffic can’t come too close to it. So it wouldn’t affect the tent sale. MS. WHITE-So both traffic flow and pedestrian safety have been taken into consideration? MS. BURNETT-Yes. The doors that we use on that side are new, but they’re the same dimensions. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? And they have asked for a two year? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That was our big compromise a couple of years ago was it? MRS. MOORE-It was prior to me returning. So I mean, you’ve traditionally done two years. You’ve done the produce stands anywhere from three years to five years. So I think you narrowed the produce stands down to three years. I can’t remember exactly, but the special sales event, you did that two years. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. BURNETT-Laura appreciates it. It’s been consistently the same over the years. So I st wouldn’t expect any different for this summer, and it would go from August 1 through August stst 31. We set it up the morning of the 1 or the night prior to. Nothing gets put in until the day st it’s used for the tent sale and then it’s broken down on the 31. So it’s all done properly. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? No written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there’s any other questions or comments from the Board, there is a draft resolution in our package, if anyone would like to move it. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 102-2016 LAURA FEATHERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 20 ft. x 20 ft. tent sale for August 2016 & 2017. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, tent sales in excess of a maximum seven consecutive days and more than twice a year 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 4/26/2016 and continued the public hearing to 4/26/2016, 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 4/26/2016; 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 102-2016 LAURA FEATHERS , Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Similar to the last couple, we’d strike the reference to SEQR. MRS. MOORE-Actually they did complete SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MRS. MOORE-And I still, I advertised it as Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, yes, it does say on the agenda that it’s Unlisted. MR. DEEB-All right. The dates for this are August 2016 and August 2017. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we simply affirm the prior SEQR resolution? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-There’s not a SEQR resolution in your packets. So if you’re amending the motion reaffirming previous Negative Declaration. MR. DEEB-Yes. I’ll amend the resolution to grant Negative Declaration for SEQR for Site Plan PZ 102-2016. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MS. BURNETT-Thank you, and congratulations on your award. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. BURNETT-It’s a pleasure being before your Board. MR. FORD-The New York Planning Federation did a good job. MS. BURNETT-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN PZ 103-2016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 104-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ADIRONDACK REHABILITATION MEDICINE AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL – RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 17 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY, 2,031 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MEDICAL FACILITY INCLUDING SITE ALTERATIONS, GRADING, FILLING, AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT. ALSO, PART OF THE PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT – 15,795 SQ. FT. TO A 23,809 SQ. FT. LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-10-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 68-2005 1075 SQ. FT. ADDITION; SEVERAL SIGNS WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE .36 ACRE, .33 ACRE & .74 ACRE – TOTAL OF 1.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-11, - 10, -9 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10-040 ETHAN HALL & DAN JACKSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a single story, 2,031 sq. ft. addition to an existing medical facility. Also, part of the project includes a lot line adjustment – 15,795 sq. ft. to a 23,809 sq. ft. lot, and I did identify information in the Main Street in reference to building elevations for height for existing and proposed; percent of the parcel that is to be landscaped and to remain natural vegetation, information that the applicant can address, and then just identifying that it requires a Special Use Permit for the parking along the side, and then as part of a condition is to have all lot line adjustments accomplished prior to a CO to be filed with the official file. