Loading...
02-14-2017 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2017 INDEX Site Plan 6-2017 Stephen & Caryn LeFleche 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-29 Subdivision Preliminary Stage 2-2017 Mary Sotanski 4. Final Stage 3-2017 Tax Map No. 290.10-1-6 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan 12-2017 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 279.-1-48 Site Plan 9-2017 Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33 Subdivision Preliminary Stage 4-2017 Steve Scoville 14. Final Stage 5-2017 Tax Map No. 302.8-2-66.1 Site Plan 11-2017 Steve Scoville 22. Special Use Permit 2-2017 Tax Map No. 302.8-2-66.1 Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2017 Site Plan 8-2017 Primelink, Inc. 27. Tax Map No. 302.11-1-2 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 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting. This is the first meeting of two for the month of February and the third for 2017. There should be some agendas on the table in the back of the room if you would like one. There are three items we're going to be reviewing tonight that do have a public hearing, and we have some Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board to make and we have an Administrative Item to begin which is approval of minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 20, 2016 December 22, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20TH AND DECEMBER 22ND, 2016, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right. Our first item on the agenda this evening is a Recommendation request for the ZBA for Stephen and Caryn LaFleche, Site Plan 6-2017. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 6-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II STEPHEN & CARYN LA FLECHE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 12 WATERS EDGE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING HOME. FLOOR AREA EXISTING ON SECOND FLOOR IS 474 SQ. FT. AND EXISTING GARAGE STORAGE IS 232 SQ. FT. PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR WITH ADDITION (36 +/- FT. X 5 +/- FT.) IS 697 SQ. FT. WITH REMOVAL OF FLOOR AREA STORAGE ABOVE GARAGE. THE 2ND FLOOR ADDITION ALLOWS FOR 2ND FLOOR BEDROOM EXPANSION AND 1ST FLOOR BEDROOM EXPANSION — TOTAL 3 BEDROOMS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK TO INSTALL PERMEABLE PAVERS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2017 SITE INFORMATION APA, LGPC, CEA LOT SIZE .19 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-29 SECTION 179-13-010 2 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to give us the briefing? MRS. MOORE-Sure. So this project involves renovation of a second floor of an existing home. The existing second floor is 474 square feet, and there is an existing storage area over the garage which counts towards their floor area of 232 square feet. The renovation actually takes that storage area out and moves it towards living space for the second floor. So the final square footage for the floor area on the second floor is 697 square feet, and what this does is allows the addition, for a second floor bedroom expansion and a bit of first floor bedroom expansion, the total of bedrooms on the site, or the house, rather, is three bedroom, that remains the same. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis Mac Elroy with Environmental Design representing Stephen and Caryn LaFleche for this application for a variance. We're here for the referral to the ZBA. As Laura indicated, it's a Waterfront Residential parcel off of Waters Edge Drive which is off of Seelye Road. Rockhurst, Cleverdale area. Small lot, about 8200 square feet total, and so it's a lawful nonconforming structure, based on setbacks, shoreline setback and a sideline setback. What the applicant would like is to expand the second story, and as you see in the photo, it's a dormer or an expansion of those dormers to basically full width of the exposure of that house in that area. It doesn't increase the footprint at all and it re-allocates living area in that structure to that second floor area. Along with this will be, regarding site issues, there'll be, we've already received an approval from the Board of Health for a holding tank system for the wastewater. So that's felt to be an improvement to the area. We'll remove what is probably a marginal wastewater system in that area and convert that to a holding tank. There'll be a decrease in the impervious area based on some conversions, walkways to permeable block pavers. So there's a couple of side benefits to this project aside from the expansion. It still requires a variance. It requires a variance because it's an expansion of the lawful nonconforming structure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So as you point out it's not an increase in the footprint. It's sort of an increase in the elevation because you're building on to the same. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. TRAVER-And you're making some environmental improvements with septic and that impervious area. Anything else? MR. MAC ELROY-That should cover it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Board for the applicant? MR. HUNSINGER-Are you doing anything to capture roof runoff? MR. MAC ELROY-Actually in a previous project that this owner had undertaken several years ago, they did a number of issues, a number of items, improvements related to the drainage in that area. So it's not associated with this project, but I think they feel that they've done a number of drainage items that would help retain that stormwater or that runoff from the residence itself. It's in a somewhat low-lying area. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, it's pretty low. MR. MAC ELROY-So they had to, when these owners took over, took ownership of the property, that's one of the first things that they had done. I wasn't involved with that project but I think Tom Jarrett did some work related to that. MR. FERONE-Going on the same line as Chris's question, Staff Notes indicated that lawn area's going to be disturbed and there's going to be some supplemental plantings installed, but there wasn't any information on what or how much. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It's not, there may have been reference to that. I guess I must have said that myself but there wasn't anything that was being proposed as part of the site plan application because there really wasn't, the disturbance would have taken place is work around the exterior of the structure. So there'd be equipment on that. So that will be restored into grass vegetation. MR. FERONE-Just minimal. It's not extensive. 3 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, this is just to the north of the big house that's under construction? MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-You've got to keep up with the neighbors. MR. TRAVER-Yes. See the County Planning Board has basically referred it back to us. So are there any, I'm not hearing anymore questions for the applicant. Are Board members feeling there are any concerns with the application as it exists? Obviously if it gets through the ZBA it will be coming back for site plan. Are there any things that are of concern at this stage that we'd want to point out? MR. FERONE-Well, the setback is existing, right? It's not like they're expanding the building. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's a pre-existing nonconforming structure. They're not exacerbating it. It's a small lot. There's a lot of those that we deal with. There's not much they can do with it really. I was glad to see the environmental improvements to the area. MR. MAGOWAN-They're not really increasing the size of the roof. They're just lifting it up and changing the direction of the water really. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, and even the overall, the total height isn't going up either. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, and regarding the setbacks, it's shoreline setback and the setback to the westerly side. The existing setback is 19.6, and this new addition is 29.5. So while it doesn't meet the 50 foot shoreline setback, it's not any closer, in fact it's 10 feet farther away, and the same thing goes on the side setback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I'm not hearing any concerns that we want to point out, so I think we can make a motion, then, on behalf of the Planning Board. There's no public hearing for a recommendation. There would be when they come back. MR. FERONE-All right. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-11-2017 LA FLECHE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to renovate the second floor of an existing home. Floor area existing on second floor is 474 sq. ft. and existing garage storage is 232 sq. ft. Proposed second floor with addition (36 +/-ft. x 5 +/- ft.) is 697 sq. ft. with removal of floor area storage above garage. The 2nd floor addition allows for 2nd floor bedroom expansion and 1st floor bedroom expansion — total 3 bedrooms. Project includes site work to install permeable pavers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of non-conforming structures shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought from setbacks. 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. 11-2017 STEPHEN & CARYN LAFLECHE: Introduced by Mr. Ferone who moved its adoption, The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal; Motion seconded by Mr. Magowan; Duly adopted 14th day of February 2017, by the following vote: 4 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a motion that's been made and seconded. Are there any comments or concerns prior to the vote on the motion? I'm not hearing any. Can we have the vote, please? AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mrs. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. See you next week, I hope. MR. TRAVER-All right. Our next application is Mary Sotanski. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 2017 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MARY SOTANSKI OWNER(S) MARY & THOMAS SOTANSKI ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 21 HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 4.93 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT TO BE 3 ACRES, HAS AN EXISTING HOME AND TO BE RETAINED BY OWNER. THE SECOND LOT IS PROPOSED TO BE 1.93 ACRE VACANT LOT FOR SALE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 2004-64 756 SF ADDITION; AV 10-2017 LOT SIZE 4.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-6 SECTION CHAPTER 183 KRISTIN DARRAH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARY SOTANSKI, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 4.93 acre parcel. One lot is to be three acres and has an existing home to be retained by the owner. The second lot is proposed to be a 1.93 acre vacant lot for sale. The request for variance relief is for the lot size itself, and the information in the packet shows a building that would be proposed on the site could meet the potential setbacks, in addition to installing a septic and well. The applicant, in reference to the subdivision application materials, is going to request a waiver from showing septic, well, and house location, as part of the application, which we have seen in the past for regular subdivisions. MS. WHITE-I just had a quick question. I see a reference to two different lot sizes. MRS. MOORE-Yes, and I apologize. I may have, but I'll find it again. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MS. DARRAH-Good evening. My name is Kristin Darrah. I'm actually Ms. Sotakski's land surveyor. She asked me to represent here. I have the agent form here which I can give you. MRS. MOORE-Yes, you can hand it to me. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Would you like to tell us about your project? MS. SOTANSKI-Well, my project is to subdivide off a portion of my property because it's larger than what I can take care of by myself anymore. The property's in Queensbury. This property has been on the market since, well, my husband and I started in 2012, and we found out he had a terminal illness, and I have had maybe two people, maybe four people come to see the property in the past four years, and it's very difficult for me to sell the property. Now that my husband's passed away it's hard for me to take care of all that property, and I try to be a good steward for the land, and it's just difficult for me. Initially I started, we thought that we were going to be able to subdivide the property, two acre, to two acre parcels, but because of the subdivision, or the zone variance change, it was better for me to keep the three acre zoning and then carve off that first, I thought it was 1.93 acres because on my deed it says I have 4.93 acres, but when they came through, Kristin came through and did the survey, I found out I don't have 4.93 acres. I have 4.87, and I don't know, I'm at your mercy to help me figure out what to do. MS. DARRAH-Basically what we're looking to do is, to alleviate the burden for my client, is to split off a building lot, essentially, to make her house more marketable. It's been on the market, like she said, for quite a while, but, you know, there's been a change in the minimum acreage requirement since she's owned the property. So she wants to maintain the three acres with the 5 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) existing house and she's looking for, really from the area requirement for the other lot if possible. MR. TRAVER-So the plan, at this point, is not to put a house on the other lot but rather to sell the existing house and the three acres and also sell the separate piece as a separate building lot. I see. MS. SOTANSKI-And then in all good conscience, and trying to be a good steward for the land, I have approached my neighbors, John and Diane Swanson, and I have let them know that, because they have the one subdivision property that came from the Case Prime property, that long meadow area, that if they would like to purchase the property at fair market value they would have first refusal for the land, because, you know, if they would like to keep the land the way it is, you know, I would like to respect that, and I respect the land as much as I can. Also when the Town came through and National Grid came through, everybody came through and they took down all the trees, after they came through I went and did a survey, visual survey of the land, and all along that roadway I had somebody come in and take down everything that was either dead or if it was dead and going to fall down on those wires, because I want to be a good neighbor, I had all those trees taken down and trying to cut up the trees and move them out and, you know, make the land acceptable, and also protect it from my neighbors. MR. HUNSINGER-So the new lot to be created, is that, Laura had made the comment about it being buildable, because I know there's some wet areas over in there, and you can't see with the snow cover. There isn't any wetlands on that property, is there? MS. DARRAH-Not that we're aware of. MS. SOTANSKI-No, there's none that I know of. MS. DARRAH-I believe Craig Brown had worked with Pam Whiting who helped Ms. Sotanski fill out the application, and what they had looked at was how much land was left, that they maintain a 100 foot setback from each side. I believe there was a sketch that was submitted with the application that shows the buildable area left and essentially, the feeling was that there's enough land, enough space in the center of this lot to maintain 100 feet from each side, that you could put a house and a septic system in there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The other question that I had was, usually with a, especially with a subdivision, we get a larger map that shows the size lots in the immediate neighborhood, and we didn't get that information. When you drive around it appears that most of the lots on your street and also on the perpendicular street are much smaller than three acres. MS. DARRAH-The tax map, on the other side of Hiland Drive, directly across from Mary Jane's property, the two lots directly across from here are both two acres. MS. SOTANSKI-And then down Rockwell Road there's a red house, is it a barn, and that's 1.5 acres. Down a little bit further, I think it's Brookwood, the street there, those are one acre properties in there, and I know down at the very foot of Rockwell Road where they have the Overlook, the condos. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, those are small. MS. SOTANSKI-Those are all small. So, I mean, it's within keeping of what is in that area to begin with, and I'm not asking to reduce it any more than I absolutely have to. I want to keep as much, that's why I said initially I wanted to do two acres and two acres, but to keep as much in common with the rest of the area as possible, but because of the zoning and the zone. MR. SHAFER-You bought the property in '94 I believe? MS. SOTANSKI-Yes. MR. SHAFER-And you had mentioned that the zoning had changed between then and now. MS. SOTANSKI-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Can you tell me what it was before? 6 (QueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MS. SOTANSKI-It was two acre. Actually it was one acre zoning, and then it went to two acre zoning. I don't know at what point in time it went to two acre zoning. I know we put an addition on our house in 2005, and that's when Case Prime did his subdivision, and when he did his subdivision, he had the one meadow area on Rockwell with five acres. His property that he owned, the house that John and Diane Swanson, or Bowers living in, they have the five acres and there's two, 2 acre parcels and then John, Joan and Fred McGrath have a five acre parcel, and then the two acre parcel belongs to Joe Delahoyt, and then the other two acre parcel belongs to Robin and Ervin. They're on either side of Summit Lane. MR. SHAFER-Do we know when it changed to three? Does anybody know when it changed to three? MS. SOTANSKI-It changed to three about, well my husband passed away in 2015 and I believe it happened in 2014. It could have been 2015. MRS. MOORE-That sounds right. I'd have to look it up, and I don't know off the top of my head without reviewing that. MS. SOTANSKI-No, I know that they came before the Board for the zoning because a woman on Ridge Road, her sister had passed away and she had a horse and they needed three acres to have a horse and they changed the zoning at that time. The whole Town, that whole area prior to that it had been two. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So the 1.7 acres for the second lot does require a variance, but it is not out of keeping with the character of the neighborhood, basically is what we're looking at. MS. SOTANSKI-Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions for the applicant before we make a recommendation? Okay. I think we're ready for a motion, Mr. Secretary. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-10-2017 MARY SOTANSKI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 4.93 acre parcel. One lot to be 3 acres, has an existing home and to be retained by owner. The second lot is proposed to be 1.93 acre vacant lot for sale. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot size. 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. 10-2017 MARY SOTANSKI: Introduced by Mr. Ferone who moved its adoption, and The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal; Motion seconded by Mr. Magowan Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-We have a motion that's been seconded. Any discussion? MS. WHITE-Yes. Do we need to change that to 4.87 in this document? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it's 4.87 MR. TRAVER-So the resolution? MS. WHITE-References the 4.9. 7 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. TRAVER-You're right. Okay. MS. SOTANSKI-Yes. I don't know what happened because my deed all says I have 4.93, but when the survey came through, I think it's new technology. They can do things better. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, that's all right. If you've ever been to Gore Mountain Ski Center, that whole mountain was not on the map. That's what a gore is. That's how it got its name. So they named it Gore Mountain Ski Center. It's not on the map, and there it was. MR. FERONE-I'll amend the motion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FERONE-The motion is to be amended that this is a 4.93, I'm sorry, 4.87 acre parcel to be separated into two lots, one 3 acres and one 1.87 acres. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have an amended motion. MR. MAGOWAN-Second. MR. TRAVER-We have an amended motion that's been made and seconded. Any other questions or concerns? MRS. MOORE-Did you select A? MR. FERONE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. FERONE-1 read it. I didn't select it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MS. SOTANSKI-Thank you very, very much. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you're welcome. Good luck. MS. SOTANSKI-I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-The next application we have is also a recommendation referral for the ZBA which is New Cingular Wireless. MRS. MOORE-Yes. SITE PLAN 12-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC AGENT(S) CENTERLINE COMMUNICATIONS; PHILLIPS LYTLE, LLP OWNER(S) KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONING MDR LOCATION 1359 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - 130' MONOPOLE WITH 9 ANTENNAS, ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER AND PAD ALL WITHIN A FENCED AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5 & 179-9 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: USE VARIANCE REQUIRED AS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN AN MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 55-2015, UV 57-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2017 SITE INFORMATION APA LOT SIZE 9.38 ACRES (PORTION OF) TAX MAP NO. 279.1-48 SECTION 179-5, 179-9 TOM PUCHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 8 (OueensIbuiry l::'llanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a telecommunications facility. This is a 130 foot monopole with nine antennas. And this project, as part of this project you had originally seen this project in 2015. Their approvals have expired and therefore they need to come back to the Board in reference to the Use Variance and the Site Plan. So that's why the applicant's back before us. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I understand there also were some minor changes. There were, yes, it's actually Groundhog Day. It's not Valentine's Day. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. Would you state your name for the record. TOM PUCHNER MR. PUCHNER-Tom Puchner, Phillips Lytle law firm for AT&T, also known as New Cingular Wireless PCS. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. PUCHNER-At the time that this had originally been proposed and approved by the Planning Board for Site Plan and the ZBA for a Use Variance it was proposed as just a monopole tower which is just a single pole, not lattice, not guide, and when it went back to the APA, the process is local approvals first, APA second. They want you to go first. They found it was visible from one location in the marsh with plain sight. You can barely make out the balloon, but they wanted it to be a mono pine, which is the top couple of feet of the tower is disguised to look like a tree. MR. TRAVER-Just the top couple of feet? MR. PUCHNER-Just the top section. The part that would be visible from the water. MR. TRAVER-And this would be, what, in the Dunham's Bay swamp? MR. PUCHNER-Dunham's Bay marsh. We canoed out to the marsh with cameras and took visual impact data from there, and as a result, the APA, they have their standard which is substantially invisible. They wanted it to look like a tree from the ridge line. So that was re- designed after the approval. That took some time, and then fortunately, subsequent to the APA approval, Town's approval, the DEC approval because it is a working gravel pit, to allow the tower to locate, the approval expired. So here we are. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-You didn't threaten to turn off any of their cell phone service> MR. TRAVER-Other than adding the few feet of pine at the top, are there any other changes to the antenna that were required? I mean, was the additional wind loading requiring you to do anything? MR. PUCHNER-No, no changes to that. In fact it's a 130 foot tower as was originally proposed to have a hard top, for the FAA. MR. TRAVER-Well, you could light it. MR. PUCHNER-Well, yes. Not something we wanted to do. MR. TRAVER-We wouldn't like that either. MR. PUCHNER-So in order to do the camouflage that requires typically five feet to make it have the ground effect of the tree. So we had to reduce, because of that 130, we had to reduce everything by five feet. The original proposal was 130 feet, with the antenna center lines, 126. So you drop everything five feet. So the antennas are now at a center line of 121, and then the tower effect of the tree will be 130. That's the only change. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Are we first again before the other? Do you have to go back for approval? MR. PUCHNER-To the APA? No. It's done with the APA. 9 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. DEEB-All right. So then this will be it for you. MR. PUCHNER-Yes. APA is done. Their process doesn't expire. Well, it can, I think you have to wait 40 years or something, but it's been recorded. It's a done deal. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So if they stipulate the design, do they stipulate the color of the design as well? MR. PUCHNER-I believe that there are, they want it to be non-reflective, mat paint. There may be a condition black. I'd have to check the APA permit. It's very specific, and again, whatever it is what it has to be done. MR. TRAVER-I would think it would be pine green. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I would think. MR. PUCHNER-Well, for the tree portion, yes, but the antennas have to be disguised. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-The Franken pine section. MR. MAGOWAN-What happens once you get it up there and everything and a birdwatcher sees it from his canoe back there in the swamp, very difficult to get back into. MR. PUCHNER-It goes about a mile into the swamp. Nothing I can do about that. They'll have good cell service. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So will the tower itself be painted the same color? MR. PUCHNER-In terms of the pole? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PUCHNER-I would have to check the conditions on that. That is a detail that I don't have with me. I could have it next week when we're back here. MR. MAGOWAN-You know, like the last five feet that you're going to change to a treetop. So I imagine you're going to have. MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say, this was quite a presentation. MS. WHITE-Because I was thinking it was more than just a couple of feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Like a regular Franken pine. MR. SHAFER-Is it 30 feet? MR. HUNSINGER-It's 110 to, well, it's 20 feet. MR. SHAFER-Chris, what's the drawing number? MR. HUNSINGER-Drawing T-1A. It's in this fold out. MR. TRAVER-All right, and no changes to the footing or the structure at the base of the antenna? That's all as it was in the original proposal? MR. PUCHNER-Everything is the same. So in terms of the impacts today, theoretically it was approved a little over a year ago has a tower with very little visibility. Now it's invisible at least as far as the APA is concerned, with the camouflage. MR. TRAVER-Right, and just one follow up question. When you get the approvals, how long before it comes on line roughly? 10 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. PUCHNER-It should be on line in 2017. That's the plan. MR. TRAVER-1 see. All right. MR. MAGOWAN-1 could use the increase there at my house. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, this is one of those times when you miss Paul because Paul used to always talk about the dead spot between Fort Ann and Queensbury for the emergency services. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, I think part of the rationale was for emergency services, right, on 149. So that's going to be a big help there. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what this covers. MR. TRAVER-So. All right. Any other questions or concerns by members of the Board prior to making a recommendation? MR. SHAFER-One question. Some time ago we had a proposal by Fort Miller, and they were going to use this Kubricky pit as an access point. Is there any conflict between your proposal and what they had been proposing? MR. PUCHNER-1 don't believe so. This is done with Kubricky's permission. So anything that would get in the way of anything else they had going on, they wouldn't allow us to do it. I'm not aware, I remember hearing about that, but I'm not aware of there being an issue. If you go to the site plan, it's tucked away over on the side. This is not, it's my understanding it's not taking the gravel pit out of commission in any way. It's still going to be operational. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's not a big footprint. MR. MAGOWAN-To answer that, John, all that Fort Miller wanted was for access to the gate, and that was it. This pit is large enough that, and it's tucked away there. And now it's going to look like a pine tree that blends right in. MR. TRAVER-At least from the mile into the swamp. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Then I guess we're ready for a motion then. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-UV-1-2017 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a telecommunications facility - 130' monopole with 9 antennas, associated equipment shelter and pad all within a fenced area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5 & 179-9 of the Zoning Ordinance Telecommunication Towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Use Variance required as telecommunications facilities are not allowed in a MDR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2017 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS, PCS, LLC.: Introduced by Mr. Ferone who moved its adoption, and The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal; Motion seconded by Mr. Hunsinger Duly this 14th day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mrs. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver 11 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. PUCHNER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next application we have is for Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 440 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH OVERHEAD STORAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 155 SQ. FT. SHED, SITE GRADING AND A RETAINING WALL. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SIDE SETBACKS AND SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 9-2014 GARAGE/ADDITION/SEPTIC; 74-2014 GARAGE; PZ 59-2016 GARAGE WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE 0.81 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-6-060 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a 440 square foot garage with overhead storage. The project includes removal of an existing 155 square foot shed, site grading and a retaining wall. In addition they're proposing to maintain a second 290 square foot canvas shed. The proposed garage has been re-located due to items on the site, or information from the applicant, and so this new garage actually I did correct this. The orientation of the garage doors is facing the western direction. I had incorrectly included in the Staff Notes that you received in the mail a different orientation, and the height on this one is 15 11. There is a boulder wall that is on both sides of the structure for erosion control, and the relief requested is for a second garage and for setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay, thank you, and we did distribute an updated Staff Note packet. So you should all have the latest version of that. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board. Thank you for your time. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and property owner Ron Mackowiak's with us. As you may recall, we worked through the yellow location shown on our working board last June through the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. We were unanimous for our approvals with both Boards as I recall, and subsequent to that there was an issue with the access and the right of way. Most of that is above my pay grade, but as were revised by Mr. O'Connor, the Mackowiak's attorney, to hold to what I have shown in red which was the drive as it existed in 2002. So if you look, that's our access to the property that interferes directly with what was approved, the yellow location. So here we are. We grouped and decided the best option would be to shift it 50 feet to the east and bury the back of it into the back slope, where the land comes up, so approximately the back half of the depth are not only 12 feet but excavated into the bank. A little bit of rock stabilization behind it. So it's essentially tucked in, and it's less visibility, not that the road gets much traffic as it is, as we are the last property. Workability wise it's probably easier for construction in this location from what we had because we're not working on that northerly slope where it drops down to Reardon Road. We're working into our hillside and it's a little bit more relief request for our side setbacks, due to the nature of the property tailing in. So we have a little bit more relief, and still proposing the relief from the road frontage requirement and then for what was determined to be the second garage, the canvas boat storage garage down near Hall Road. So we're no long requesting the height variance that we had before and I believe that's all. It's pretty straightforward and we're here to work it through again, and hopefully we can get the Board's support and begin construction sometime late spring or something like that so we're ready for the fall. I'd be happy to entertain any questions, folks. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-One of the things that I was wondering about was, just looking at the parcel history, there've been several different applications regarding garages. In addition to the one last year, there's apparently an application in 2014 for a garage, and then an earlier application in 2014 for a garage an addition and septic. Can you give us an overview of where we're, I mean, this would be the fourth garage application for this. What's the history on all that? 12 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. DOBIE-Okay. I'll give it my best shot and Ron can straighten me out. In 2014 1 believe Ron and the architect Curt Dybas had proposed a tear down of the old camp and rebuilding of an attached garage as I recall, and didn't get as far as they hoped to with that progress with the Boards. So they went back and abandoned that proposal, came in and did our septic up on the high ground, which is part of the reason there's a back slope behind our proposed garage. We ran a force main up there, brought the property into modern septic code and then came back in and did the re-build, variances to re-build in kind for the camp into a modern home. The work was completed then in 2015, and then we came back in. Ron moved in and said, well, we're pretty tight on space and it's down the hill. It's something where we can hopefully get more storage which we did that last June. We're abandoning that proposal and here we are again. So it's been good for business on our end. RON MACKOWIAK MR. MACKOWIAK-I'm getting very familiar with Planning Board meetings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, well, I did notice that and I thought it would be interesting to get that history, such as it is. MR. MACKOWIAK-If I can add one thing, sir. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. MACKOWIAK-The last time, where we proposed it in the yellow, we thought that that would have been a little more cost effective, and I in no way envisioned the issues we encountered with the right of way. We had to do a bunch of research to determine where the old right of way was. It's not very clear in any of the documents, and as a result of that, it's right where the red lines, where Lucas comes through. It curves. So what we'll be doing is making a natural curve to the right when you come up and into the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MACKOWIAK-Really didn't want to do that, though, because if you notice there are two septic tanks that I have to re-locate now and you can understand, from an economic standpoint, why I might not want to do that, but I have no other choice to build the garage, and we desperately need a garage. MR. HUNSINGER-So where are you going to put the septic tanks? MR. MACKOWIAK-Right where they're shown now. Right now they're right underneath the proposed garage, okay, so we're bringing them out. MR. HUNSINGER-So isn't there concerns about driving with the cars over them? MR. DOBIE-We put in traffic rated tanks at the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DOBIE-They have been getting driven on and parked on and have been good so far fortunately. MR. TRAVER-Wow. MR. MAGOWAN-Boy you have a lot of stuff. I mean, I shouldn't talk, but you should have started with a pole barn. Never come here with a garage. What's wrong with you? MR. DOBIE-Well, it's pretty tight up there. MR. MAGOWAN-Now you also own that lot behind where there's a shed and that. MR. MACKOWIAK-Yes. The shed was actually part of the proposed garage and the determination at that point is basically that was acceptable as is. I don't know the exact reasons why, but it was brought up, I think they talked about it in the Zoning Board. MR. MAGOWAN-So that dotted line that goes halfway to the yellow area, that is actually the deeded right of way? MR. MACKOWIAK-That is a parking area, yes. That it was how it was shown. 13 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. MAGOWAN-Parking area or deeded? I mean, I don't understand why, because the deed would be in the land before you to get to your property. Correct? MR. MACKOWIAK-The deeded is actually, it just basically each of the deeds on Glen Hall Drive give you right of way to your property through the properties that start all the way at Hall Drive. I happen to own the piece at Hall Drive. So I have to give a right of way to about five different camps there. It's not deeded. There is no defined right of way. There's just an existing road, and the right of way is what's currently being used. That's the way it was pretty defined. It has never been. There's no documentation. It would take an agreement among five or six deferent parties, and I can tell you that's almost, that's like herding cats. MR. SHAFER-So access to the garage will not be from the south? MR. MACKOWIAK-See where the property line is to the south? And you see the two red lines? That is a road that continues and it goes down the hill. So basically we'll be coming close to my neighbor's parking area, and we'll be just swinging to the right, and the garage doors would be, I guess that would be to the east, right? On the east, west side, I'm sorry. MR. SHAFER-The garage door is facing the lake? MR. MACKOWIAK-Yes, sir, but considering where they are now, compared to where they were before, you can't see hardly anything from that garage because of the height elevation. You push it back further away. So that actually improves the situation from a visual standpoint. MR. FERONE-I was in there today. It's an adventure driving in there. MR. MACKOWIAK-Try plowing it. MR. TRAVER-There is a, and I know we're not at site plan right now, but did you see the engineering comments on the application? MR. DOBIE-I did, sir. MR. TRAVER-There's one question that caught my eye about the retaining wall. I think it's comment number two. So you need not necessarily address that tonight, but it's certainly something that if you get approval through the ZBA and you come back to us for site plan we'll want to have some answers on, on the engineering. You're going to need a sign off on that in any case. So that just caught my eye. It looks like it should be something that you can clean up, but I wanted to point that out. Are there any, do Board members have any questions or concerns that we would want to include in a recommendation to the ZBA? Or do we feel that they're site plan in nature? Okay. I'm not hearing any. So, Mr. Secretary, if you want to put forward a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-8-2017 MACKOWIAK The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 440 sq. ft. garage with overhead storage. The project includes removal of 155 sq. ft. shed, site grading and a retaining wall. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for side setbacks and second garage. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2017 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK: Introduced by Mr. Ferone who moved its adoption, and The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal; 14 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) Motion seconded by Mr. Hunsinger Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mrs. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Off you go again. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much. MR. MACKOWIAK-Thank you. This is the last time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we move to the category of New Business, and we have before us an application from Steve Scoville. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 4-2017 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 5-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STEVE SCOVILLE AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LITTLE TREE PROPERTY II, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 294 QUAKER ROAD/EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS. LOT 1- 3.018 ACRES HEWITT'S, LOT 2 — 3.262 NEW SELF-STORAGE FACILITY WITH 5 SELF-STORAGE BLOCKS, AND LOT 3 — 4.930 ACRES EXISTING RESIDENCE. SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR SELF-STORAGE. WAIVER IS GRANTED FROM SKETCH PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 74-2010 SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND; PZ 2-2002 ZONING CHG.; SUB 3-1999 3 LOT SUB; 2009-126 DEMO OF BURNED BLDG. WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS LOT SIZE 11.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-66.1 SECTION CHAPTER 183 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-It's actually a two, there's two applications related to the same parcel. The first one is the subdivision. MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of an 11.2 acre parcel. Lot One is 3.018 acres to be owned by Hewitts, or retained by Hewitts. Lot Two is 3.262 acres. This is the new self-storage facility with five self-storage lots, and Lot Three would be 4.93 acres and that contains an existing residence. As part of this project there's also a site plan, a special use permit and a freshwater wetlands permit that shows up under the site plan, and then the applicant has requested a waiver from Sketch Plan. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering. I'm here with Steve Scoville the applicant. As you mentioned, this is kind of a multi part approval process. We're here for Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision relating to the commercial property, and the next step would then be site plan approval with a freshwater wetland permit as well and a special use permit for the use. If we're going to address the subdivision initially, obviously we've got a, I think it's an 11 acre parcel and we're proposing three lots total in the end. The Hewitts' property would become its own parcel. Currently it is attached to that oblong shaped parcel which wraps around some other areas and what we would be doing is creating one parcel for Hewitts, a second parcel which would be just behind or to the south of where the Hewitts property is, with access off Everts Avenue, and as Laura mentioned, that is the parcel that we are seeking to develop for self-storage, and then the third parcel is just south of that where an existing dwelling currently exists. That is also owned by the property owners and is rented, and that is also in a commercial zone. So it's really a dwelling that's been there for quite a few years and they basically just rent it out, and that is attached to the remainder of this weird shaped parcel because there are substantial unbuildable areas in the wetlands out towards the east, and so that's that large hook that wraps all the way back around another parcel. So in total we have three lots, each ranging three acres to almost five acres, and I'd be happy to answer any questions specific to the subdivision as we address that here in the initial step. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There's a, a part of this they're proposing a privacy fence. Can you talk about that a little bit, a six foot privacy fence? 15 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. RYAN-Absolutely. One of the requirements for the site plan is to have a buffering to residential uses, not necessarily residential zoning. Like I said, the entire parcel is Commercial Intensive zone, but because of that dwelling, we are obligated to have a buffer proposed and so what we've done with the site plan is provide 30 feet of natural vegetative buffer which is currently existing and continues to thrive and fill in those open spaces, and then also to provide a privacy screen fence, again 30 feet from the property line which happens to be over 100 feet from the dwelling unit, total distance. So it's quite a ways away from the actual structure itself. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FERONE-Is that going to be a six foot high fence? MR. RYAN-It would be a six foot high fence. We've contemplated a couple of options, you know, whether it be chain link with a screen in fill or a vinyl coated wire mesh with an in fill screening. We're looking at options for cost purposes, but it would be six foot in height. MR. FERONE-On the property line between Hewitts and where this driveway would go in for these storage areas, there was a line of kind of arborvitaes. MR. RYAN-Arborvitaes. MR. FERONE-I'm assuming or hoping that they would stay in place. MR. RYAN-They are going to stay, yes. Basically what we do is we adjusted the lot lines to ensure I think like 10 feet from that hedge to the edge of the road, and so that would allow those to remain, and keep that buffer. I presume that that was a buffer required probably for the Hewitts development when that occurred. So that will be maintained, as well as to the south of our entrance road, again, there's 30 feet of natural thick vegetation growing there and we want that to continue to grow as well. MR. TRAVER-I had a question, and I know it's maybe a little bit off the subject, but the self- storage, I mean, there seem to be so many of them around. I mean, did you do any kind of marketing analysis? Is there that much demand? I mean, they seem to be sort of popping up all over the place. STEVE SCOVILLE MR. SCOVILLE-Yes, there's several in the area and we've found through phone calls and site visits and things like that that most of them are full or nearly full. MR. TRAVER-Really? Wow. Okay. MR. RYAN-So supply and demand I think is really in effect here, and I'm hearing the same thing that there's the majority of facilities in this area, and it could be due to apartment complexes being densified in the area that 90% capacity is almost commonplace now. MR. TRAVER-That's impressive, wow. MR. FERONE-Are we going to ask questions on the projects now? MR. RYAN-if you want I can touch the site plan. I don't know how sequentially you want to handle things because they are kind of one in the same. MR. TRAVER-Well, we have to, I think, I mean, we're going to do them one after the other. I would say I think our practice in the past has been to do the subdivision and then do the site plan. MR. FERONE-I had questions. I didn't know when to ask them. MR. TRAVER-Sure, well right now we're dealing with, in effect, kind of the lot lines and SEAR, and then we'll get into the specifics of the storage facility. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I believe you could talk about site plan, only because you're going to complete SEAR. So you want to make sure that you cover everything prior to doing SEAR. So if there are questions about site plan, you could potentially ask that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 16 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MRS. MOORE-And you can do it in an order of subdivision, then site plan or you can ask them all at once. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we can kind of process the whole thing all at the same time and that would be okay. MRS. MOORE-As long as you complete them and the resolution's in order, yes. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. I stand corrected. So, yes, so in that case then we can certainly take a look at the self-storage as well. MR. RYAN-If you'd like I could do a real fast intro. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. RYAN-I know you've had the documents, and, you know, basically the 3.2 acre parcel we've created the parcel to kind of mimic the topography that's out there and also kind of fit within the parameters of design constraints for the site. Ultimately you're all well aware that area has wetlands nearby, and that area is kind of built up on a mound. This field has been there for quite a few years, growing naturally. Historically it had been mowed and that's kind of fallen back in terms of maintenance of that parcel. So it does have a few scattered trees that have been able to grow over the last few years. We've had DEC on site, as well as Army Corps. We've done a site sending with both as well as a design meeting with DEC. Because of the wetland adjacent area encroachment with any disturbance DEC does require a permit through their office, and so once we have an approval here we would be submitting to DEC for a wetland permit as well. That has a public comment period for 30 days before they issue that permit, and it has similar standards to what you would be reviewing here, and we did make substantial project changes as a result of our correspondence with them. We've reduced the building and some of their concern areas with buffering, wetland, adjacent areas, we've kind of squeezed our development down to get farther away from those sensitive spots. So that's all been incorporated into this design. We do have five buildings proposed. Again, an entrance road a couple of hundred feet long off of Everts Avenue to get out into the back area that is developable, and we provide for onsite lighting, landscaping, stormwater mitigation. I guess if there's any specific questions related to the storage facility I'd be happy to answer them. Our paperwork I think was thorough so if there's anything related to that, we'll address those as well. MS. WHITE-These are not high. So will they be visible from Everts Avenue? MR. RYAN-I don't think so. I mean, I've provided some pictures. I know they're difficult to really get a perspective of where you're, most of the vegetation is really thick and we're talking being like 200 feet from Everts to the first building. So that's quite a distance over that. The distance as well as the vegetation is a good screen. The building, I know I've provided a diagram of the buildings and noted that they would be eight foot four inches to the top. There are a couple of areas that may be nine foot four based on some more design parameters they're looking at. So nine feet four inches would be the maximum height, you know, the height of a pickup truck plus a couple of feet. Honestly it would probably be very limited visibility. MS. WHITE-So the main change that you're going to see, you know, most people are going to see, is the entryway. MR. RYAN-The entranceway, yes, and that is provided for a 24 foot aisle, driving lane. We have a significant hedge on the north side and 30 feet of natural vegetation on the south side. So other than looking straight up that driving lane, it's very well screened. MR. TRAVER-And the lighting, is that going to be automatic demand type lighting? MR. RYAN-It would be a timer scenario where we would put the lights on a timer. We've basically provided all down lit cut off fixtures so that the influence is directly below the fixtures. I did provide a photometric plan to kind of give you a guide of where that .1 foot candle where the lights are to dissipate to nothing, and I think we're quite a distance from any visible areas that would be for glare or anything like that. MR. FERONE-With the residence so nearby, what are the hours of operation going to be? MR. RYAN-We have tentative plans for a 24/7 facility because it would be on an automatic gate access point. So that would be the game plan. We have the one residence that is I think one or two residences that are probably close, one being the rental, the other I'm not quite sure of 17 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) the circumstances. I think the one farthest to the south is going to be far enough because there's, again, more vegetation and there's some changes in topography as well as the direction of the lighting isn't necessarily the direction of that southernmost property, and again, having 200 feet of separation I think from the lighting or anything that would be to the nearest dwelling. I think that would be adequate to really minimize any visual impact that lighting would have. In terms of overall, you know, the Quaker Road corridor is intensely lit, and I don't think there is any darkness within, you know, a half mile of Quaker Road in any direction. So I don't think that this, you know, being a commercial Intensive zoned parcel, I think it fits well with transitioning out of that super lit corridor to, you know, starting to diminish lighting and intensity of development beyond that. So I think this is a suitable kind of transition type use for this parcel. MR. FERONE-My other concern was the signage where you've got a pole with a large sign on top and I don't know, is there any consideration to more ground level signage, as opposed to something that's way up in the air? MR. RYAN-There are two slight changes from what was proposed that we just talked about tonight. Number One the sign was 10 by 4. We're looking at more of an 8 by 5 size. So it will be a little bit, it won't be so long, and also the height has been reduced to 15 feet instead of the 20 feet. So we've made some minor changes from that perspective. I guess the concern would be, at ground level, that there would be so much screening on both sides of that entrance, and being 15 feet off the property line, which is another 15 feet from the road edge, that sign would be practically useless once you're, you know, as you're driving by, and so to allow for some availability to have some presence visually, we thought that the pole mounted sign would be best suited, but they did make some changes to bring it down to 15 feet and make it an eight by five, and again being that it's going to be, let's say 25 to 30 feet from the edge of road, I think still the visibility from the south would be very limited because of the vegetation there and to the north, you know, you've got that large hedge. You should be able to see it to some degree from Everts but not much more than that. MR. FERONE-Any opportunity to work something out with maybe Hewitts on the corner? I know what you're trying to achieve. You're trying to get the attention of people on Quaker Road to know that there's this facility in the area. MR. RYAN-Exactly. Yes. The sign requirements are strict. You're obviously aware of that. Hewitts has maxed out its signage for that parcel as it stands. I did talk to Laura briefly about the off premises sign options. We haven't looked into that enough to know what that provides, but I did look at the Hewitts' property in itself and it is maxed out for building and independent signage. So it would probably require a variance to achieve that. MR. MAGOWAN-But now days everybody has a GPS in the car and usually, or in the phone or anything else. You're going to have an address, and if they want to find the closest storage facility to them, you know, the address is going to be right there. So, you know, being right out on Quaker Road and trying to, you know, people are going to, I worked off of Everts Avenue in the building behind Minogue's. and it wasn't even Everts Avenue, but they always said, where is it. It's right around the corner from the liquor store, and then they always found it. MR. FERONE-Again, even at 15 feet, I just thought the signage, I know it's a mixed use area, but it just kind of seems out of place that you've got a pole mounted sign there. MR. RYAN-I mean, if the intention of the Board was to make a change, you know, they would consider it. I kind of explained the reasoning behind, the methodology of what was proposed. If you had a majority consensus that felt that something else was better, I think they're open to suggestions. MR. FERONE-That's just my thoughts. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, some of the other businesses across the street, you have the, you know, the accounting firm, you have the chiropractors. You've got Cottrell. I mean, they're all, you know, like I said, you say you're on Everts Avenue, but you're not looking at cars coming off the highway. Do you know what I'm saying? So if you can get it down a little lower with nice shrubbery. Like I said, everybody's going to find it. Everybody knows where Everts Avenue is. MR. TRAVER-Well, the original proposal was 20, right? And as it stands now it's at 15? MR. RYAN-15. Yes, eight by five and fifteen foot height, and I'm not entirely sure that would be above those, that arborvitae hedge that's out there. I've got to believe that's 20 feet tall right 18 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) now, and again, the forest to the south. That vegetation is fairly tall and significant. So I'm not sure, other than being out of place for the character of what you see typically in Queensbury, because there's a lot of ground signage, and then of course there's a lot of building signs that's massive as well. I think this would be pretty well screened overall, but it is a nice feature to have a little bit more visibility. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think I'd rather keep the arborvitae. Okay. Any other questions before we go to the public hearing? Okay. I'm not hearing any. Then are there folks here this evening that would like to address this application? Yes, sir. We do have somebody that would like to speak on your application. So if you would give up the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MACLANE HADDEN My name is Maclane Hadden. I'm the owner of Mack the Knife on Quaker Road. My property falls on the back line of it. I guess I'm here to just kind of be curious of borderline fence around the property, to see that we're secure traffic wise, because 224 buildings he's going to be offering in there which is going to increase the traffic. We've dealt with theft in the past, and I'm kind of concerned with the right of way through my property in there, that it'll be secured and closed in so I don't have to deal with the elements there. That's probably my biggest concern. Property for what he's proposing doesn't seem to be a problem. I think for location and how it's going to work in there, I don't think it's a bad idea. Theft is huge because there seems to be a backyard way for people to go through there and I hope not to have to deal with that. So my biggest concern is probably for security around it, lighting, and the 24/7 1 guess I'm not really big on, but I guess maybe that's the way they operate, but that leaves my building wide open around the clock for people that want to hop over the fence. So that's just the issue I was concerned about. MR. TRAVER-In addition to a fence, when you speak about security, in addition to a fence, what would you have in mind? MR. HADDEN-Well, I guess he talked about having a six foot, some type of fence. MR. TRAVER-A privacy fence. MR. HADDEN-If they're going to jump over the fence or break the fence, they're going to do it, but at least it's secured in. The access going in, the lighting, you know, the 24/7 if it was gated. I was curious about security, you know, we've had things taken in the past. We've had people go through the back field there to help themselves and my concern was if people have got some type of business they're keeping their container, they want to drive to the structure, they want to come through my backyard, hop the fence and go and take care of their business and leave, I don't see it out of, you know, things like that happen. So who knows what they put in their container or who stashes what in there, but the thing is security wise, and if I hadn't dealt with it in the past and had a lot of things taken out of my backyard and had people taking access in there, I wouldn't be complaining, but it's happened before and I'd hate to see it happen now. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. HADDEN-His idea and his structure, I think it's great, but I don't want to have to take the impact of the traffic going through our backyard there. So that's my biggest concern. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I think what they're proposing is a key card access with like an automatic gate. So, you know, to your point about people, if they want to jump the fence, I don't know how you'd. MR. HADDEN-Yes, it's a deterrent, no doubt about it, you know, if they're bound and determined, they'll find a way in, but the traffic wise, I'd find people that were coming through my back way, parking and not knowing why they're there and whatever they were doing in the backyard and I just don't want that to be convenient access for, if they don't want to go to use the key card and they want to go in and conduct some business, then if there's any type of surveillance or proper lighting or something to deter that, I'm all about it. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like the only thing they have here is a split rail fence along, Mack's up there and this corner, but your lot's a little bit deeper than the two adjacent ones there. So you have, it looks like. 19 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing IBoard IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. HADDEN-Yes, and the split rail fence. MR. MAGOWAN-It doesn't go all the way down. MR. HADDEN-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-It stops before that. MR. RYAN-I can answer the question when we're set. MR. HUNSINGER-I was having a hard time finding where the fence went, too. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, sir. So is there anyone else that wanted to speak on this application? I didn't see any hands earlier. Are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There's no public comment for the subdivision. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. RYAN-I'll address that quickly. We are proposing a security fence along the entire north boundary, which divides this parcel from the parcels to the north. Laura, could you just zoom in on the upper, yes, right in there near that north, where your cursor is. Okay. So that whole north boundary has a six foot fence on it, okay. That goes all the way to the corner pin in the upper right hand corner there. So that would obviously deter any access from that parcel. MR. MAGOWAN-Laura, shift it this way. The other way. That little jog, right where your cursor is. MR. RYAN-That would be in water. You would be in water if you went that way. That shading just to the right of our cursor is standing water for that wetland. So that's highly vegetated. That corner pin right there is the transition between woods and forest and wetland to open field, which is to the left. So we're fencing that entire open area with a six foot fence, and then from that point down to the south, obviously if you read the paperwork, DEC is requiring a split rail fence only to protect access to the wetlands, and they want to promote natural habitat over there. So they're requiring that split rail fence specifically for that purpose, and then again we'll have fencing along the whole western boundary, as well as the access being to prohibit access without a key card. So the site will be fairly secure. It'll be lit. So that'll be a deterrent as well, and we are, the applicant is proposing a security system for this entire parcel, with cameras. So if there isn't, that can't be any less of a deterrent tan what it is now, which is accessible, vacant land in the dark with roadways, and if it's a problem, it's more likely to be a problem as a vacant parcel than what we're proposing. MR. TRAVER-So you are going to have video surveillance? MR. RYAN-Yes, there will be. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So theoretically if there was some untoward activity you became aware of, you could go back and look. MR. RYAN-You could review the recordings, yes. MR. SHAFER-So your chain link fence across the north, does that totally separate your property from the property of Mack the Knife? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thanks for the explanation. I was looking at the fence before and I was trying to figure it out, where it stopped and when it connected. MR. RYAN-You end up in the water. So obviously a vehicle couldn't do that. Stopping humans, I mean, there's trails all over through there, behind the dollar store and cutting through the woods, but I mean, like I said, if it's happening, it's happening now if it's happening. MR. HUNSINGER-ii was just amazed how open the property was. MR. RYAN-When you get in the back there, yes. 20 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because, I mean you don't really notice the project. MR. RYAN-You wouldn't, and it's fairly large. I mean, it's three and a half acres of field there, and it's pretty significant. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, let's see, the next step would be SEAR. MRS. MOORE-Actually, are you closing your public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes, so if we're going to move into SEAR, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-The applicant did provide a Long Environmental Assessment, and we do have a draft motion. I would note there's one minor correction to the draft motion. It does say declaration for subdivision final stage. It should say preliminary stage. So if you would just note that change for the record, and then ask if members have the Board have environmental concerns that would impact on the issue of SEAR? I'm not hearing any. Okay. So we can go ahead and have a motion, Mr. Secretary. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. PRELIM. SUBD. STEVE SCOVILLE The applicant proposes to subdivide 11.2 acre parcel into 3 lots. Lot 1 — 3.018 acres Hewitt's, Lot 2 — 3.262 new self-storage facility with 5 self-storage blocks, and Lot 3 — 4.930 acres existing residence. Site Plan/Special Use Permit is required for self-storage Waiver is requested from sketch plan. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land 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 Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 4-2017 STEVE SCOVILLE, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Then next we can move into the resolution for Preliminary Stage. This is for the subdivision only so far. Are there any concerns regarding Preliminary Stage? I'm not hearing any. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB. #4-2017 STEVE SCOVILLE 21 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide 11.2 acre parcel into 3 lots. Lot 1 — 3.018 acres Hewitt's, Lot 2 — 3.262 new self-storage facility with 5 self-storage blocks, and Lot 3 — 4.930 acres existing residence. Site Plan/Special Use Permit is required for self-storage Waiver is requested from sketch plan. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/14/2017; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 4-2017 STEVE SCOVILLE, Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption. Granting a waiver from Sketch Plan. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-As part of that motion, you also have, the applicant is requesting a waiver from Sketch. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Waiver from the Sketch Plan Stage. MR. TRAVER-Waiver from Sketch Plan. MRS. MOORE-So you may include that in your motion that you're granting, if you're granting a waiver from Sketch. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FERONE-Amended resolution to include waivers from Sketch Plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Second it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have an amended motion that's been made and seconded. Any other questions, comments, concerns on Preliminary Stage? Not hearing any, so, Laura, we can have the vote. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next step in Subdivision is Final Stage, and we have a draft motion. I'd note there's also a draft waiver in this motion. MR. FERONE-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 5-2017 STEVE SCOVILLE A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide 11.2 acre parcel into 3 lots. Lot 1 — 3.018 acres Hewitt's, Lot 2 — 3.262 new self-storage facility with 5 self-storage blocks, and Lot 3 — 4.930 acres existing residence. Site Plan/Special Use Permit is required for self-storage Waiver is requested from sketch plan. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 22 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/14/2017; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 5-2017 STEVE SCOVILLE, Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requestsrg anted: landscaping & buffer; Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and we've had quite a bit of discussion. We'll move on to the next application, which is the same applicant, for Site Plan 11-2017, Special Use Permit 2-2017 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2017. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2017 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STEVE SCOVILLE AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LITTLE TREE PROPERTIES II, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE SELF- STORAGE BLOCKS — 1) 30' X 210', 2) 30' X 210', 3) 25' X 210', 4) 25' X 200' AND 5) 180' X 20' — TOTAL UNITS 224 +/-. PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE OF 2.5 ACRES, SITE WORK AND NEW ACCESS FROM EVERTS AVENUE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 & 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SELF-STORAGE UNITS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 4-2017 & SUB 5-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2017 SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS LOT SIZE 3.262 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-66.1 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-We have reviewed this, I think, fairly extensively, but we do have the Special Use Permit criteria in addition to the structures themselves. Laura, do you want to review the Special Use Permit for that? MRS. MOORE-So the five self-storage building, one building is 30 by 210. The second building is 30 by 210. The third building is 25 by 210. The fourth building is 25 by 200. The fifth building is 180 by 20. I've noted that it's 224, and I would say plus or minus, depending on how that works out for the units that they're installing, and then I have, you already understand that the signage is changing, is going to be 15 feet in height and it still is at 40 square feet, and the applicant has been working with the Army Corps and DEC in reference to the wetlands, and that information is available on the site plan for their requirements. Under traffic they talk about eight designated spaces, and there's 37 overflow parking spaces that are shown in the grass area for a total of 45 spaces, and then under the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, the applicant proposes work within 100 feet of the wetland, and we've identified that through the site plan. Under Special Use Permit the applicant has outlined information and its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with the area, access and circulation on the site to and from, the infrastructure and services. There's stormwater swales versus, and underground utility to be installed. We talked about environmental natural features and the long term effects, you know, the self-storage operation provides an additional commercial use in the area, and under specific