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall, principal with Rucinski and Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Dan Jackson. He’s the facility administrator for Adirondack Rehabilitation Medicine on 17 Main Street, right on the City line. The project is for a rehabilitation center. They do physical therapy and things of that nature for the Hospital and they have their own staff as well. The existing building is a single story. It does have a partial finished basement and the back portion of it is a slab on grade building. They do own all three parcels. That being one and this being another, and this being the third. It does front slightly on Allen Street, which is the small dead end wrap around that comes off of Main Street. The proposed addition goes right straight off the back of the building. We’ve reconfigured the parking to be mostly behind the building. Currently the parking does extend up along the east side of the property, and it’s there right now. The main in out access is here with parking along this side. There are a couple of parking spaces out back. The staff right now mostly parks in this lot behind what used to be The Filling Station. It used to be a restaurant back there, and most of the staff parks 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) back there now. The intent is to add additional parking in the back of the building and to connect across the existing parking so that they can get access from Allen Street into the back of the lot as well for some cross lot connection to back here. There is a fairly deep ravine behind the building now which we’re going to use for our stormwater. We dug some test pits and one of the notes that I see that came today came from the Town Engineer said that we couldn’t dig deep enough. Yes, we dug 11 and a half feet with the excavator that we had and we didn’t hit any water, but we dug here. We didn’t want to get down into the hole, but we dug 11 and a half feet. We were 6 and a half feet before we hit the original topsoil, and then we dug another three and a half feet and didn’t hit anything. We didn’t find any groundwater or anything of that nature. So one of the things that he’s saying is that we need to do some excavation down at the bottom just to confirm if we can get down that deep and I’m quite confident we can get down there. The addition that we’re doing is for additional exam rooms, some additional offices for the doc and then to kind of open up the waiting room and to move some of the physical therapy from where it is now up to the front of the building and kind of consolidate things within the building. We’ve got the landscaping and lighting plan. One of the big things that we’re trying to do here is the main entrance of the building is here. So we’re trying to locate most of the accessible parking spaces as close to the entry as we can. To do that we’ve added our spaces back here as well, but we’ve also added a small amount of greenery in this area right next to the entryway. We’re also going to take up all, it’s currently paved from the front of the building right to the sidewalk. We’re going to take up all that pavement, replace it with green space, put in some planting out front and kind of get rid of that impervious surface right in front of the building. We’re also adding some additional landscaping at the back of the building and some green space back there to try and take care of all of that. We do have a couple of existing light poles. We’re going to put a couple of new light poles. Everything will face into the lot. We do have a couple of existing building mounted lights that mount on the side and we’ll have a couple of new building mounted lights. They’ll be downcast fixtures included with the fixture cut sheets in our submission. Outside of that the architecture really kind of stays the same for the proposed building. It is a one story addition. The existing building is a one story building, and the look of the building we’re going to maintain all the same type of finishes. From the front of the street, it really doesn’t look any different. Only from the side of the building is where it looks a little different. It’s a little longer off to the side, but everything stays pretty much as it is now. That’s pretty much where we’re at. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-How is it that you used a, but it didn’t allow you to go as deep as you needed to? MR. HALL-I didn’t honestly expect that we were going to have to go that deep. We got out there with a backhoe, and I figured a tracked backhoe we’re going to be able to dig, you know, 10, 12, 15 feet, we’re not going to get that deep before we hit something. We actually dug through six feet of fill before we got down to the original topsoil layer, and then we were only able to dig another four feet and we were in really good sand, the test pits that we got showed that, but I really never expected to get that deep and not hit something. I figured at 11 feet, I’m going to hit groundwater before then, right? MR. MAGOWAN-You’ll have to rent that one that’s over there on 17, that’s got that, you know, foot long boom. MR. HALL-He hopes not. MR. MAGOWAN-I think the permits alone for that is very costly. MR. HALL-Just to move it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? It’s kind of an unusual, well, I can’t really say it’s unusual. I was going to say it’s a little different project on Main Street, because most of the Main Street projects we’ve seen lately are. MR. HALL-Teardown and re-builds. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, new construction. MR. HALL-Right, and this is just simply an expansion of the existing. MR. TRAVER-There is a Staff recommendation that the lot line adjustments be accomplished prior to CO. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. HALL-Yes, we’re working on that right now. Van Dusen and Steves has our proposed and they’re coming up with a description. Basically what’s happening there, this is the existing back lot line, and in order to do what we need to do, we needed to gain some additional ground back here. This is taking that lot line, extending it out and back, so that we gain enough to keep ourselves with our green space and stuff, and Matt is working on that already, and the folks at the County as well doing the deed description. MR. HUNSINGER-So you can still maintain three separate lots? MR. HALL-Yes, and all three of them are still legal lots. They’re still, that was the one thing we had to check was to make sure that if we cut a piece off from that one in the back that we still left it as a legal size to not make an illegal lot. MR. HUNSINGER-What are the plans for the old Filling Station building? MR. HALL-That’s the next thing on our agenda. We’re still kind of chit chatting about that. A lot of it’s going to depend on what they find in the testing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HALL-We’ve already gone through and done the asbestos testing on the existing building and I think everything came back negative. So everything, we’re all good on that. I wanted to make sure that we had that before we got to the next step. MR. TRAVER-Next is the soil testing? MR. HALL-Yes. We’ve already pulled the samples for that. So everything there was good. everything over on this building, everything we’ve got there is aged. It’s kind of, we’re, that’s the next step is to get the testing company to the building site. MR. TRAVER-Hopefully it’s old enough that everything’s oxidized, right? MR. HALL-It’s been renovated so many times over the years, I mean, it was, Great Bay Seafood was in there for a while and then there was another place that was in there after Great Bay and then the Filling Station’s been in there. So it’s been renovated a number of times. My assumption is that everything that may have been nasty in there is already long gone. That’s what we’re hoping for. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Interesting. MR. HALL-That’s been our biggest thing, with any renovation, is the new Department of Labor rules for doing any kind of renovation work is the very first thing they want to see is where’s your asbestos report. MR. HUNSINGER-So I didn’t see where you provided us with a lighting plan. MR. HALL-It’s on Drawing C-3. MR. HUNSINGER-C-3. MR. HALL-I included it with the landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-And the light contours are shown on the outside. We get a little bit of spill from the existing lights that are along that eastern property line, but they spill over into the Cat, the veterinary hospital there their parking lot backs right up to it. One of the questions that I know was asked and I think it might have come from Laura was asking about interconnection between this lot and the lot to the east. There’s about a six foot drop between the two and to do that would just be, and they’re right next to each other. So to try and do that would not be feasible, not without getting out and around back farther and they don’t own that property. MR. HUNSINGER-So would the new lighting fixtures be the same as the existing? MR. HALL-No, they’re a little bit different fixture. They’re more of an LED fixture. The ones that are out there are kind of a high, HID lighting. So the new ones are all LED’s. We haven’t 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) discussed about taking down the existing fixtures that are on those poles and replacing them with the same fixtures that we’re putting up on the new poles. More than likely that’s where we’re going to go with it. Just to keep them all, so that we don’t have yellow lights mixed with bright lights. MR. MAGOWAN-You were here earlier with the LED light we didn’t want that because of the color. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not putting up red ones? MR. HALL-No. I promise we won’t put up any red lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted the Short Form. There is a draft SEQR resolution in our package, if anyone would like to move that. Are there any environmental concerns that the Board has that they feel may create a potential to severe impact? MR. TRAVER-Not on this project. MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Then would anyone like to make a motion for a Negative SEQR Declaration? RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 103-2016 SUP PZ 104-2016 ADK. REH. The applicant proposes a single story, 2,031 sq. ft. addition to an existing medical facility, including site alterations, grading, filling and parking arrangement. Also, part of the project includes a lot line adjustment – 15,795 sq. ft. to a 23,809 sq. ft. lot. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 & 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance alterations to an existing building and site work 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 103-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 104-2016 ADIRONDACK REHABILITATION MEDICINE, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Hearing none, if anyone would like to make a motion for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 103-2016 & SUP PZ 104-2016 ADK. REHABILITATION The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a single story, 2,031 sq. ft. addition to an existing medical facility, including site alterations, grading, filling and parking arrangement. Also, part of the project includes a lot line adjustment – 15,795 sq. ft. to a 23,809 sq. ft. lot. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance alterations to an existing building and site work 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 4/26/2016, and continued the public hearing to 4/26/2016, 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 4/26/2016; 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 103-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 104-2016 ADIRONDACK REHABILITATION MEDICINE ; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 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; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 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: 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 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. e) 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; f) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; g) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; h) 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. i) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans j) With the condition that the lot line is adjusted prior to the CO. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I did suggest putting in a condition about having the lot line adjusted prior to CO. That is up to the Board. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. HALL-Appreciate it. SITE PLAN PZ 106-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JASON SOUTHWOOD OWNER(S) JACK & GAIL DE GREGORIO ZONING CM LOCATION 974 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A DELI AND THE OTHER HALF TO BE RETAIL AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. DELI TO BE APPROXIMATELY 792 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP PZ 53-2016, AV PZ 65-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE .66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-68 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9-120 JASON SOUTHWOOD, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? to use a portion of an existing building for a deli MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes and the other half as a retail as previously approved. Deli to be approximately 792 sq. ft. of the building and the applicant requested waivers that are identified in the Staff Notes, and the application has been seen before in reference to the retail use, and we were aware that the applicant would be coming back before the Board om reference to a deli. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Good evening. Jason Southwood from 974 Route 9. Yes, we’re looking to take the north side of the building and turn it into a roughly 500 square foot deli. Just sandwich meats, soups, salads, and that’s pretty much it. There’ll be no hood system, no fryers and stuff like that. So it’s pretty straightforward. Mostly a sandwich shop. The south side of the building will remain retail, that’s the larger side of the building, almost 900 square feet. Currently we’re rehabbing it and going pretty good. MR. MAGOWAN-The roof’s looking good, the overhang. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. SOUTHWOOD-I’ll tell you I’m glad the stonework is done. I finished the stonework the other day. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I would concur, it looks really good. rd MR. SOUTHWOOD-The septic to sewer is getting done May 3. I know Chris Harrington with rd the Water Department wanted that done. That’ll be done on the 3, and the parking lot will be obviously re-paved but I had to dig that up, sealed, re-striped, and we’re looking mostly for the retail side. I’m looking to rent it out at the current time. We don’t have any potential tenants yet, but we’re looking for a Memorial Day opening for the deli. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought you were talking a gun shop? MR. SOUTHWOOD-We were, my wife and I, I did receive my license, but the initial investment you’ve got to put up for it and then the amount of return, it would take so long to tie up that money, I could probably do other things with it. It’s not totally off the table, but I want to get the deli side open first and then move into the retail. MS. WHITE-Did somebody across the street open something similar? Because I saw an FFL Ammo sign. MR. SOUTHWOOD-That’s Replay Sports. Yes, I thought it went out of business, to be honest with you, but then all of a sudden I saw the same sign you saw. I don’t know if he went back in or just decided to start selling again. I’m not sure, but, yes, I saw the sign. MR. FERONE-It was interesting. I mentioned your project to someone I know that you were going into the building. I know you were in front of us for the guns and the ammo and I said this is a deli. Someone suggested the name should be buns and guns. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Well, we picked the name Benny’s Deli after my wife’s late brother. He had a bunch of health issues, but he had diabetes all growing up. He passed away at like 41, but he was a chef. He cooked and he worked at a deli when he was younger then went on to be a really good chef. So it’s kind of in his memory that we’re doing that, but maybe the next one. MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. MR. TRAVER-The cover sheet says Type II. MRS. MOORE-The cover sheet’s inaccurate. MR. HUNSINGER-Unlisted action. Are there any concerns that the Board feels may be moderate to large impact? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then we do have a draft SEQR resolution in the application, if anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE DEC SP PZ 106-2016 JASON SOUTHWOOD The applicant proposes to use a portion of an existing building for a deli and the other half to be retail as previously approved. Deli to be approximately 792 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 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 106-2016 JASON SOUTHWOOD, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there’s any additional questions or comments, we do have a draft resolution in the package if anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 106-2016 JASON SOUTHWOOD 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 use a portion of an existing building for a deli and the other half to be retail as previously approved. Deli to be approximately 792 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/26/2016 and continued the public hearing to 4/26/2016, 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 4/26/2016; 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 106-2016 JASON SOUTHWOOD; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) 1. Waivers request granted: 2 Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a)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; b)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c)Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d)Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Thanks so much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. DEEB-Are you going to bake your own bread? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Bread we’re looking to get elsewhere, but we’ll have salads and things like that. MR. DEEB-Good luck. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION ITEM SEQR TYPE UNLISTED J & D MARINA, LLC AGENT(S) SCHRODER RIVERS ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) THALIA & LONNY CHASE ZONING WR LOCATION 2585 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES DISCUSSION OF CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW INDOOR BOAT STORAGE BUILDING TO REPLACE AN EXISTING STORAGE GARAGE. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 56-2014 PERM. – BOAT SALES, SERVICE, STORAGE IN WR ZONE; BP 2009-099 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN CEA, APA, WETLANDS LOT SIZE 11.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-31.23 SECTION 179-9-040 SKETCH PLAN CONFERENCE CARL SCHRODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT boat storage operation on an MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to maintain the existing 11.147 ac parcel. The existing indoor storage occurs in a 2,600 sq. ft. building where the applicant proposes to remove the existing building and to construct a new 10,000 sq. ft. steel building. The new building would be used to store approximately 50 boats. The exterior storage proposed would remain at 76 where 7 of the spaces will be reassigned to the east side of the new building. The applicant has indicated the stormwater management the existing site conditions will also accommodated the new proposal. The narrative explains the exterior colors will be earth-tone shades of brown and gray. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SCHRODER-Good evening. Carl Schroder, Schroder Rivers Associates, representing the applicant, and I have with me Lonny and Thalia Chase who are the owners, and this project was in front of this Board, in front of the Town, I believe it was 2014 we gained approval for the original portion of this project to approve boat storage for outside storage of vessels for the Castaway Marina, as well as some limited indoor storage at the time, and a couple of old barn buildings that were on the property. Why we are here before you now is the boat storage is doing quite well and they have an opportunity or they would like to consider an opportunity of putting an indoor storage facility on this lot, and I’ll go into the lot a little bit, the particulars about it, but putting it on this lot in the approximate location of the existing old barns. If you’ve seen the site, there are several old barn structures or garage structures up on the hill behind the berm, right by, past the entrance. MR. TRAVER-Up on the hill. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. SCHRODER-Those buildings would be, in this project, would be taken down. Our reason for being here tonight obviously is to solicit some comments and to have a discussion with you to identify any areas of concern that need to be specifically addressed in a formal submission which will come shortly. So, with that in mind, the proposed project is, as noted, a 10,000 square foot pre-engineered metal building. It would have earth tone colors, probably be a two- tone type of a structure, relatively low. We’re looking at something on the order of 24 foot, 24.4, I believe. Very basic building, if you will. It would be a light panel on the wall that would be translucent which is to allow light. The building would be unheated, uninsulated, minimal electric. Just enough to have some circulation in there should you have to go in there at night because there’s some difficulty noted or whatever, if someone’s checking on a break in or whatever, just to provide some safety lane. Unoccupied structure. It’s basically a barn, basically a cold storage barn. We are not anticipating putting a floor I the building necessarily. We’re thinking about using crushed stone, as a parking surface for the boats and the boat trailers. I would like to emphasize this is not rack storage. We’re not talking about high racks, you know, where we’re stacking the boats three tall. Rather these boats would be moved in. They would be either set on blocks or on trailers within the building and then hauled back out. MR. FORD-So there would be no stacking at all? MR. SCHRODER-There would be no stacking. MR. FORD-Just single level. MR. SCHRODER-That is correct. They’re not looking to do that. Kind of hard to talk too much about the building, per se. There would be access for the storage and for moving boats in and out from one side of the building, and let me go back to the site plan if I could for a second. MS. WHITE-One question on the building. There doesn’t seem to be any exterior lighting. MR. SCHRODER-We’re not anticipating exterior lighting at this point. There is currently in the existing building one exterior light, I believe, that’s on the back. LONNY CHASE MR. CHASE-Actually there’s a couple, but there were some concerns from the neighbors that there we would have a lot of site lighting and that’s something that was specifically asked and our intent is really to fit in with the neighborhood and make the neighbors happy. So we’re open to minimal lighting and color changes. MR. SCHRODER-I would think, you know, possibly on the back of the building maybe one, back being not the roadside, maybe one down directed light off the structure itself just so somebody doesn’t trip, there would be a couple of doors in the back side of the building for access into the structure. So just something to that effect, but what I have in my mind is a 100 watt light. Just something to provide light. Again, the facility is not open to the public. This is for use by marina personnel. There’s a gate on the property, the public does not go in. It’s only the people that work for the marina going in. On the site itself, we would envision an apron on this side. There’s currently a berm on the site that runs parallel to Route 9L. Behind that berm would be where we would have an apron that would allow access to the building from this side. Personnel access from the back, this front and this side would be basically nothing other than the vison panel and the two tone type of a structure to provide a bit of an attractive appearance. The height is very similar to the existing building. Again, it’s a fairly low slope roof. We’re talking about 24 foot 4 at the peak. That would allow us to get a couple of, I believe we have, what, two 14 foot doors and two 12 foot doors on the building as far as height, to allow ease of access, and again, that will occur behind the berm and out of sight. Now where we are right now, we are trying to solicit comments from you folks, what concerns you may have. We’d like to overall be able to build this building as soon as possible, get it done this year, this fall. There’s a definite need for indoor storage. I believe you’re getting many contacts and many requests for indoor storage. It would be a good thing if we could get this done. It should be a fairly straightforward project to build, too. MR. FERONE-I had a question, just a point of interest. So this is for storage of existing boats? It’s not like new boats you’re getting in that are stored before they’re sold or anything like that? THALIA CHASE MRS. CHASE-No. MR. SCHRODER-This is if you own a boat and you need to put it somewhere during the winter. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. FERONE-Right. Well, I see a lot of boats that are stored in the winter outside. MR. CHASE-Yes. We’re growing. So it just means that we’ve maxed out our inside storage already, and we’d like to increase that and really in an effort to have to shrink wrap less boats per year. MR. FERONE-Okay. So there’s a preference to have indoor storage versus exterior? MR. CHASE-Right. Not only, you know, demand, a lot of people like indoor storage, but then also there’s significant labor costs in shrink wrapping and a lot of waste, too. MR. SCHRODER-I mean, that’s a lot of plastic that goes to the landfill. MR. FORD-You’d anticipate not shrink wrapping boats that are coming inside? MR. CHASE-Correct, and as we grow we’re going to have more shrink wrapped boats, too, and we’d possibly be looking for other storage areas in the future, but at least in the short term, you know, this effort would be to reduce the amount of boats that we shrink wrap per year right now. MR. TRAVER-I have two questions or two thoughts that come to my mind. One is you mentioned, rather than having a solid floor, you were leaning towards like a crushed stone? MR. CHASE-Right. MR. TRAVER-I’m wondering. Is that going to cause problems for the occasional fluid spill or like an oil spill? If you have a paved floor or some kind of a thing it’s going to be easier to remediate an oil leak than if you have crushed stone over the ground, particularly in a CEA. MR. SCHRODER-I think their thinking on that, it’s a good point, but I think their thinking on that is that this is no different than their outdoor storage conditions. There will be no maintenance on these boats. There’ll be no work done on them whatsoever. What’s more they’re out of the elements. Once they’re inside the building the chances of a leak are very slim. MR. TRAVER-But not eliminated. MR. SCHRODER-Nor would they be outdoors. MR. TRAVER-Understood, but here we have a new construction so we have an opportunity to mitigate that. Is that something the Board would look favorably on or would be an important requirement? We would certainly consider it. Obviously it adds cost. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. FORD-Let me ask this. Will there be any winterization on site? MR. CHASE-Absolutely no service, no work whatsoever. That’s part of our Special Use Permit actually. MR. FORD-So when they come there to be stored, they’re totally winterized. MR. CHASE-Correct. MRS. CHASE-That’s correct. MR. FORD-If they’re going to be shrink wrapped they have been or? MRS. CHASE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-No customers in the spring are going to be going in there? MRS. CHASE-Absolutely not. MR. CHASE-No, they cannot. The gate is locked at all times, unless we’re in and out of there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I can see that mitigates it significantly. The other thing that comes to mind, just generally having a new project on site, is there anything that you would consider, in terms of evaluating the current stormwater conditions and seeing if there’s anything that can be done to manage the stormwater? Those that are familiar with the facility, it’s a wonderful 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) facility, but there is a lot of pavement that goes right, you know, down that steep hill. It’s just, you know, it’s been there for a long time. Is there anything that needs to be addressed that maybe could be addressed as part of this? MR. SCHRODER-This, unfortunately, obviously you would have to address stormwater. We recognize that, but this site has limited ability to deal with much stormwater, and the reason, which came up a couple of years ago, when we were talking about the outside boat storage, is that much of this area, which is currently on basically a turfed field, that boats are to be stored, outside storage, much of that area sits on an old construction waste site, and you don’t want to infiltrate across that. That would not be a good thing to do. So the opportunities when the initial site was built out, were somewhat limited. We built a basin as large as we could in this location. There’s a stormwater basin right here with an outfall that comes down that collects what is currently that impermeable area up in here. When we build this building and add to that basin, we find, at least our preliminary numbers have certainly shown, that we’re in good shape. We can use that basin to continue on. What it doesn’t address is the question you had asked. It’s quite a bit of pavement. It’s right by the lake. This is not on that side of the road. I can’t do much on this site, what’s going on over there. So looking at this site, in and of itself, yes, we would be dealing with, obviously, the stormwater that would be produced by this, and the increases would be mitigated by putting them into the existing basin. The existing basin is sized large enough with fairly minimal upgrade, and unfortunately, in spite of the fact that I’m looking at 11 acres here, there’s not a lot of opportunity I have to work because of the previous conditions. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. Thank you. MR. CHASE-Yes, and I think the stormwater right now is not, you know, very controlled how it comes off the building so by re-directing it into the basin I think we are going to make a vast improvement overall. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. CHASE-Because there’s wetlands that go, you know, along the north and east side. MR. SCHRODER-That was an issue the last time around. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I recall. MR. FORD-I remember that. MR. DEEB-Do you anticipate any variances? MR. SCHRODER-I’m sorry? MR. DEEB-Do you anticipate any variances? MR. SCHRODER-I do not anticipate any. I don’t see any need for a variance. We’re meeting all the setbacks. We’re certainly within the allowable impermeable areas, etc., etc. I don’t really see that there’s a need for a variance on this project, but it is a Special Use type of a permit so we’re here in front of you. MR. HUNSINGER-So you may recall when we looked at this the first time there were some fairly distant neighbors that were in the view shed that had some concerns about the color of the shrink wrap on the boats and things of that nature. MR. SCHRODER-Across the other side of the bay. MR. CHASE-Yes, Hanneford Road. MR. HUNSINGER-So I could anticipate maybe some comments about the building colors and the roof maybe as much as the walls. MR. CHASE-I think that’s really a big part of why we wanted to come for sketch plan review is, you know, going back to 2007 or 8 when we very first came to the Board for this, there was a lot of concern from the neighbors. Hopefully we’ve shown that we can run a clean operation and hopefully it was really an improvement to what was there, because when Scotty McLaughlin was there it was kind of a mess, but really that’s the intent is to make an improvement. Yes, we’re getting boat storage, but frankly the building that’s there is pretty unattractive from the road. So we’re thinking, yes, more storage, and also something, you know, a little more aesthetically 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) pleasing for everybody, and more than open, I mean, they can take a vote on the colors and we’ll do that. I mean, we don’t really care. MR. FORD-Have you spoken, prior to this, with your neighbors? MR. CHASE-I have reached out to Mr. Halliday, to which he responded they better not approve that because I was denied on a second garage. So that’s as far as that conversation went. I will, I would expect that the other neighbors are going to have a problem. MRS. CHASE-It just seems the nature of that whole area, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s kind of general, but I think for the community there’s some real value and benefit in getting boat storage away from the lake. So I think there’s a real advantage to having, you know, upland boat storage during the winter. MR. TRAVER-And inside as opposed to a forest of boats. MR. SCHRODER-If this is taking 50 boats outside, that would have been outside inside, in a relatively attractive building. It’s also hidden by a berm which was established way back when when the property was first purchased. So there’s a good berm in front of it.. Even though it doesn’t look bad from the road, even with the old building, although this is going to look quite a bit better. There will be an architect involved in choosing colors. When you get down to it, it still will be a pre-engineered metal building, but nowadays you can make those kind of pretty which is why the architect put a band in it, put translucent white panel, two toned it. We recognize we’re in a neighborhood. MR. CHASE-And even the placement of the doors to the north end, you know, just trying to keep the visible activity to a minimum, to the neighbors. MR. SCHRODER-The actual moving of boats in and out, that’s all happening behind the berm, if you will. MR. HUNSINGER-So most of the activity would be in a short time period, correct? Is that a fair assessment? MR. CHASE-Yes, I mean, we’re taking boats out of storage right now, and I will continue, you know, most of the boats go in, 95% of them go in by Memorial Day. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CHASE-So you’re talking maybe a six week span in the spring and then, yes, the fall we start pulling out and sometime late September right through November, but, you know, we’re in and out of there as it is throughout the year with trailers, because we store trailers outside. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-If you’re not winterized by Thanksgiving you’re in trouble. MR. CHASE-Can you tell everybody on the dock that. MR. TRAVER-I hear you. I have friends that I grew up with, been boating all their life on Lake George. They grew up next door to me on the lake. I still have to remind them. It’s amazing. MR. CHASE-Winters like this don’t help, unfortunately because everyone thinks you can put them in in April and take them out in December. MR. FORD-So what kind of activity would there be there during the summer season, on site? MR. CHASE-In terms of traffic in and out? Depending on how many boats are coming out of storage, I would say, you know, we could be over there. MR. FORD-Say, June, July and August. MR. FORD-Early September. MR. CHASE-Yes, I mean, it quiets down, we’re probably over there, you know, once, twice a day. It quiets down once everything is taken out and trailers are put back over there. It gets pretty quiet in the middle of summer I’d say. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or feedback from the Board? Any Staff comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. SCHRODER-Well, if we’re on the right track, we can just go back and gather the rest of the pieces of this review application and get in front of the Board as quickly as we can. MR. HUNSINGER-How did you determine what size to propose? MR. SCHRODER-There are certain building limits as far as size is concerned. I believe that was 12,000 square feet would have been the maximum. MR. CHASE-Yes. Obviously site constraints really. MR. SCHRODER-That’s where I’m going. First we look from the Building Code point of view at where you start triggering things and sprinkler systems and things, commitments and larger mechanical systems. We didn’t want to get involved in that. We set ourselves a goal there. Then we looked at the site, what can I fit on this to be reasonable. I wanted to have access, a road, a gravel road all the way around so that you can get around it from all sides, so that you come in, you back in, you put a boat in, you do have a way of getting around back. I didn’t want to back this building up into that berm too far because I needed to have the ability to get drainage around the back and into that basin. So there were several site constraints there. There is also a quite literally hidden site constraint. Remember I alluded a few minutes ago to an old C & D waste landfill back here. Well, if you’ll remember way back when you folks saw this project in its initial phases, there was an environmental study done, many holes dug to try and figure out the extent of what that old C & D material was. I’m trying to stay out of where we believe the limits of that are. So that building buts very much to that corner of the site. We got all done, 10,000 square feet seemed to fit fairly well, and that’s the long and short, and that’s within the Building Code parameters that don’t trigger lots of those sprinkler system type considerations, that sort of thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and tell Hal he could have come and asked for a pole barn and not another garage. MR. CHASE-He had a pole barn. He just had to buy another piece of land down the road. MR. TRAVER-And what was it, we had one that called it a storage shed so they could get around it, put a garage door on it. It was somebody up on the lake there. It was a garage, but he just said it was a storage shed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. Well, with that I’d like to thank the Board very much for your time tonight. I know we aren’t a formal item on the agenda, but we do appreciate getting your input before we come in. MR. TRAVER-Well, thank you for the preparation and your explanation. MR. SCHRODER-That’s great. MR. MAGOWAN-And your patience all evening. I’m sure you had probably a long day. MR. SCHRODER-It wasn’t that bad. You guys moved right along tonight. MRS. CHASE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re welcome. Is there any other business to come before the Board? MRS. MOORE-I do have updated zoning maps. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MRS. MOORE-So if you want to grab them, I’ll bring them up and you can take what you need to take, and that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. And of course we have a meeting Thursday. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/26/2016) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2016, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Meeting adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 45