criteria fencing, we've discussed the fencing at length. So we know where the fencing location is. We know what the fencing height is. That's all I have. 23 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. So now we're considering your, the other components to your application. One quick question I had, it has to do with the engineering comments. Item Number Three, there is a comment about the DEC comments on the wetlands and some correspondence and there were some requests or modifications to the plans, the question was were those modifications included in the latest plan? MR. RYAN-Yes. That meeting took place, I want to say just a couple of days before the submission deadline. MR. TRAVER-January 12th is the correspondence. MR. RYAN-January 12th MR. TRAVER-Was the correspondence. MR. RYAN-Yes, and on the 15th we submitted. So ultimately we were able to get the last couple of comments that DEC had concerns about. So the most recent correspondence I've had with them regarding the e-mail is they can't really comment officially until they have an application, which, you know, happens after this step, was that they were satisfied with all the design changes and in particular the protective fence, the split rail fence. One of the other requirements was that the stormwater pond be a wetland pond design, which we have incorporated, and the last piece I believe was removal of any overflow parking in that lower right corner. We originally had some there. Obviously we didn't see that plan that Laura had, and that was the changes that kind of came out of that last correspondence, and that was to provide a maximum buffer in that, basically in that southeast corner, because that did project closest to that wetland, and so they want that mitigated, and so we did address that as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Okay, and the Special Use Permit, again, Laura, we're confronted with the duration. MRS. MOORE-The Board can consider duration. You do not have to. It's not a requirement. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think in this case if we grant one, it kind of makes sense to make it permanent. MRS. MOORE-Permanent. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I just noted that because I know that. MR. DEEB-You're not going to tear them down. MR. TRAVER-All right. So is there anything that you want to add regarding this aspect of your application? MR. RYAN-No. I think in regards to the Freshwater Wetland Permit., we've done a lot of work with both agencies involved and they seem satisfied with a lot of the project changes we've made. Again, we've really shrunk down the size and footprint of the original design, and so that made them considerably favorable for the project. So in addressing that, and in terms of addressing the Special Use Permit, I've already mentioned I feel this is a great transition use between heading towards the residences to the south, which are obviously quite a distance away, but still, being that it is zoned intense commercial, this is kind of a passive use of a site like this, and I think that's well suited for this location. In regards to site plan, you know, being that we are compliant with the regulations, we were able to meet all of the design standards. I feel that this project kind of came together. While we originally wanted a bigger scoped project, what we have is acceptable to the applicant and I think that it's well suited, again, for this particular area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I'd like to re-address the sign, if we could, and solidify that up. MR. RYAN-Yes, absolutely. MR. DEEB-All the signs around are freestanding nice wooden signs. I'd like to see your sign being characteristic with the rest of the signs, rather than a pole sign. I think that would make it look a lot nicer. MR. TRAVER-You mean like a monument sign? 24 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing IBoard IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. DEEB-Yes, well, you look around, they all have their big board signs. MS. WHITE-Like the CPA sign. MR. DEEB-Yes. Like the CPA, instead of having a pole. I agree with George on that. I'd like to see it fit in with the characteristics of the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. RYAN-Is there a way you could condition that, if it's an oversight, I don't know, by Staff or if we don't have anything specific to detail here? MR. TRAVER-As far as design, we know that we have Code. I think we're going to be asked to make it something specific. So do you have a specific height in mind, a height limit? It's at 15 feet now. MR. HUNSINGER-You gave us a sample. MR. RYAN-You have a rendering of the sign that was originally proposed which, again, was 10 by 4 at 20 feet, and we're proposing 8 by 5 at 15 feet tonight. If, you know, the colors, I'm assuming some of that's discretionary. If you want more neutral palette or something, you know, things like that that might fit more with its background, with the trees and the vegetation in the area, I think they're open to that type of suggestion. If you have something more specific than that, we'd be happy to discuss that. MR. DEEB-I'm not trying to be that specific, just to make it fit in with the characteristics of the neighborhood, so it blends in. I don't know, our Code is, if you go, you said 10 by 5. MR. RYAN-It's 40 square feet, I believe, is the max. MR. DEEB-And you're going eight by five? MR. RYAN-We're going eight by five, yes, 40 square feet. MR. DEEB-Thanks, and you're going to go up 15. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the top of the sign would be at 15. MR. RYAN-So the bottom of the sign would be the 10 feet. MR. DEEB-And I don't have a problem with that as long as it fits into the neighborhood, but instead of using a pole. MR. TRAVER-So you're not suggesting a change to height. You're suggesting a change in the support structure. Okay. MR. RYAN-Just the style. I mean, obviously, it seems like what's, you know, we've got a pole with a rectangle on it, and obviously we can provide two poles with a rectangle, but it provides some vegetation and, you know, landscaping. Again, to reduce that 10 foot height down to visibility of, you know, four feet because we have shrubs there, you know. MR. TRAVER-I'd rather have them have shrubs than to have to clean the shrubs out so their smaller sign is going to be seen. MR. RYAN-I think being that the bottom of the sign's at 10 feet with landscaping, we could really reduce any impact of any kind of pole structure that supports it. MR. DEEB-That's fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. RYAN-We have landscaping, but we'll ensure that it maybe covers, you know, the lower half of the poles, or the supporting structure. Will that suffice? MR. TRAVER-Yes. How do you feel about that? Okay. All right. So we can add that to the motion, yes, some landscaping. 25 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. RYAN-No problem. MR. TRAVER-That sounds like a good suggestion and people seem to be liking that. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the balance of the engineering comments? MR. RYAN-I've reviewed them in depth several times. I mean, I know there's a few of them here. I see two or three that require some engineering like real engineering to mitigate some computations. The rest is some clean up stuff relating to detailing and notes. We do have, you know, I've looked at every one of these, and there's nothing here that would require me to change the project substantially. The biggest issue being control the volume of runoff and, you know, we do have the ability to infiltrate on the southern half of the site and so we'll just add some more infiltration in that area to mitigate those questions. So I don't see any concerns here with any of these comments that would require me to change the project, more than maybe a couple of underground structures or, you know, an infiltration system or something. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I tend to agree with that, but I wanted to hear your comments about it. I mean, it's a long list. They're kind of minor. MR. RYAN-It is. Well, everybody reviews projects differently. There's some questions here that are meaningless to the overall results of the calculations. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. RYAN-And to me, after 22 years you don't want to go to that level of detail when you know it's not necessary, but I'm happy to address every comment and add it and, you know, whatever I have to do to manage that I will do. Again, I read through it, I see a lot of minor points that have to be cleaned up, but I don't see anything that would require the project to change in any way. Other than, again, some infiltration system, you know, volume is the issue that they're basically, if I wanted to point out anything major it would be the volume concern in terms of pre versus post development. Because we have shallow water table we're restricted. Most of Queensbury's beautiful sand with unlimited infiltration capacity. This one's a little more complex than that. So again, I don't see anything there that would be a problem. MR. FERONE-And the other question I had was, even though this is somewhat segregated if you would, we talked about the fencing. What are the colors of the units going to be/ MR. RYAN-I think we're going with green and cream, so dark green with maybe a cream trim, and there might be a picture in there. I just don't know if it's color. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there is. The overhead doors were green. It looked like gray in this picture. MR. RYAN-It's gray or cream. So it would be dark green predominantly I guess I would say, yes. There's a lot of information, unfortunately. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, you can open the public hearing also, as part of this site plan. MR. TRAVER-For the site plan, yes. Thank you. There is a public hearing on this application as well as the prior one. So we'll re-open the public hearing on Site Plan 11-2017. Are there those that wish to comment further on this application? Do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No, there's no written comments for the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Seeing none, hearing none we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any further questions or suggestions for amendments to the resolution? We have one, I believe, regarding the sign structure. So I guess we can go ahead and entertain a motion. MR. FERONE-Okay. I'll give this a shot. 26 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 11-2017 SUP #2-2017 FWW 1-2017 STEVE SCOVILLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for construction of five self- storage blocks — 1)30' x 210', 2)30 x 210', 3)25'x 210', 4) 25' x 200' and 5) 180' x 20' — total units 224+/-. Project includes disturbance of 2.5 acres, site work and new access from Everts Avenue. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, self-storage units 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 2/14/2017, and continued the public hearing to 2/14/2017, 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 2/14/2017; 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 11-2017, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2017 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2017 STEVE SCOVILLE; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. The Special Use Permit will be a permanent permit, no expiration. 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) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) 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. g) 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; 27 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) 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. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 1) The 15 foot pole sign with a signage of eight by five feet, that the signage will be in a landscaped box with landscaping around the bottom of the pole. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, you are all set. MR. SCOVILLE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-You are very welcome. MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next and last item on our agenda for this evening is Primelink Incorporated, Site Plan 8-2017. SITE PLAN NO 8-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED PRIMELINK, INC. OWNER(S) T & M JACOBS PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 643 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LEASE 1,843 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR SPACE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING 27,488 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 31,182 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA). PROJECT IS INTENDED FOR A NEW TENANT — NO CHANGES TO INTERIOR, BUILDING EXTERIOR OR SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ADDING A TENANT TO AN EXISTING BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-2003 FENCE/LANDSCAPING; SP 42-2005 WAREHOUSE; AV 64-2006 STORAGE BLDG. WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2017 LOT SIZE 5.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040 STEVE SOUTHWICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to lease a portion of an existing building. The lease is 1,843 square feet. It's first floor interior space. The existing building has a 27,488 square foot footprint. The floor area of the entire building is 31,182. The project is intended for a new tenant, no changes to the interior of the building or the exterior or the site. The applicant is utilizing office space as well as a garage space. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SOUTHWICK-Good evening. My name is Steve Southwick. I'm responsible for operations for Primelink in the Glens Falls area. We're a fiber optic business data and voice company. We've been in the area for quite a while and we just want to try to establish a little better presence of our own use in your community. Currently we're off of Exit 18 and we'd like to move closer into Town and Mr. Jacobs' facility will accommodate our needs very effectively. I just want to reiterate that we're not changing the site at all. We're not changing anything inside. All we're going to do is occupy some space within the existing building. If I could refer you to the letter that's with the application from our president, it actually references a little bit more specifically our intentions, but I'm here to answer any questions that you may have about our operation and our potential future here and how we'd like to be more a part of the community and that this will help us do that because it gives us somewhat of a storefront. MR. TRAVER-Sure, yes, and I see your name's going to be on the canopy. MR. SOUTHWICK-Yes, correct. 28 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. TRAVER-No changes to interior building, exterior, or site. So we're not looking at any changes in any kind, although this is a SEQR Unlisted. So we do need to do SEQR on this. MRS. MOORE-It's better to err in completing the SEQR form than to not do it at all. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry? MRS. MOORE-It's better to complete the SEQR form than to not do it at all. If you look through the SEQR and determine which ones are considered Type II, this is one of those areas where. MR. TRAVER-Kind of a gray area. MRS. MOORE-I would suggest that you just complete SEQR as part of the process. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Very good. That should be easy to respond to that question. MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of customers, do you have to have fiber optic cable like at your house in order to be a customer? MR. SOUTHWICK-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So how much of the area has that? MR. SOUTHWICK-Just a little history about the company. We started about 20 years ago in Plattsburgh. We established a fiber optic network between Montreal and Albany on the railroad right of way, and also over those 20 years we've been jumping off the tracks at different locations strategically. Glens Falls really has a similar demographic to Plattsburgh in size and some of the businesses, and that's why we targeted this area. So we came off the tracks on West River Road in the Town of Moreau and we built into Fort Edward, Hudson Falls, and then into Glens Falls. In fact, we provide your offices with a backup fiber optic connection here at the Town of Queensbury. We actually are across Exit 18 through your conduit that you put in years ago on the extension of Broad Street out towards Exit 18. So we do have a connection. It's just that we want to have more of a presence. I keep saying that but it's very important to us, customer service wise and business brick and mortar wise. MR. FERONE-For a business, as he pointed out, he provides a diverse route down to Albany which is the hub out if you're making any kind of communications and their route, coming down the railroad tracks, is completely diverse than from what everybody else provides. MR. SOUTHWICK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. SOUTHWICK-So, you know, this really gives us a good opportunity and we want to make it work. Another thing we do, too, is we help sponsor The Thunder, and we're very proud of that as well. I'm also on the Town Board in our local community in Champlain, so I know what you guys have to do. I admire what you do on the Planning Board. I was on it for one year and I didn't do very well. Especially with the APA. I don't know how you do it. I absolutely don't. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, fortunately a lot of the Town is not in the APA. MR. SOUTHWICK-It isn't? Okay. So you get a break. MR. TRAVER-We have kind of a hybrid situation where some of us are outside the blue line. MR. FERONE-And another question was about their services, but I think you're only commercial. You don't provide residential service. MR. SOUTHWICK-You know what, we tried it. We tried it in Plattsburgh but it's just not economically feasible. The fiber itself is inexpensive, but the optical equipment on the end of the fiber is way expensive. So our return on investment is very difficult, and it's a very competitive business. You have a lot of competition in this area and we're not afraid of it. Verizon, Time Warner, Tech Valley, bring them on, but it's residential it's really difficult, and it's like the old days with long distance. As soon as somebody finds something else that's 10 cents cheaper, they're calling you up and saying I'm out of here. So it's really hard to keep people, especially on the residential side. We'll get there. We're just not there yet. MR. TRAVER-The return on investment isn't there yet. 29 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) MR. SOUTHWICK-It's very difficult. It's over three years, and most people don't want to commit to three years on a residential contract. So I appreciate the questions. I have that question all the time, when can you come to our community. I love competing with Time Warner. MR. MAGOWAN-It's going to happen. It's just a matter of time, and you'll find something that can do it efficiently for a better price. It's just a matter of time. Someone's going to figure it out. MR. SOUTHWICK-Yes. The economics are going to turn in our favor. You're exactly right, because it's an amazing product. It really is. Okay. I'm done. Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-1 have that where I work. MR. SOUTHWICK-Where you work? And where do you work? MR. HUNSINGER-In the Traveler's building. MR. SOUTHWICK-Okay. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-There's tons of fiber. MR. SOUTHWICK-Yes, I had established a very good relationship with the Traveler's building. In fact we even have a wireless connection on top where we can shoot fixed wireless off of the top of the Traveler's building. So we're getting there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So. MR. HUNSINGER-Back to the project. MR. TRAVER-Yes, back to the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Well there's no changes to the building, no changes to the site. I mean, all they're doing is putting a sign up. MR. DEEB-It's really a no-brainer. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So to that point, we do have a SEQR resolution we need to process in here, and for good reason. So let's go ahead and do that. MRS. MOORE-Prior to doing that you should open your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will open the public hearing on this project. I'm not seeing anyone in the audience. Is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-And there's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We'll move on to the SEQR resolution. I think, as Chris pointed out, there doesn't seem to be many environmental concerns to say the least, but for the record we will do a SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SITE PLAN 8-2017 PRIMELINK, INC. The applicant proposes to lease 1,843 sq. ft. first floor interior space of an existing building 27,488 sq. ft. (footprint), 31,182 sq. ft. (floor area). Project is intended for a new tenant — no changes to interior, building exterior or site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, adding a tenant to an existing building 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; 30 (QueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) 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 8-2016 PRIMELINK, INC., Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. 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. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and with that we can move on to the Site Plan resolution. MR. FERONE-There were no waivers. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there were waivers. MR. FERONE-There were? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well it's requested or left blank. MR. TRAVER-We are ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 8-2017 PRIMELINK, INC. 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 lease 1,843 sq. ft. first floor interior space of an existing building 27,488 sq. ft. (footprint), 31,182 sq. ft. (floor area). Project is intended for a new tenant — no changes to interior, building exterior or site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, adding a tenant to an existing building 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 2/14/2017 and continued the public hearing to 2/14/2017, 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 2/14/2017; 31 (OueensIbuiry l::'Ilanniing Il3oaird IMeefiing 02/14/2017) 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 8-2017 PRIMELINK, INC., Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: G. site lighting, stormwater, topography, landscaping, soil logs, construction, demolition disposal and snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. SOUTHWICK-Thank you so much. Thank you all for your time. MR. TRAVER-All right. Is there any other business before the Board this evening before we adjourn? MRS. MOORE-Just a note that there's the New York Planning Federation conference on March 26th through March 28th. I know that there's two on this Board that wish to attend. Please let me know. I can send out an e-mail notice but it's in Saratoga again. MR. HUNSINGER-At the Hilton this year. MRS. MOORE-Yes, the Saratoga Hilton. MR. TRAVER-That's a multi-day. MRS. MOORE-It's a multi-day. You can do just Monday, which I would suggest you do Monday. MR. DEEB-That's what I did last year. The Hilton is at? MRS. MOORE-It's near the City Center. So it's on the other side of the City Center. MR. DEEB-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I'm pretty sure that's the Saratoga Hilton. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that, Laura, and you did send an e-mail out on that, or you're going to? MRS. MOORE-I will. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. With that, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2017, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 14th day of February, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Thanks, everybody. Have a good rest of your evening. On motion meeting was adjourned. 32 (QueensIbury II::31anniing I:3oaird Meefing 02/14/2017) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, STEPHEN TRAVER 33