Loading...
07-18-2017 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc'lcair�'J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2017 INDEX Site Plan PZ 145-2017 Jason Sankey 1. SIX MONTH EXTENSION Tax Map No. 300.-1-40.2 Site Plan PZ 182-2016 Tim Barber 1. SIX MONTH EXTENSION Tax Map No. 300.-1-40.3 & 300.-1-40.2 Subdivision Mod. PZ 183-2016 Tim Barber 1. SIX MONTH EXTENSION Tax Map No. 300.-1-40.3 & 300.-1-40.2 Site Plan No. 52-2017 David & Morgan Stanhope 2. Freshwater Wetlands 4-2017 Tax Map No. 296.15-1-1 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 49-2017 Garden World Associates, LLC 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-50 Site Plan No. 45-2017 Aviation Hospitality, LLC 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-96.1, 302.5-1-93.1 Site Plan No. 47-2017 Ambrosia Diner 25. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-97 Site Plan No. 48-2017 Aviation Mall 27. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.11, 302.5-1-93.1 Subdivision No. 13-2017 Michael & Karen LaBlanc 31. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.6-1-67 Site Plan Modification No. 51-2017 North Country Imports, Inc. 34. Tax Map No. 303.10-1-12 Site Plan No. 50-2017 Michael J. Badera 40. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir."/ II::II: irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J 7/118/2x: 17) JULY 18, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening everyone. We'll call the first meeting of July of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to order. This is also the 14th meeting we've had so far this year. There should be some agendas on the table at the back of the room. Those of you, like me, please turn the ringers off your cellphones before we forget and embarrass ourselves. We have a few administrative items to begin with before we get to our regular agenda. The first being approval of minutes from the May meetings, the May 2nd and May 16th meeting, and May 18th Does anyone have any concerns with the minutes of those meetings? If not, we'll ask Mr. Secretary for a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 2, 2017 May 16, 2017 May 18, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2017, MAY 16, 2017 & MAY 18, 2017, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have three Administrative Items. Requests for Extensions. The first one being Site Plan PZ 145-2016 for Jason Sankey. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN PZ 145-2016 JASON SANKEY— REQUEST FOR 6 MONTH EXTENSION SITE PLAN PZ 182-2016 TIM BARBER— REQUEST FOR 6 MONTH EXTENSION SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION PZ 183-2016 TIM BARBER — REQUEST FOR 6 MONTH EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have additional information, background on this? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Actually all three of these applications are before the Town Engineer and the applicant and the engineer are working on resolving the items that need to be resolved in reference to stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Engineering comments. Okay. Interesting. That's why that condition is always in there. Right? All right. And that's the case with all three of the extensions. MRS. MOORE-Yes, they're all related. It's a neighboring property. �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir/ II::II: irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Very good, and then we have, I guess, three motions. Does anyone have any other questions on those requests or any issues with any of the requests for six month extensions? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we can move those, I guess, one at a time. RESOLUTION GRANTING SIX MONTH EXT. PZ 145-2016 JASON SANKEY MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 145-2016 JASON SANKEY. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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, and the next one, Mr. Barber, I believe. RESOLUTION GRANTING SIX MONTH EXT. PZ 182-2016 TIM BARBER MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 182-2016 TIM BARBER. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And last but not least, the other Tim Barber application. RESOLUTION GRANTING SIX MONTH EXT. PZ 183-2016 TIM BARBER MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION PZ 183-2016 TIM BARBER, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to our regular agenda. The first section being Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There are no public hearings for these referrals to the ZBA. However there are some public hearings for some of the projects that we're reviewing this evening. The first one is David and Morgan Stanhope, Site Plan 52-2017 and Freshwater Wetlands 4-2017. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 52-2017 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II DAVID & MORGAN STANHOPE AGENT(S) JOHN R. CANNEY IV, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 3,604 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WITH LOWER LEVEL, MAIN FLOOR, GARAGE AND SITE WORK. THE PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 100 FT OF A WETLAND. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 2007-337 BP VOIDED 9/2015; AV 45-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2017 SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1- 1 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94 3 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) JOHN CANNEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID STANHOPE, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a new 3,604 square foot single family home with a lower level main floor and a garage. Site work is included. The project occurs within 100 feet of a wetland. So there's a Freshwater Wetlands permit and also the home that's to be constructed is less than 75 feet from the wetland boundary. It's proposed to be 53 feet, and that's where the Zoning Board referral comes in. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CANNEY-Good evening. Please excuse me if I stand. I have a bad back and I like to keep it stretched out. MR. TRAVER-Please take the microphone. We do record minutes of the meeting. So it's important we have a clear audio. MR. CANNEY-Okay. John Canney here on behalf of David and Morgan Stanhope as well as Pamela Casey and one of the newest members of, residents of the Town of Queensbury, Theo who was just born 11 days ago. We're here on two applications before the Board essentially. Two have been submitted as Laura has said. A Freshwater permit application which we hopefully will appear before you again on Tuesday to hear that one as well as an Area Variance which we are here tonight for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-The monitor is not showing anything yet. MRS. MOORE-Sorry. MR. CANNEY-So the parcel at issue is at the corner of Sweet Road and Country Club Road. It's zoned Moderate Density Residential. It's a currently vacant completely wooded parcel of 4.43 acres. It was purchased in 2015 by the applicants for the purpose of building a single family home on that location. Following the purchase they requested a Freshwater Wetlands delineation to determine the buildable area. At that time DEC came down to the property and provided a delineation which is shown on this map here. That delineation provided the Stanhopes in this case with a buildable area which can be seen to be quite large. The applicants then engaged Witt Construction to design a home to build within this envelope and therefore avoid any variances or permits required from the Town. After that was designed a building permit was requested during that process. The building permit was denied as a result of the Town discovering a delineation from 2007 for the property that showed a much larger area of wetlands. So as a result the DEC came back to the property and confirmed that the 2007 delineation was in fact proper and that's the one that will apply to this property in the future. Now that delineation is shown on this map which, as you can see between the two, you know, drastic difference in the amount of wetlands on the property, and therefore a large reduction in the amount of buildable area. Witt Construction re-worked the property to take the home that they had built in order to minimize any impacts on the need for permitting or variances from the Town, and that's what brings us here today, as he was able to reduce it to the need for only a single variance from the Freshwater Wetlands setback which is 75 feet for a parcel this tight, as well as for the Freshwater Wetlands permit from the Town. The full development is outside of the 35 foot buffer which is required in the Town from the wetland boundary which is part of the zoning regulations as well. Here's a close up of the property and it shows the buildable area as well as the 53 feet which is being requested in the place instead of the 75 foot variance, or excuse me the 75 foot setback. Five hundred and seven feet of the build are within the 75 foot setback area. So for this reason we've requested a positive recommendation from this Board to move forward with the project to appear before the ZBA. Additionally, with the project, your Staff has provided us with some notes that we would like to answer to the best of our ability at this time. One of those is in regards to an out of district connection in regards to the sewer. It's our understanding that a permit and a contract will be required with the Town for such a connection. That connection will occur through the manhole that is currently on the bike path which borders the property as well to the west. Additionally there would have to be County approval via a permit and that's going to be reviewed by the Department of Public Works engineers for the County. As to the grading and drainage plan sediment and erosion plan at the site, we have submitted a new proposed plot plan which shows the grading which will fall away from the property towards the wetlands as well as a silt fence which will go around the full development area to avoid any erosion out of the 35 foot buffer area., which is shown also on this map. The 35 foot buffer and the silt fence run together around the development area on this border here in the shaded, of the shaded part of the 4 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IB(d"lair-i (,")7/118/ "x: 17) development. Finally the landscaping and site lighting, we will follow the recommendations and directions of the Building Department with regards to that. So I'd like to thank you again for your time. This concludes our presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Yes, I have a question. Your project narrative says that DEC did both delineations in '07 and 2015? MR. CANNEY-Yes, yes they did. MR. SHAFER-And there was that much difference? Why so much difference? MR. CANNEY-1, personally, cannot speak to that. I'm not sure. I haven't been able to get a solid answer as to why there was such a large discrepancy between the 2007 and 2015 delineation. MR. SHAFER-Was there any change to the property? MR. CANNEY-No, this property has never been developed. It's a completely wooded property. MR. SHAFER-There was no change to adjacent properties where the water would have run onto the property? MR. CANNEY-Nothing that I know of, you know, not knowing the development of the surrounding properties off hand, you know, but I do know that our property has never been developed. There hasn't been any change in it as far as our records go. MR. TRAVER-1 think sometimes there's an issue where you have a wetland area, and clearly you have sandy water, that's one thing, but when you have a wetland border, you know, where do you define that border and what are the conditions when you're making that observation. MR. HUNSINGER-Especially when it's in woods. It is wooded. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I can see how that's where the variance could be between standing water and you say, all right, here's water, here's clearly dry. Where is that transition? MR. SHAFER-Sometimes even cloudier than that. MR. FERONE-Will the area that you're building on, does that need to be built up? Because in looking at the copy, it looks like it's pretty much all lower than the grade of the road, both Sweet Road and Country Club Road. Do you have to build up? MR. CANNEY-That's something I can ask the builder if he is going to have to build up, but I can't speak to that at this point, but I will make a note. MR. FERONE-And that light green area, is that all going to be lawn? MR. CANNEY-Yes, that is all going to be the lawn. That's going to be the disturbed area. Whether it is all fully lawn or whether they might do some plantings and things like that, that has not been determined at this time, but the green area shown is the disturbed area, the area that's going to be cleared in order to make it buildable and complete the design. MR. FERONE-There's also a Staff Note about whether or not this project could accommodate a 25 year storm. Apparently the wetlands, the property would be able to take on water. The question is where will the home be, and will that be in the water as well? MR. CANNEY-1 can also, I'll make a note of that as well to discuss that with the builder and the site engineer, but at this time I can't speak to that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, it looks like four feet of part of the foundation is going to be on the ground. It's not as hilly as you think back there. So, I mean, it looks like you're going to go down as far as you can to put in your footing, and then backfill up around with the, we've got a good shaking of the head over there. Are you the builder? MR. CANNEY-No, this is the applicant. This is Mr. Stanhope. I:~ �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. STANHOPE-How are you doing, folks. MR. MAGOWAN-Does he want to come up? Maybe he can answer some of the questions we might have, if you don't mind. MR. TRAVER-Just take the mic and state your name for the record if you would, so we can have it on the record. MR. STANHOPE-Yes, sir. My name is David Stanhope, and any questions you folks have go for it. MR. MAGOWAN-So, I mean, instead of waiting for the builder, because we're giving you a recommendation here and I personally don't like giving a recommendation to the Zoning Board without having all the information, you know, instead of going there to come back, I'd like most of what I need to know tonight. Being the wetland it is, and I know that area and been involved with some of the houses that have been built around there, I know what the water levels are on that side of the street and really Country Club. So how do you think your builder is planning on doing this? MR. STANHOPE-We're going to bring in a good amount of fill for that area so the houses along Country Club and Sweet Road as you know are built out. There's a good amount of fill that's brought in. So we're going to have approximately 80 loads of fill brought in to not have any issues with any water or whatever have you. So that would be one thing we would do to kind of alleviate that. MR. MAGOWAN-So the way it's looking on your plan here, it looks like you're going to have four foot of the basement say sticking four, five feet out of the ground, because you've got a good sized window there like an egress. That's a lot of fill to bring in. MR. STANHOPE-It is. MR. MAGOWAN-And I just want to make sure that on your test pits and that, what is the ground level of water, you know? MR. CANN EY-We don't know. We'll have to find that out from the builder. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, you know, really more for your protection, because that is nothing but a hill behind you. I know that that water all the way down there goes all the way down to Quaker Road and you've got the pond and the cemetery all above and then above that it's all hill, where all that water's coming from right down Aviation. So I want to make sure you're protected. MS. WHITE-If you look across the street where they just cleared a huge amount of undergrowth, that is wet. Wet and full of water most of the time, right at the end, and I know this piece is a little bit higher, but if you just look right across the street it's very wet there. MR. MAGOWAN-Where he's going to build the castle? MS. WHITE-No, no, there's just a house that's set back but they've done a huge amount of clearing. MR. MAGOWAN-Collins, Tom Collins' house. Valenti's old house, the white one. MS. WHITE-Yes. And that you can see all of that in there is wet. I mean, t here's standing water a lot of the time. So that's going to be, it's going to stay wet down there. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, like I said, that's why I'd like to see a bunch of test pits around to see how deep it is, for your own protection. I mean, you could put a sump pump in, but all you're going to do is you're pumping the water out back into the wetlands. So it doesn't really go anywhere. Is this the builder? MIKE LABLANC MR. LABLANC-No, I'm the excavator. I'm Mike LaBlanc and I'm from M&L Contracting and I'm hired on by Witt to do a lot of the site work. So our footings will actually be almost on top of the ground as they get back to the footage where they're going to put the house, and then we have approximately 1500 yards of fill that's going to come in with good drainage all the way around it. There's going to be drainage inside the foundation plus there's going to be one around the 6 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) outside that goes down to the lower part of the thing and out to daylight, so there'll be plenty of protection as far as the water goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you do any test pits? MR. LABLANC-There were already test pits that are done that are marked. I don't have those prints with me because that's not why I'm here tonight, but there are things on that, on your prints that will give you that information. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could bring those to the next meeting that would be helpful. MR. CANNEY-Absolutely. We'll bring those on Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. CANNEY-Any other questions from the Board? MS. WHITE-1 guess just one other concern I was thinking about. Does the driveway have to be that close to the bike trail? Is that really the only option? MR. CANNEY-Well, that's our best location for it. We try to avoid putting it in a different spot. We moved, we tried to put the house at a different juxtaposition, but it would have resulted in the property not facing the road. It would have been facing towards the east end of the lot. We also didn't want to have a detached garage for the issues that that would create as well for this project. Is your concern the upper portion turnaround portion of the driveway? MS. WHITE-No, it's the entrance to the driveway, the exit to the driveway right there on Sweet Road is so close. I'm assuming that's where the ribbons are tied, the pink ribbons are tied on the property right now is where the driveway is going to be? MR. CANNEY-So if you've driven past us, you see where those pink ribbons are? It's going to be further east down Sweet Road, not further up, just because if we had to revise this. So the driveway is actually where the ribbons are right now, they're probably closer to the bike path, but they'll be moved down further. Those ribbons have been there for a while. MS. WHITE-Okay. So you're thinking the driveway might be a little further away from the bike trail? MR. CANNEY-Yes, yes. Ms. White, how would you like it? MS. WHITE-Actually, Mr. Shafer here has drawn a little, just a. MR. SHAFER-Could you move it a little further up Sweet Road and keep the. MS. WHITE-Just down. MR. CANNEY-You mean closer to the intersection of Country Club Road and Sweet Road? MS. WHITE-Closer to this intersection. Just the more space you can get in there from that, it's a heavily used bike path. MR. CANNEY-We have a landscaper. We're in touch with the landscaper. So that's a consideration also. It's absolutely something we can consider. MR. DEEB-Stormwater control? MRS. MOORE-It's less than an acre. So nothing is required. Unless the Board wants. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we've talked about the driveway. We've talked about the water, the house level. Does anyone have any other questions? MR. DEEB-Being an environmentally sensitive area, and I know a stormwater management plan is not required, but I wonder if it would be a good idea to have one. Because of the, a stormwater and erosion control plan for the site. It's not required because it's less than an acre, but it is pretty critical an area. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, they are including, I believe they've submitted some stormwater control information for the construction. 7 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IB(d"lair-i (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MRS. MOORE-Right, what their designing on the site. This project did not go to engineering because there were no calculations developed for it. If the Board thinks that there should be some stormwater report or details behind that, then we would send that to the Town Engineer. At this time it didn't have any. MR. TRAVER-I'm thinking that's a good point. We are, it's not in the CEA but certainly it's within the setbacks of the wetlands, or proposed to be. So stormwater might be something that we would want evaluated, you know, by the engineer to make sure that everything is neat and tidy in regards to stormwater. MRS. MOORE-So at this point there's no calculations prepared unless the developer or the builder has come up with stormwater calculations I guess. We can, I can refer it to the engineer to have general information evaluated by the site but there may be a comment coming back that says there's no calculations. So I just want to make sure the Board's aware of that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, how do Board members feel about stormwater? MR. FERONE-What would be the purpose of stormwater? I mean, again, this is based on my looking at the property. I don't see anything running off that property. It goes running on to that property. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, right. MR. TRAVER-That's a good point. MR. MAGOWAN-1 happen to agree with you. Really the reason for stormwater is to contain the water on the property. I don't think the water's going to go that far, and if it does, it's just going to. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think the main concern is protection of the wetlands, and they've indicated they submitted, and Laura has sad they've submitted some information regarding that that we'll see later. So I guess that's the question. Do we think that's sufficient or do we need an engineering analysis of stormwater management? MR. MAGOWAN-If we could get some more prints of the layout and the construction, you start off with Number Three. So I imagine there's a One and Two which is more site plan. So for me I'd like to see what's been laid out because I can visually see more that way. That's why I'm asking the questions that I'm asking, you know, and that will show more of your silt fence which you might have to do. I'd probably almost recommend a double layer of the, where you're closest to the wetlands. I mean, since you're bringing in so much fill. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? Do we feel comfortable making our referral, our recommendation? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, we haven't really focused in on the relief itself. MR. TRAVER-Setback. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think it's fairly reasonable given the layout of the lot and the size of the lot. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, even if you look at the satellite view you can see they're pretty limited. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think by opening up, taking down trees, that's also going to help with the evaporation of the area too. I mean, a lot of that water sits there because it is so dense. MR. TRAVER-On the other hand they say vegetation gets rid of an amazing amount of moisture out of the air. The statistics. It's pretty incredible, the trees. All right, well then people are comfortable making a recommendation. Do we want to mention any concerns to the ZBA? We talked about the, we can certainly indicate to them that in conversation with the applicant they've indicated they're willing to adjust the location of the driveway. That'll be reflected on the completed plans. We also have an opportunity to look at the stormwater management that they will be utilizing during the construction phase. I'm not hearing anything regarding stormwater analysis by the Town Engineer. We don't need to worry about that. Right? MR. DEEB-That's fine. I just brought it up. He said test pits. 8 �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir."/ II::II: irnirnliirn,� IB(d"Icair-i 7/118/2x: 17) MR. TRAVER-That's correct. MR. DEEB-And Brad mentioned test pits. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. SHAFER-Is this municipal water? MR. CANNEY-Yes, there's a Town water connection on Sweet Road. MR. TRAVER-And there'll need to be language regarding that. You're preparing that, I guess, language that indicates that's a requirement. MR. CAN N EY-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And you have no connection to the sewer? MR. CANNEY-No. MRS. MOORE-1 have had conversations with both Chris Harrington and Kevin Hajos about the connections, and so they're all on the same page that going through this review process the applicant will be responsible to connect with, contact the DPW and Mr. Harrington about the coordination. So both entities are aware of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-But they haven't allowed it yet. MRS. MOORE-They have to get through this review process first. MR. TRAVER-All right. So then are we ready for a motion? Let's move the motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-45-2017 STANHOPE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a new 3,604 sq. ft. single family home, with lower level, main floor, garage and site work. The project occurs within 100 ft. of a wetland. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 100 ft. of a wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for 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. 45-2017 DAVID & MORGAN STANHOPE. Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. However, during discussions the driveway will be moved further away from the bike path and this will be reflected on an updated plan when the applicant comes back to the Planning Board. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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're off to the ZBA. 9 �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir."/ II::II: irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) MR. CANNEY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have another recommendation to the ZBA. This is for Garden World Associates, LLC, Site Plan 49-2017. This is SEQR Unlisted and there's no public hearing on this application because it is a referral. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2017 SEAR UNLISTED GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES, LLC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 537 AVIATION ROAD (SILO) APPLICANT PROPOSES 400 SQ. FT. DECK WHERE EXISTING 270 SQ. FT. EXISTING DECK WILL BE REMOVED. NEW DECK IS TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING 8 TABLES (16 SEATS) AND TO ADD TWO NEW TABLES (4 SEATS). THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A NEW 64 SQ. FT. ENTRYWAY OVER AN EXISTING RAMP. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 & 179-4-080 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF OUTDOOR DECK FOR SEATING AND ADDITION OF COVERED ENTRY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 1995 ROOF; 1996 INT. ALT., 1999 GREENHOUSE DEMO., 2000, 2012 INT. ALT.; AV 44-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2017 SITE INFORMATION TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY OZONE LOT SIZE .76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-50 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-4-080 FRANK & TROELSTRA & HARRY TROELSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 400 square foot deck where an existing 270 square foot deck is to be removed. The new deck is to accommodate an existing tables which is 16 seats and to add two new tables at four seats. The deck does not meet the required setback. It's proposed to be 46.5 feet from the front property line where a 75 foot setback is required. MR. TROELSTRA-My name's Frank Troelstra. I'm here with my dad today, Harry, and we're owners of the Silo and Gardentime. Yes, we're trying to replace, I'll give you a short drawing here. I'll show you. MRS. MOORE-Is it different than the drawing that was submitted? MR. TROELSTRA-Well, the contractor may have submitted something. I'm not sure. Does it look like this? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. You guys got that? Okay. Yes, I'm just a simple guy, but you can get the general idea. Okay. Yes. We have a deck that was built along with the original Silo back in 1981, and it's showing its age and we've repaired it several times, and it's becoming a little bit of a safety concern. We've had a few people trip on it. So we decided to propose to take it off and update it with a new one, and at the same time, as you can see, add another 10 by 10 area there. So the added 10 by 10 does not take away any parking spaces or anything like that. So I feel that it would help with the food service end of things because it is a little bit on the small side. It was originally eight. Now we're looking at nine, and so the improvement would greatly help the flow of food service on the deck there, and with the additional 10 feet, that would accommodate the number of people that we have that tend to wait on the busier days, as probably most of you know. So are there any questions regarding the deck from you folks? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the only thing I have on the deck there, I noticed, I know it's just a mere foot and a half, but your parking spaces that's going to be encroached on. MR. TROELSTRA-Well, like I said, it does not affect any parking spaces. The parking will remain the same. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you're not taking out any, but you're going to be losing some of that hedge space. What I'm more concerned about is people pulling in and not banging, hitting the railing. MR. TROELSTRA-1 see what you're saying. MR. MAGOWAN-But you are cutting into that last little handicap, you're cutting out a bit of the corner, as per this drawing. MR. TROELSTRA-That drawing, sure. °10 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IB(d"lair-i (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. MAGOWAN-I guess I would just be concerned, would we make that car parking only? MR. TROELSTRA-We could do that if it helps. I've looked at it myself. I think it's a little bit on a slant where we could probably re-stripe it to become more forward facing toward the building, perpendicular to the building rather than on a slant. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, and if you come out, straight out, actually you'd be shortening your parking space. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just wondering because I know nobody ever parks up against the railing, but you have people that are going to be parked over here along Carlton Drive, all right, and most times people want to walk the shortest distance. MR. TROELSTRA-Sure. That's basic human nature. MR. MAGOWAN-So I'm wondering if, you know, in that particular case, if you pull up some bollards or something. MR. TROELSTRA-Well, we have whiskey barrels full of flowers and they're in between the parked cars and the deck now. We could take those out if you want. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a good buffer. I mean, that will force them not to walk there. MR. TROELSTRA-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, if you feel comfortable with this without encroaching on the space, I just, you know, two people have already tripped, but then I just foresee a car coming in. I'm thinking maybe cellphone or something, and or misplaces their gas and the brake and whammo somebody's eating their breakfast dish. You know what I mean? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, but my observance is it shouldn't be a problem. MR. MAGOWAN-It's your business. That's all I have. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. Well, if there's no further questions on the deck, we're also going to be adding a covered entrance there, too. I think it's seven by nine as proposed by Shamus Bunder who's our contractor. It's just an enhancement basically. A lot of people kind of, as I observed as well, where is the front entrance, and this covered entrance will kind of define the entranceway so to say, and it's being covered as well. Myself many times shoveling the sidewalk, this will definitely keep the entranceway clear during the winter times which will prevent slippage during the winter months. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned the removal of the whiskey barrels. Is there going to be any landscaping at all to replace them? MR. TROELSTRA-Well, we'll continue to have the nice flower plantings along the railing as we're well known for and we've gotten many compliments to that. So there really isn't going to be much change to that. We'll continue to do the flowers. MR. MAGOWAN-Well did we decide you were going to remove? You said you could. MR. TROELSTRA-I could, but I don't have to. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like to have you keep them there. MR. TROELSTRA-Sure. I'd love to. MR. MAGOWAN-It's prettier than a steel pole. MR. TROELSTRA-Sure. Definitely. I agree. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any questions regarding the setback issues? That's really what we're talking about. Certainly there's a safety concern. MR. FERONE-What are you going to be replacing the deck with, is it going to be regular wood? �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir.yII::II: irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, basically pressure treated. Just regular pressure treated. It seems to suit its purpose. It kind of blends with the building. MR. TRAVER-Are there any specifics that we need to include with a referral to the ZBA that we did not discuss? I'm not really thinking of any with regard to setback. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I guess we're ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-44-2017 GARDEN WORLD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 400 sq. ft. deck where existing 270 sq. ft. existing deck will be removed. New deck is to accommodate existing 8 tables (16 seats) and to add two new tables (4 seats). The project also includes a new 64 sq. ft. entryway over an existing ramp. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-4-080 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of outdoor deck for seating and addition of covered entry shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for 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. 44-2017 GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES, LLC. Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. TROELSTRA-All right. Thank you folks for your time. MR. TRAVER-Sure. All right. Next we're re-visiting the Aviation Hospitality project. We have that back before us this evening. SITE PLAN NO. 45-2017; SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATED AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PCGF NEWCO, LLC ZONING ESC LOCATION 524 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 62,620 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA), 4 STORY, 92 ROOM HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING. PROJECT INCLUDES A CONNECTOR ROAD ON ADJOINING PROPERTY TO AVIATION MALL RING ROAD. HOTEL WILL BE LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF GREATER THAN 2 ACRES. INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT WILL BE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN 302.5-1-96.1 AND 302.5-1- 93.1 WITH THE FORMER REDUCED TO 2.0 ACRES AND THE LATTER TO BE INCREASED TO 4.31 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES WORK WITH AMBROSIA DINER FOR ACCESS AS LOT DOES NOT HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON ROUTE 254. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 & 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN THE ESC ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS/ROAD FRONTAGE AND SIGNAGE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CONDUCT SEAR AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR FORMER HOWARD JOHNSON BUILDINGS 2002, 2005 & 2010; SP 40-2008, SP 29-2009, DISC 6-2017, AV 42-2017, SV 6-2017, SP 47- �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) 2017, SP 48-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2017 LOT SIZE 4.57 ACRES, 1.74 ACRES (UTILIZING 2.5 ACRES) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-96.1, 302.6-1-93.1 SECTION 179-9-040, 179-10 CHARLES DUMAS, JOSH O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-There are really three aspects of this evening. You might recall that we did put an offer out there to accept Lead Agency Status. We've had a response from the agencies involved proposing that we go ahead and become Lead Agency. So we need to go ahead accept that if you wish and with that comes a SEQR review if we're ready to do SEAR. That would be another issue, and last but not least there are some variances that we need to consider this evening that require another referral to the ZBA, and I think those are the three things on our list for this project for this evening. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. DUMAS-Good evening. It's a pleasure to be back. Yes, exactly. We're here on three different applications. There's the application of Aviation Hospitality for the Special Use Permit for Site Plan approval. Charles Dumas. I'm with the law firm of Lemery Greisler. We're located in Albany and Saratoga, and I represent Aviation Hospitality and it's here on a site plan application, lot line adjustment that application and Special Use Permit for the construction of a four story Home2 branded hotel in place of where the Howard Johnson's used to be, and as part of that, there are two additional applications, slight modifications to the site plan of the Ambrosia Diner and a slight modification to the site plan of the Aviation Mall. So that's why we're here this evening. It's our desire to have you accept your charge as Lead Agency to conduct a SEQR review to a declaration, hopefully a negative declaration, and to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to require a couple three variances from them, one involving signage, one involving setbacks, and the other involving the fact that there's no road frontage per se. The connection to Aviation Road is going to be made by what we call the 254 connector, and that's going to be built from the Home2 hotel directly out to Aviation, and of course then there's the site plan applications for the changes to Ambrosia Diner and to Aviation Mall. I'd like to ask you to act on those this evening as well. So, with that, I have Bhavik Jariwala. He is the principle managing member of Aviation Hospitality and Josh O'Connor from Bohler Engineering and we also have Mark Nadolny from Creighton Manning Engineering to talk about any questions or issues you may have relative to traffic. So that's where we find ourselves. Josh, do you want to talk a little bit about what we're up to? Just show the guys the plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Sure. Good evening. We did make a preliminary presentation about a month and a half or two months ago. We haven't made any significant changes to the project, with the exception of refining the reconfiguration of the Ambrosia Diner, the actual proposed entrance at Aviation Road, and the team has worked with C.T. Male and Aviation Mall owners to develop the connector road to the Mall ring road. Aside from that, the hotel proper remains in the same configuration you saw. Beyond that we've worked through the stormwater design. A little bit of background on the hotel for the sake of the record. As Charles stated, it's a 94 room four-story hotel. We're showing 102 parking stalls, two stalls allocated for longer recreational vehicles, RV's pulling trailers. The first floor is approximately 15,000 square feet. So we have about 60,000 total square feet of floor area in the building. As previous we are proposing a modified entrance. Currently there's two lanes on the entrance. We're reducing that to one, and the entrance we're proposing is a right out only. Noting that the connection through from the, as it stands today the Ambrosia Diner's driveway is towards the front of their parcel and it's entirely open through to the Sunoco. As I'm sure you're aware, a lot of people make their left onto Aviation Road by bypassing the right only, going to the Sunoco parking lot and then make their left. So we're now replacing that paved area with green space, curbing and defining those movements. The Diner driveway moves towards the rear, directly opposite the loop road connection, connector, and the Diner patrons wishing to go west on Aviation Road will be able to make their way to the traffic signal at the Mall proper now, which we feel is a great improvement to the traffic movement here above the current condition. MR. TRAVER-They actually tried to do that in 2010. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Aside from that, we're proposing stormwater management. We've broken it into a couple of pieces. Don't want to get too granular in the details here but we're proposing a stormwater management system for the driveway, which is separate from the stormwater management system for the parcel that Aviation Hospitality intends to purchase. That way it streamlines the long term operation and maintenance of the two as, you know, Pyramid is going to retain the ownership of the driveway with its easements. It makes sense to have two separate stormwater designs. We've worked through the first submission with Chazen. We '13, �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) have comment letters back from Chazen on the design and we're sorting through the responses now, but there's nothing there that changes the configuration, the lot layout, the intensity. Working through the finer details on a project this big, there can be a number of comments, but again, nothing that changes the scope of the project. We're confident we'll have a response by the end of the week for Chazen. Aside from that, we are proposing to eliminate a lot of the impervious surfaces on the site. We're not proposing the discharge of stormwater onto any of our neighbors' properties. The detention facility that we're proposing hands the 100 year rainfall event and all conditions as well. Aside from that, I'd be happy to answer any of the technical questions you might have about the design, the layout as we propose it today. We're really excited to have the project here before you and we are looking forward to moving forward here. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-One of the things that I was wondering about is, you know, the connector road obviously going to do a good job of handling vehicular traffic. I'm wondering about pedestrian traffic. It seems like with the proximity to the Mall, have you thought about putting a staircase or some kind of a pathway from say the rear part of the hotel down to the Mall area? MR. MAGOWAN-You mean a slide? MR. TRAVER-Yes, a water slide or zip line or something. MR. O'CONNOR-Our consideration of it was, to the extent we thought we might have to address it it's really not feasible given the steep slopes there. It's about a 35 to 40 foot drop off and out 35 to 40 feet of horizontal run, but an ADA compliant pedestrian way through here is an elevator. There's really no other functional way to get that done. MR. TRAVER-And really there's no sidewalk. There's no walking path from the other side. I mean, I'm just envisioning that if people are going to be staying at the hotel, you know, someone might want to go fishing, for example, for the day in Lake George and maybe there might be other family members that are not interested in doing that and looking out their window fondly at Aviation Mall and saying, boy, I'd like to go down there, even though I don't have the truck or the trailer for the day because that's up in Lake George. So I'm just going to walk down there and shop for three or four hours. How are they going to do that? MR. O'CONNOR-We are proposing a pedestrian connection to Aviation Road and the existing sidewalks along Aviation Road. Beyond that, there aren't pedestrian connections as it stands throughout the Mall. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. O'CONNOR-We would be providing sidewalks to nowhere and putting people in a parking lot and on a loop road without that connection to them. So in that regard it doesn't make a lot of sense, but with that said, we are proposing a hard paved pedestrian access all the way out to Aviation Road and we would hope that, you know, failing an automobile to get them to the Mall, they could take a more meandering route down there in a way that's safe and appropriate. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-One of the questions I have, what plan is that, where I can look at it more closely. MR. O'CONNOR-And frankly that was one of the comments that Chazen asked us was to provide them with something that's a little bit more overall in scope so they can understand the stormwater a little bit better. So we're working on that. This isn't in your package. I prepared this for the sake of presentation. MR. MAGOWAN-1 wondered. MR. O'CONNOR-You haven't missed it. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So that first gray spot there and Ambrosia's is that added parking? MR. O'CONNOR-We've retained the existing parking. We know that Ambrosia Diner was at threshold for parking because they didn't have a surplus. We could have potentially added a couple, but that would have increased the impervious cover and we aren't in the position to revise their stormwater management facility. So we propose the same number of parking stalls with no increase in impervious cover for the Ambrosia Diner. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So those parking spots already exist. You're just going to take them out? MR. O'CONNOR-That's right. They're shifting. So essentially the driveway eats up what amounts to five stalls here. It takes up what amounts to five stalls here and we replaced them on the other end. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-But there's no increase in impervious cover and there's no reduction in the parking stalls. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, because you said we're not doing anything more impervious, but I was looking at it's light gray with all the other stuff, it looks like adding another. MR. O'CONNOR-Understood. There are, you know, we do have drainage divides and break our treatment up. So any of the new impervious, essentially from the curb out it goes into our driveway detention and treatment facility, and everything curbed in is routed. So when I say there's no increase in impervious, there actually isn't on the property, but there is also no increase of flow to their stormwater management system. I think that's the real key there. We're not re-designing their stormwater management. We're not increasing the demand. MR. MAGOWAN-And you also mentioned that there's no road frontage. That's one of the variances? MR. TRAVER-Yes, correct. MR. MAGOWAN-because you've got the Northway over there. You can't get more road than that, in my opinion. I mean, my gosh. MR. DUMAS-We'd like to cut some trees down, if you don't mind. MR. MAGOWAN-The top of that building should be right over the top of the trees a little bit. MR. DUMAS-And of course they're six months without leaves. MR. TRAVER-That's true. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, you're saying there's no road frontage. Geez, you've got the ramp in, you know, because there's something else, I was talking to someone and they actually, on 149, the front of their house, Queensbury says on 149 but actually it's the back of the house and not Glen Lake Road and I just don't understand that, you know, because there you've got two roads but here you've got a lot of roads. MR. DUMAS-Well, I can make a good lawyer's argument as to why we do have road frontage because an easement is in fact a real property interest and it's defined as real property in the Real Property Law of the State of New York. So in effect I could make the argument that we don't need a variance for road frontage, but I don't think it's a heavy lift and I'm not an argumentative man. MR. HUNSINGER-So you take the path of least resistance. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't have an issue with it. In my opinion we've got enough road frontage. MR. O'CONNOR-But that said, the specific issue we're contending with is we're creating a parcel that doesn't have a public thoroughfare frontage, and we're achieving that through easement. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. MAGOWAN-Well put. MR. SHAFER-Josh, What is the grade and the operating speed on that connector road on that little loopy thing you've got there? MR. O'CONNOR-I can't speak to that, to be honest. MR. MAGOWAN-That's on one of the maps. '1115 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. O'CONNOR-Grade, I honestly, the actual slope it doesn't exceed 11% 1 believe. C.T. Male did the design on basically from this line out on behalf of the Pyramid Group. So I have reviewed the plans but I don't have them committed to memory the way I have mine. MR. SHAFER-Have you thought about signing for people coming out of the hotel that want to go to the Northway? MR. O'CONNOR-That will all need to be signed. Absolutely, and that signage will need to occur prior to the intersection, absolutely. MR. FERONE-1 think the traffic study said the Mall has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour? I would assume they would want that road to be the same. MR. O'CONNOR-1 would think that's on the upper limit of acceptable speed. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. FERONE-Can we talk about the traffic study? MR. DUMAS-Yes, we happen, by good fortune, to have somebody here. MR. FERONE-1 didn't want him to feel like he came for nothing. MR. DUMAS-Right. MARK NADOLNY MR. NADOLNY-Would you like me to provide a summary or do you just want to ask some questions. MR. FERONE-Yes, why don't you provide a summary first and then I have a couple of questions. MR. NADOLNY-Sure. Josh had noted that we do have two access points into the site and then, in terms of the analysis, we went out and looked at some of the signalized intersections in the immediate vicinity of the Ambrosia Diner driveway, which was at the Speedway, Carlton Drive and at the Sunoco driveways. We also supplemented quite a bit of traffic count at the signalized intersection of the Mall driveway opposite Greenway North. We focused our study primarily on the Saturday peak hour, based on DOT volumes that were counted on Aviation Road. Saturday peak was about 20% higher than PM and 50% higher than the AM peak hour. So that's what we focused our assessment on. Just because the Mall is such a high driver, and in addition, the hotel generates more traffic on a Saturday than it does during peak commuter time periods. So that's what our analysis focused on. We did traffic counts. We installed an ATR, an automatic traffic recorder, on the Mall ring road to get the speeds and volumes, in order to give us some background traffic data during those worst case peak conditions. We contacted the Town, the Planning Department, to give us an idea of other developments in the area. We contacted the A/GFTC. They gave us some background growth, general growth to include in our calculations, and then we assigned traffic from the proposed hotel onto the roadway network, and as I said Saturday was our peak, and we're anticipating approximately 68 trips being generated, about 38 in and 30 out, so those will then get sort of distributed out to the roadway network and dispersed throughout the network. The analysis didn't show a significant impact at any of the intersections. This is really more of an access assessment rather than an impact assessment. DOT did review our study. They concluded, or agreed with our conclusions and did note that they didn't believe there were any significant impacts to the adjacent intersections, and they didn't have any real traffic questions. We did a gap analysis on Aviation Road to make sure there was enough gaps to allow people to make the left turn in and the right turn out and there was more than enough gaps to do that. We're not recommending lefts out. Again, as Josh noted we're going to bring everyone to that signal to make the left turn onto Aviation Road, and as Charles had noted earlier, if anything we're improving conditions because we're going to minimize the number of left turns at an uncontrolled intersection by forcing all the Ambrosia Diner patrons to use this signal. So in effect we're actually improving some conditions out there. Like I said, DOT did respond. We didn't have any comments to respond to from DOT. We did receive a Chazen letter a few days ago, and we did speak to Tom Johnson from Chazen and I have had a conversation with him about some of the items that they wanted us to include, one being adding the AM and PM peak hours into the assessment. I think we came to an agreement that the AM peak hour may not be necessary based on the level of traffic on Aviation Road in comparison to Saturday AM/PM, and '16 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) actually we went out today and we counted for the PM peak hour to answer some of his comments and really from my discussion with Tom, he wasn't necessarily concerned about the operations at the intersections per say. He was more concerned about the way that this existing two way left turn lane is going to operate and because we all know that DOT has recently changed the geometry at the exit at the most western signalized intersection at the exit which has now created a queuing across the site frontage and now their concern is that, well, if this is starting to queue across the site frontage, people trying to make a left into Speedway will they impact people trying to make the left turn into the site. So that was the one thing we focused on this afternoon. I actually was out there today and I counted at these intersections. We did have people counted at the adjacent intersections and we will include that in a supplemental to Chazen. However, I observed six people trying to make the left in at Speedway. So that's one car every 10 minutes. There was no heavy traffic trying to make a left turn into Speedway, and just from the observations, essentially what's happening is you've got two similar uses on both sides of the road. You've got a gas station on both sides that compete for the same business. The gas today was at the same price, and from what I could tell, people don't try to make a left turn in past all those queueing cars. They make the right turn in at Sunoco and get the gas at Sunoco and go on their way, and similarly in the other direction make the right turn in to Speedway and then make the right turn out. They're not really competing for this center two way left turn lane, because it's just easier to go on your side of the road. So we don't feel that there's going to be an issue with competing traffic for this two way left turn lane during peak times because not a lot of people are using it right now and we didn't see, you know, a significant amount of queueing. Like I said, it's like one car every ten minutes trying to make a left turn in. So we feel like we can answer the questions that Chazen provided in their comment letter and hopefully we'll try to get that by the end of the week as well. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. FERONE-1 was just surprised that the study was based on a Saturday and not during the week. I mean, I probably drive by this spot 100 times a week and at all different times. It's a very busy area, but again, I was surprised Saturday was considered a peak and not during the week, particularly like a 4:30 to 5:30, you know, everybody's going home, and that's where you'd get that backup along there, and a ton of cars coming off of 19 and making the right to go down Aviation Road. MR. NADOLNY-Yes, and like I said there was a DOT tube that was installed right in this location here and in this direction it was a couple of hundred vehicles higher on a Saturday and I think it was everyone going to the Mall, than the PM, and in the westbound direction it was comparable. It was about the same. So in total it was worse on a Saturday. So that's, again, one of the conditions that we're going to detail in our response to Chazen to show, yes, in both directions it's either comparable or the same and, you know, when you're talking 50 cars during the PM versus a Saturday it's not going to make a difference in the conclusions and the analysis. So that's why we were comfortable with Saturday being worst case, especially with our site generating more traffic on a Saturday. We were really focusing on the hotel, the Mall and the adjacent street just, it does seem strange, but the numbers don't lie. MR. FERONE-Sure, and the other question I had, you mentioned, I was looking at that section on the gap study, and it looks like you're doing a good job with trying to direct traffic the way it needs to be directed. So if you're heading east, you turn right in, prevent the left out, and just because the right turn on Aviation, my concern is people coming west and wanting to make that turn left across the traffic and whether or not, apparently you're working with Pyramid right now whether some signage could go down there where the light is to get people to come through and up the ring road loop and up to the property. MR. NADOLNY-You're right, they could definitely make that move to come in. We wouldn't want to restrict it just because Ambrosia right now has the lefts permitted in. So that would be changing access to a permitted use, and like I said, the signal does create quite a few gaps. Once it turns red, you get the right turns off the ramp, but like I said, when I was out there watching it, there were more than enough gaps. I watched, there was only three or four vehicles making a left turn in, but none of them waited because there was a significant amount of gaps for them to make a left turn in, but they do have the option, you know, maybe they come here one time, the first time in, and then they go about their business while they're on vacation, and the next time they realize they can make a left turn in early, that they use the signal. So they do have that option. MR. FERONE-Yes. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. HUNSINGER-So this is a total anomaly. When I went to do the site visits I went to make a left hand turn, there were no cars coming but there was another car taking a left into the Speedway. So that was the only obstacle that I had. It was kind of interesting. MR. NADOLNY-Yes. Like I said, it may happen once every, like I said, once every ten minutes, and if you hit it you do have to jockey yourself in, but. MR. HUNSINGER-And there was no traffic coming. MR. NADOLNY-Right, and, you know, during off peak times maybe more people will use the left turn lane, but during peak times I think people are trying to avoid in turns off of Aviation Road. MR. SHAFER-Mark, do you know if any of the traffic signals between the Northway and Route 9 are interconnected? MR. NADOLNY-I don't believe so. I think it's just the ramps themselves, and we've requested the timings from DOT, and I believe I was talking to them about 45 minutes ago, and I believe they're timed right now, but I also believe they're looking at optimizing them because of the lane geometry changes, so I think they're in the process of trying to make it as efficient as possible and we may have, we do an analysis we may see something we may recommend something to them, but in terms of impact from this developer, they're really not going to change anything on here. They might just be able to recommend something if we see something. MR. MAGOWAN-So can you make a recommendation for me? MR. NADOLNY-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-Just make it two left hand turns onto the Northway and leave that one straight. MR. NADOLNY-That seems like the obvious fix. MR. MAGOWAN-That is the simplest and most logical, because you're going into a single road and if someone wants to go straight and go into Jolley or John Burke, the State Police is right up there. Make that suggestion. Can you do that for me? MR. NADOLNY-I will make that suggestion. That did seem like the obvious change. MR. DUMAS-Well this Township has a lot of snap with the State. MR. FERONE-It's not a State, though, they said it was a Federal. MR. NADOLNY-The issue from what I understand was having the left turn arrow being red with a green ball above it. Because that is the issue. Once you make them into two dedicated left turn lanes, you don't have that issue anymore. So it would be maybe some signal head changes to get rid of the green ball above. MR. MAGOWAN-It worked for years. Everybody understood it. There weren't accidents there. MR. NADOLNY-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Now people are all upset because we have all this advertising space. MR. FERONE-Mark, did you look at the accident situation on that section of Aviation Road at all in terms of the last three years and how it relates to the State wide average? MR. NADOLNY-We did not request accidents. No, we did not. No. MR. DEEB-This is going to really clean it up up there. A lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-It's going to clean everything up a lot better than it is now. MR. DUMAS-We feel we're making an improvement. MR. DEEB-It's been a mess up there for a long time. MR. TRAVER-Yes. '18 �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir.yII::II: irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) MR. MAGOWAN-And we talked about it when the Diner went in, and this is, you know, what you've all been asking for long before me and it's two lanes. Traffic can go both ways. People have the option and people are going to learn. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well the first order of business for us tonight, in a formal sense, is the acceptance of the Lead Agency responsibility. Does anybody have any concerns or comments regarding that before we make a resolution to do that? I'm not hearing any. So we can move that. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS WHEREAS, the applicant proposes: Three Site Plans, Special Use Permit, Area Variance and Sign Variance applications for: Applicant proposes construction of a new 62,620 sq. ft. (floor area), 4 story, 92 room hotel with associated parking. Project includes a connector road on adjoining property to Aviation Mall ring road. Included in the project will be a lot line adjustment between 302.5-1-96.1 and 302.5-1-93.1 with the former reduced to 2.0 acres and the later to be increased to 4.31 acres. Project includes work with Ambrosia Diner for access as lot does not have road frontage on Route 254. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-040 & 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use in the ESC zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks/road frontage and signage. Ambrosia Diner Applicant proposes to modify the entryway area along Aviation Road and internal access to Ambrosia Diner. Project includes new alignment of driveway, new access for Diner and site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to previously approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Aviation Mall Applicant proposes construction of a connector road that intersects Aviation Road and the mall. The project involves disturbance of 1.6 +/- acres and a new roadway of approximately 17,500 +/- sq. ft. The road will include access for Ambrosia Diner and the proposed hotel and connect to the Aviation Mall ring road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new connector road shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 45-2017, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10-2017 AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC; AREA VARIANCE 42-2017, SIGN VARIANCE 6-2017 AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC; SITE PLAN 47-2017 AMBROSIA DINER & SITE PLAN 48-2017 AVIATION MALL. Introduced by George Ferone, who moved for its adoption. As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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 have the SEQR review to consider this evening as well, and I see, Laura, we have a public hearing. Is that for the SEQR part? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-So we would have a public hearing for that, and then close that and re-open it during site plan or leave it open? '19 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J 7/118/2x: 17) MRS. MOORE-Leave it open. MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. Then before we go into SEAR, we will open the public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that would like to comment to the Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-No? Okay. Then we'll leave the public hearing open because we will be doing site plan in the future, and we can go ahead and take a look at the SEQR review. MR. FERONE-1 have a question. MR. HUNSINGER-1 have a couple of questions. MR. TRAVER-Go ahead. MR. FERONE-Okay. Page Three, there is C-3 zoning, it says is zoning change requested as part of proposed action. He answered no. I think that's supposed to be yes. You are seeking a zoning variance. MRS. MOORE-No, but that's not a zone change. MR. TRAVER-No, actually the zoning changed, but it changed before this application was made. So they're looking for an Area Variance, not a zoning change. MR. FERONE-All right. I have another one. There is a section here, proposed potential development on Page Four. There's indication that there will be impoundment of I believe it's stormwater or surface water. MR. O'CONNOR-That is correct. MR. FERONE-And then there's question about what are the approximate size of the proposed impoundment dimensions, etc. That part of the form isn't filled out. MR. O'CONNOR-Because, and this is where the form is a little bit ambiguous in what they're asking for. So they're asking what the size of your embankment is, and in this case we're not providing an embankment. We're providing a surface feature. So there really isn't a way to answer what size the embankment is. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have anything to add on that? Okay. And, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Will the construct on last more than a year? MR. DUMAS-No. MR. TRAVER-Certainly hope not. MR. DUMAS-We want to be open as quickly as possible. MR. MAGOWAN-You've probably already got it on the flatbed ready to put together. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That's what they did with the Ambrosia Diner. They had it built ahead of time in pieces. MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of the Full Assessment Part 11, and you know it's open to discussion, but I did think we should answer yes on the impact on aesthetic resources because the proposal is obviously different from what's there now and it will be visible from various vantage points as well as routine travel by residents. I think it's a small impact, but I do think we should answer yes. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) MR. DEEB-Yes, I agree. I think it should be answered yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But other than that, I didn't see anything else on Part 11. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-1 think the intent of the answer that you saw there is the fact that we're replacing a hotel with a hotel, but there's no hotel there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly, and the hotel that was there wasn't four stories tall. Mr. DUMAS-Yes, that's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So the visual impact is going to be greater. MR. TRAVER-In fact that's one of the variances. And I see from the record that when we considered the Diner project in 2010 we, at that time, concluded there were no adverse environmental impacts that weren't covered in the EIS from 2001. Does anyone else have any other suggestions or amendments to the SEQR resolution? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, is the Board going to go through the entire Part 11 information or are you potentially drafting a resolution that just identifies the one that Mr. Hunsinger identified? MR. TRAVER-My thought was that we could simply note the one amendment to it as it exists. Do the Board members want the entire section reviewed? Or is it enough to have the notation that we've made? MR. HUNSINGER-1 think what we've done in the past is just discuss anything that we would answer yes to. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-If there's any others, then we would discuss them. MRS. MOORE-Yes. That's fine. I just want to make sure it's clear that you're not marking a document up. You're making a resolution that will be shown in the record. MR. TRAVER-It should be noted as well that this SEQR review is also covering the two site plans that we have to review, which is the changes to the Ambrosia and Aviation Mall. So we're really doing the three impacts with potential environmental impact, but I think perhaps to mitigate the one change in the aesthetics, I think the traffic impacts are going to be reduced. So, okay, then I guess we're ready for a motion, Mr. Secretary. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. AVIATION HOSPITALITY PROJECT The applicant proposes three Site Plans, Special Use Permit, Area Variance and Sign Variance applications for: Applicant proposes construction of a new 62,620 sq. ft. (floor area), 4 story, 92 room hotel with associated parking. Project includes a connector road on adjoining property to Aviation Mall ring road. Included in the project will be a lot line adjustment between 302.5-1- 96.1 and 302.5-1-93.1 with the former reduced to 2.0 acres and the later to be increased to 4.31 acres. Project includes work with Ambrosia Diner for access as lot does not have road frontage on Route 254. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-040 & 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use in the ESC zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Ambrosia Diner Applicant proposes to modify the entryway area along Aviation Road and internal access to Ambrosia Diner. Project includes new alignment of driveway, new access for Diner and site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to previously approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Aviation Mall Applicant proposes construction of a connector road that intersects Aviation Road and the mall. The project involves disturbance of 1.6 +/- acres and a new roadway of approximately 17,500 +/- sq. ft. The road will include access for Ambrosia Diner and the proposed hotel and connect to the Aviation Mall ring road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new connector road 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; �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) 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; Other agencies involved granted Lead Agency status to the Planning Board. Part 1 of the Long 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 45-2017, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10-2017 AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC; AREA VARIANCE 42-2017, SIGN VARIANCE 6-2017 AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC; SITE PLAN 47-2017 AMBROSIA DINER & SITE PLAN 48-2017 AVIATION MALL. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part I of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant. 2. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board with a notation that Number Nine, the impact on aesthetic resources, that the proposed impact may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points is a small impact. 3. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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. So the next item before us is to consider the referral to the ZBA on the variances requested and those are the road frontage, the setbacks and signage I believe. Correct? Those three. Yes. Setback, road frontage and signage. I know we've done some extensive really almost site plan review this evening, but with the SEQR we looked at it. Do we have any concerns that we want to pass along to the ZBA regarding those three focus issues for their referral, the setbacks requested, the road frontage issue, which as the applicant has pointed out is mitigated by the access through to Ambrosia, and signage. They do want two signs on the building, obviously to make it more visible. One is allowed. So those three issues. What is the Board's feeling on that? MR. FERONE-Could we talk a little bit about signage? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Mr. Traver, we're actually looking for three signs total on the building. MR. TRAVER-1 thought I saw two. MRS. MOORE-You're correct. I had misread that. So it is three. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It's addressed in the zoning but not in the planning. MR. TRAVER-Okay. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. O'CONNOR-So the fagade of the building as it's looking west, this is the standard zone, fagade of the building as it faces south, we hope that we gain some visibility on 1-87 for northbound traffic. MR. TRAVER-All right. So people coming up the ramp and so on. MR. O'CONNOR-Pardon me, this is actually this side, the side that faces the Ambrosia Diner. MR. TRAVER-Okay, so it's more of a north. MR. O'CONNOR-And I misspoke. It's not the south. It's the large side as it faces 87 on this corner. So that would be this corner here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So nothing on the narrow side, the actual south side. MR. TRAVER-So that's the green. MR. O'CONNOR-That's this small feature right here. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and what is the green box there, is that the mechanicals? MR. O'CONNOR-It's a trademark marquee. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a visual element. MR. MAGOWAN-We went over that when you were down there at 18. MR. O'CONNOR-At Exit 18. It doesn't serve as signage. It's just a feature. MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. MR. FERONE-And not being familiar with their signage, is it back lit or? MR. O'CONNOR-The signage package that I have submitted is for an internally little channel letter set and box. So it's a face mounted box that's internally lit. The other variances, let's see, that we're looking at for signage are for setback and a remote sign on the frontage. Obviously since we don't have, as discussed, and pardon me, I'm looking through these here. Since we don't have road frontage per se, our sign on the roadway which we're showing here is a remote sign. MR. TRAVER-It's 50 square feet I think? MR. O'CONNOR-1 believe it's a compliant sign. One of the issues we have, though, is we're closer to the right of way. So we have a setback issue for the sign, and as you can see the right of way takes a jog, and it has this odd shape. The right of way is actually here for the rest of the parcel. So just getting as close as we practically can without being on it, you know, getting out toward the road. MR. TRAVER-So the other side of that black line on your drawing there, that's actually in the right of way? MR. O'CONNOR-This is the right of way, yes, this area here. It has the bottom of an "H" kind of shape that comes onto the site. Peculiar as it is. So we're trying to get as close to the road frontage as is typical up and down Aviation Road. MR. SHAFER-Josh, would you go through again where the signs will be on the building on that drawing on the one that you looked at? MR. O'CONNOR-Sure. Absolutely. Oh, on the site plan. So as we're looking at it, there'll be a sign here where this tree is, facing to the north, a sign on the opposite corner facing to the west, and a sign above the port cochere and main entrance facing the east. MR. TRAVER-So the sign above the entrance would be toward the top as we look at the drawing. That's going to be facing the Mall. Would that be visible from the Mall? �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. O'CONNOR-Potentially. Potentially. I think it'll really come down to, you know, how far out in the Mall you are. That steep embankment is probably going to clip a lot of the view of the hotel in close proximity, but we do hope that we get some visibility of that sign from the westbound traffic. MR. TRAVER-It'll be hard to miss in any case. MR. HUNSINGER-So are all three building signs the same size? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. They are. MR. SHAFER-The building sign facing the north, where will that be visible from? MR. O'CONNOR-That will be visible hopefully from eastbound traffic on Aviation Road as people are coming over the highway embankment. MR. FERONE-No signage at the intersection where the light is entering the Mall, you know, and the ring road? MR. O'CONNOR-1 think we would probably like that. It would be a negotiation with Pyramid that hasn't happened yet. So I can't speak to that today, but I do think we probably would like that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, thank you for that clarification. MR. O'CONNOR-Sure, and then while I'm standing the other variance we're talking about is setback to the highway. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So it's 100 feet required. We're asking for 50 feet. It's our opinion that it's pretty reasonable in that the highway boundary follows the ramp in this area, and because of that sweep the highway boundary comes a lot closer to the hotel, and we have a considerably, or are considerably more than 100 feet from the travel lanes, which I think we can interpret as the intention to get further away from the entrances, and again we are maintaining in excess of the 50 feet which is in excess of the 40 feet which would be the front yard requirement. MR. SHAFER-Is there fencing along that right of way line now? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that fencing exists. MR. SHAFER-There is? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and it's worth noting the tree line that you see there now is entirely on DOT's property as it stands today. We don't have anything more than a five foot buffer on that fence now. So what you see there is a buffer and will remain intact. We'd love it if DOT would let us cut some of it down, but I don't think that it's going to happen. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don't want to belabor the point, I had recalled when I was reviewing the signs that the signs were at least what I felt was small in size. On this plan here, you show the sign as being two foot 10 by nine feet wide, but then on the construction details it's significantly larger. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd have to look closer at that to be honest with you, and I'll be better prepared for tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because the smaller one I thought was okay, but if they're all three 12 foot, it's more than 12 foot. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding was they were the same size. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it could be they're not all the same size. You might have two that are smaller. 1:,4 �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir.yII::II: irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I believe this shows it as two foot 10 on the side of the lettering, the larger, the logo portion, that kind of open door green shape which is the four foot nine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then this one, unless I'm misunderstanding how the dimensions are labeled, no, this is showing it as over 12 foot long and this one is nine foot eight. MR. O'CONNOR-So they appear to be inconsistent. I'll address that first thing tomorrow and we'll have some commonality there. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm all for the multiple smaller signs, but if they're all that big. MR. TRAVER-Yes, maybe if there's only one large one. MR. HUNSINGER-Because there's quite a difference between five foot eight and twelve foot. MR. O'CONNOR-As they're dimensioned on the actual elevation this one is dimensioned nine foot eight on this side. MR. HUNSINGER-And where on that dimension it shows four foot nine, this is showing six foot one. MR. O'CONNOR-We show two of these, this one and the one that would be on the opposite long side as being the same, four foot nine by nine foot eight. So this one is potentially larger. I'll have to look. MR. HUNSINGER-So just the one. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would make sense. MS. WHITE-Good catch. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There's a question about lighting, but that's really a site plan issue. Are there any other questions or concerns regarding the variances for our referral purposes to the ZBA? Then I think we're ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-42-2017 & Z-SV-6-2017 AVIATION The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a new 62,620 sq. ft. (floor area), 4 story, 92 room hotel with associated parking. Project includes a connector road on adjoining property to Aviation Mall ring road. Hotel will be located on a parcel of greater than 2 acres. Included in the project will be a lot line adjustment between 302.5-1-96.1 and 302.5-1-93.1 with the former reduced to 2.0 acres and the later to be increased to 4.31 acres. Project includes work with Ambrosia Diner for access as lot does not have road frontage on Route 254. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-040 & 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use in the ESC zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks/road frontage and signage. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status, conduct SEQR and 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. 42-2017 & SIGN VARIANCE 6-2017 AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC. Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Notation that the �Qa.ueeir.n,rulr::a.uir."/ II::II: irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) applicant will provide clarification on the size of the signage on the three spots on the building. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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. So we have the Aviation Hospitality referral completed. So next we move on to New Business. And the very first item is the remainder of the impacts, in some respects, of this project, which is the changes to the Ambrosia Diner entrance and the Aviation Mall connector road, and we have site plans for both of those before us. The first being the Ambrosia Diner, Site Plan 47-2017. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 47-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATED AMBROSIA DINER AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY DINER, LLC ZONING ESC LOCATION 518 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE ENTRYWAY AREA ALONG AVIATION ROAD AND INTERNAL ACCESS TO AMBROSIA DINER. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW ALIGNMENT OF DRIVEWAY, NEW ACCESS FOR DINER AND SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 53-2010, SP 45-2017, SUP 10-2017, SP 48-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2017 LOT SIZE 2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-97 SECTION 179-9-120 CHARLES DUMAS & JOSH O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to make any comments on that? MRS. MOORE-Just to understand that it's a modification of the entryway area along Aviation Road and internal access to the Ambrosia Diner. It's a new alignment for the driveway, new access for the Diner and site work, and it will obviously connect to the new Hotel. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Here we go again. So now we're looking specifically at that section of the project that impacts the Ambrosia Diner. I know we spent quite a bit of time on traffic. I think from just my own personal experience going to the Ambrosia Diner, I think that what they have proposed is going to be a vast improvement, both for customers and for safety and for traffic in general. There was a question raised about whether it was appropriate to review the site plan review in the fact that it's really a prerequisite to the entire project. The feeling I think is that we can go ahead and review this in any case. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I guess I had raised that question. May I articulate it? MR. TRAVER-Yes, by all means. MR. SHAFER-1 mean, since this is, in most people's view, a single project, and we actually looked at it as a single project when we did SEQR review, an argument could be made that now that we've done all the other preparatory things, the approval of the three site plans should really be done together, and so I'm just floating it out as an idea. MR. TRAVER-Well, I mean, I would say in some respects, although they're different agenda items, we really are doing them together. We're doing them concurrently, but. MR. SHAFER-With the one exception of the hotel itself of course. That goes to the ZBA and there are some variances that they have to approve. We approve two of the three site plans. Does that not prejudice or tie their hands as to their review of the hotel and the variances themselves? MR. TRAVER-Well, in the history of the Planning Board, we have approved site plans that have never been brought to fruition. So presumably, hypothetically, should we approve, for example, this Ambrosia Diner, this change to Ambrosia, and the hotel project not go through and be concluded, I suspect that this site plan would die on the vine. 1:'6 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IB(d"lair-i (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. DUMAS-Well, you could approve them conditionally. Right? MR. TRAVER-True. MR. DUMAS-Conditional approval. MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure that. MR. DUMAS-Predicated on the granting of the variances and the Board's, this Board's granting of Site Plan approval, Special Use Permit and so forth relative to the Aviation Hospitality application. MR. TRAVER-It might be redundant, but, yes, we could do that. How do other members of the Board feel about the process in terms of whether we want to look at site plan for Ambrosia and Aviation? MR. DEEB-I think we should go forward with it. I like the idea of doing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sort of the flip side is if we were to favorably review these, does that prejudice in any way the site plan review for the hotel? I mean, in my mind it's pretty easy to separate them out. We can say, hey, this is great, and then still have issues with the site plan for the hotel. MR. TRAVER-Certainly. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don't think we're prejudicing ourselves by. MR. TRAVER-Right. In fact we've already noted that it's certainly, this and the Aviation component we argued for in 2010. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. MAGOWAN-1 say keep them separate. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, that being said, we have discussed this now several times, reviewed this aspect of the project. Does anyone have any comments or follow up questions for the applicant regarding just this proposed modification for the Ambrosia entrance of the road section? MS. WHITE-1 think it's pretty clear. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think so. Certainly the applicant has given us a lot of information about it. So if everyone is comfortable then I guess we're ready for a motion. We've already done SEAR. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there members of the audience that wanted to comment to the Board on the Site Plan for the Ambrosia Diner proposed changes? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I guess we can close that public hearing, correct, Laura, or do we want to leave that open, too? MRS. MOORE-Your public hearing has been left open for the SEQR portion. If you continue you're going to end up closing all three of them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we can leave it open. Okay. All right. Then I think we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #47-2017 AMBROSIA DINER 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 modify the entryway area along Aviation Road and internal access to Ambrosia Diner. Project includes new alignment of driveway, new access for Diner and site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir.yII::II irnirnliirn,� IBc'lcair�:::9 (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) of the Zoning Ordinance, amendments to previously approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/18/2017 and continued the public hearing to 07/18/2017, 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 07/18/2017; 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 47-2017 AMBROSIA DINER; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Site lighting, signage, stormwater, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition disposal, and snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) 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, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2017 by the following vote: MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you leave the public hearing open, then? MR. TRAVER-We did. Thank you, though. Can we have the vote? AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have another Site Plan, Aviation Mall Site Plan 48-2017. This Site Plan dealing, obviously, with the connector road part of the project. �:"gig �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) SITE PLAN NO. 48-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATED AVIATION MALL AGENT(S) C.T. MALE & ED GARRIGAN OWNER(S) PCGF NEWCO, LLC ZONING ESC LOCATION 578 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A CONNECTOR ROAD THAT INTERSECTS AVIATION ROAD AND THE MALL. THE PROJECT INVOLVES DISTURBANCE OF 1.6 +/- ACRES AND A NEW ROADWAY OF APPROXIMATELY 17,500 +/- SQ. FT. THE ROAD WILL INCLUDE ACCESS FOR AMBROSIA DINER AND THE PROPOSED HOTEL AND CONNECT TO THE AVIATION MALL RING ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONNECTOR ROAD SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 87-08, 63-96, 17-04, 89-98, SP 44-02(M), 44-02, 38- 96, 29-09, 21-01, 14-98, 67-98, SUB 14-02, 14-02(M); AV 80-03, 72-02, 65-03, 60-05, 25-96; SP 45-2017; SUP 10-2017, SP 47-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2017 LOT SIZE 48.35 ACRES, 1.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.11, 302.5-1-93.1 SECTION 179-9- 020 CHARLES DUMAS & JOSH O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-As with the Ambrosia Diner application, we have already conducted a SEQR review and the applicant I believe has given us a pretty extensive explanation and description of these proposed changes. Does anyone have any follow up questions or comments for the applicant? MRS. MOORE-1 do have one that's been brought to my attention MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-There's two properties that front on Aviation Road, it's now the Bakery and Sunoco at this time, and wondering if there would be an opportunity for a connection to that interconnected road from that side. MR. TRAVER-From the connector road. MR. HUNSINGER-We talked about that in Sketch Plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-Yes, that's not something that Pyramid is empowered to do at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-It would require discussion and negotiation between Pyramid and the two other properties. Overall not a bad idea. It would probably come up in the context of anything Pyramid would propose to do with the remaining parcel. MR. TRAVER-What about sort of a paper, could they not do, we call it a paper connection, something like that? MR. DUMAS-1 don't sense that there's any inclination or will on the part of Aviation to show that. That would presuppose an agreement with those property owners. MR. TRAVER-Well, not really. Really I think it just shows where such a connection could beat some hypothetical future date, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Like the two other stores saying I'd like to connect to that road, you know, Pyramid, you know, what's the buy-in price to offset, that might be the factor. That would be up to the two property owners. I would love to see it happen, but since that's not part of the Aviation property and owned by other people, they would have to enter their negotiations with Pyramid. MR. DUMAS-1 have a limited agency by virtue of the fact that there's a contact between Aviation Hospitality and the Pyramid folks to speak to that issue. There's nothing in the agreement between these two parties that would allow me to make that kind of agreement for Pyramid. After our concept meeting, I did raise that with their lead person and there was no inclination at that time to do that. They indicated that that would necessarily be the subject of further discussion and negotiation with those property owners at the time they were to propose something for the remaining property. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IB(d"lair-i (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. TRAVER-I see. So it's very similar to what we heard in 2010. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-But we've made so much progress since then. MR. TRAVER-We have indeed finally. Yes. It's taken seven years. MR. MAGOWAN-Take baby steps here. MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. All right. Are there any other questions or comments on this Site Plan application? All right. I guess we're ready for a motion. MRS. MOORE-So you did, you mentioned that there's a public hearing. If you want to mention that there's a public hearing for this. There is no written public comment, and if you chose to close all three of them, I guess, in essence. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Aviation Mall connector road issue with regards to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And Laura you said there were no written comments? MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So would we then open a new public hearing for the Site Plan for the Hotel? MRS. MOORE-No, you would consider it closed because you completed SEAR, and in the past I've seen you complete SEQR and close the public hearing completely. So I didn't mention it at the time that you finished your SEQR review. I've let you continue the public hearing process and you could naturally close it because you've already completed your environmental review of the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if we close the public hearing, then we'd have to act on the application within 30 days, right? MR. TRAVER-Well, why don't I phrase it this way. Is there any harm in leaving the public hearing open at this time? MR. DEEB-You probably should, because you have to close all three of them if you do. MRS. MOORE-Well, you could potentially I guess close the two, and I apologize, I'm not familiar with the whole process in reference to SEQR and the public hearings because you don't always have to have a public hearing in reference to SEAR. MR. TRAVER-Well, the two applications, the Ambrosia Diner and the Aviation Mall, theoretically would be concluded this evening. So those certainly could be closed. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And we could leave the public hearing for the Hotel section open because we do have Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Site Plan Review. MR. DEEB-Yes, I'm fine with that. I think that's the way it should be done. MR. TRAVER-AII right. So let's close the public hearing, then, for Aviation Mall. MR. DUMAS-Nothing wrong with that. MR. TRAVER-And we'll close the public hearing for the Ambrosia Diner application. 1 Y 0 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir.yII::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J 7/118/2x: 17) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DEEB-Steve, can you repeat that again. You're going to close which two public hearings? MR. TRAVER-We are closing the public hearing for the Ambrosia Diner, Site Plan 47-2017, and the Aviation Mall Site Plan, Site Plan 48-2017. We are leaving the public hearing open for Site Plan 45-2017 for Aviation Hospitality, LLC and Special Use Permit 10-2017 for Aviation Hospitality, LLC. MR. DEEB-I wasn't sure. Okay. MR. TRAVER-No, it's good to make sure that we're clarified on that. All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #48-2017 AVIATION MALL The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board proposing construction of a connector road that intersects Aviation Road and the mall. The project involves disturbance of 1.6 +/- acres and a new roadway of approximately 17,500 +/- sq. ft. The road will include access for Ambrosia Diner and the proposed hotel and connect to the Aviation Mall ring road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new connector road 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 07/18/2017 and continued the public hearing to 07/18/2017, 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; 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 48-2017 AVIATION MALL; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; Site lighting, signage, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal. 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. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir.yII::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) 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; 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 Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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. You're off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-You're getting there. MR. HUNSINGER-If I may, there were a number of Staff comments on Site Plan. One of them that I will ask about is the lighting. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The other thing I would offer is there are a large number of engineering comments. Please make every, I know you're going to anyway, but usually a project of this scope, I shouldn't say usually, but on occasion we've asked that all the engineering comments be cleared prior to coming back for Site Plan Review, simple because we're not engineers and there are a lot of them. It can become a bit of an issue, and you've indicated you're working closely with the engineer. So anything you can do with that is going to be extremely helpful. MR. DUMAS-Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-All right, and next under New Business we have Michael and Karen LaBlanc, Subdivision Sketch Plan 13-2017. SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 13-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & KAREN LABLANC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING MDR W/MOBILE HOME OVERLAY 34 WARREN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 2.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2.57 ACRES AND 0.23 ACRE (100' X 100'). MAIN LOT, 2.57 ACRES, HAS AN EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN. NEW LOT, 0.23 ACRE, HAS AN EXISTING GARAGE THAT WILL BE REMOVED TO PLACE A 26' X 60' MOBILE HOME. NO CHANGES TO SITE PROPOSED, A SLAB AND SEPTIC TO BE INSTALLED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 1992 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 2.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-67 SECTION CHAPTER 183 MICHAEL & KAREN LABLANC, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into a lot of 2.57 and a lot of 0.23 acres, and the applicant is aware that it would be subject to an Area Variance for the lot size but the applicant wanted to present to the Planning Board to get some feedback on the proposal. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. LABLANC-Good evening. I'm Mike LaBlanc, my wife Karen. Just trying to see if we can't get in, put another home there for our daughter. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and this is for a mobile home? MR. LABLANC-Right. It will be a new doublewide. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and it's in the Overlay district, I believe, if I remember right. Okay. So there's one existing house on the larger, what you're proposing to be the larger parcel, and then you want to divide it off, a smaller piece, for this doublewide mobile home. MR. FERONE-There's a garage there now. MR. LABLANC-Yes, I'm going to be taking that down MR. FERONE-Okay. I saw your truck parked there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? This is at Sketch. So obviously they're looking for some feedback as they go through the whole process. MR. MAGOWAN-The only question, you're sure you want to live that close? MRS. LABLANC-No, that should be asked of us. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's probably been brought up. Okay. Did you have any questions for us? I mean, it's your Sketch Plan. MRS. LABLANC-No, we just have to know where to go from here. MR. TRAVER-It's not requiring any variances, right? Am I correct? MRS. MOORE-Well, it is. It will require a significant variance. That's why. MR. TRAVER-Because of the lot size. MRS. MOORE-Because of the lot size. MR. DEEB-In the future, which is, it could be problematic for the Zoning Board. Because there's such a huge discrepancy. MR. LABLANC-It's two acres, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-One is 2.57 acres and one is .23 acres, and the .23 acres could. MRS. LABLANC-Well, it's one piece of property. MR. DEEB-Right. I understand that, but you're asking to subdivide it. Okay. MRS. LABLANC-Right, and we're just taking the one 100 by 100, which most of them on that road are 100 by 150. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, do they have to subdivide it, Laura, to put a mobile home next to their home on that same? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MRS. LABLANC-They won't let us have two homes on one piece of property. MRS. MOORE-Or the variance request would be change to having two homes on one lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I'm just saying we could always send it on to the ZBA, but once it gets to the ZBA, then you have something to overcome. I just want to make you aware of that. That's all. MR. FERONE-It conforms to what's there already. 31Y �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IB(d"lair-i (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MRS. LABLANC-It's not any bigger than what's there. MR. DEEB-I'm not saying I'd have a problem with it. MRS. MOORE-So the project would, if it goes through Sketch, the applicant could potentially file for Preliminary and Final, and then it would still again come back to this Board for a Planning Board referral. MR. DEEB-Right. No matter what it goes to the ZBA. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and then back to us. MR. DEEB-Yes, and then back to us. MR. TRAVER-Well, would it come back, Laura, if it was for subdivision and we made a, let's say hypothetically we were to make a positive recommendation to the ZBA at that stage, and they were to grant that variance, would it need to come back to us? MRS. MOORE-Yes, to finish the subdivision process. MR. TRAVER-It would. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Because right now in Sketch there's no public hearing and no Zoning Board referral process. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So the other lots that are on Warren Lane, are they compliant within 100 feet? MR. LABLANC-Some are 150. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got 150 by 100, you've got a 300 by 100. You have a 150 by 100. You've got 150 by 100. MR. LABLANC-The 300 one now is separated into two. There's actually two dwellings on that now. MR. MAGOWAN-On the Russell? MRS. LABLANC-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't have an updated map. I have to make a decision tonight. MRS. LABLANC-Yes, I tried to draw a little sketch to show you that it has changed a little bit. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So that one's split. MR. TRAVER-So you're aware, obviously, and you've had conversations with Planning Staff. So you're aware of the nature and the issues with the variance, and it sounds as though you're thinking and logic is going to be the characteristic of the neighborhood is such that you're hoping to get it. MR. HUNSINGER-There's really no other way of dividing your lot up. MRS. LABLANC-Not without giving them most of the back, which is something that we would like to keep. It's nature back there. MR. MAGOWAN-How do you do in your garden back there? That's quite a ways away from your house. Do the animals eat everything? MRS. LABLANC-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, does anyone have any feedback for the LaBlanc's on their Sketch Plan? MR. DEEB-If this Board feels comfortable that they want to submit a full Sketch Plan. 314 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, I mean, what I'm hearing is they don't, there's not really a third way to put this on this property MR. DEEB-I agree with you. MR. TRAVER-And it does line up with some of the other, not that this is going to get through the variance, but it does generally conform to the characteristic, you know, of the neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean they show enough room for their septic reserve. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so it's not an environmental issue. I guess that's all we can really do. The next step is to make an application, understanding that you need to get this variance, get it in the queue for the process. MRS. MOORE-And an updated subdivision map, we can talk about that, to show the lot that you wish to create. MR. TRAVER-You want to maintain communication with Laura. MR. DEEB-Yes, she'll guide you. MS. WHITE-The whole concept of affordable housing in Queensbury, it's a big deal. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It is. MS. WHITE-It's tough. MR. DEEB-I don't have a problem with it. MRS. LABLANC-We own it. So they don't have to buy it. MR. TRAVER-No, we understand that. MRS. LABLANC-Once we're gone, that's theirs, too. MR. TRAVER-We understand. We see what you're doing. All right. So any questions for us? MRS. LABLANC-1 guess we'll see you again. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then I guess we'll see you again. Yes, it sounds like it. All right. Next we have North Country Imports, Site Plan Modification 51-2017. SITE PLAN (MOD.) 51-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, INC. AGENT(S) JARED LENDRUM OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 616 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN FOR LIGHTING FIXTURES AND LOCATION, REQUESTING THEM TO REMAIN AND ALLOW CURRENT NON-OPERATING FIXTURES TO BE MADE OPERATIONAL. THE EXISTING FIXTURES INCLUDE LAMP POLES WITH LAMPS ON TOP AND LAMPS ON THE BOTTOM. PROJECT INCLUDES REQUEST FOR ANEW LAMP POLE WITH LIGHT FIXTURES — NOT OPERABLE AT THIS TIME; THEN A LAMP FIXTURE THAT WAS RE-LOCATED FROM PREVIOUS BUILDING TO THE NEW ADDITION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 18-2011 NEW FACADE & 8' X 8' SIGN TOWER; OTHER SIGN BUILDING PERMITS, SV PZ 141, 2016, SP PZ 123-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2017 SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.10-1-12 SECTION 179-9-120 JARED & KEN LENDRUM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LENDRUM-Good evening. I'm Jared Lendrum here and my father Ken Lendrum representing North Country Subaru. As you know, we are seeking to be able to maintain the lighting that we have on our site. Back, what was it, August of 2014 we were approached by a company who was seeking to upgrade our lot lighting fixtures through their National Grid program and it was a turnkey thing and they said they'd set you up with energy efficient environmentally friendly lighting and you won't have to pay for it and we said, sounds like a great deal. They do everything? Yes. And we did it, and that was August of 2014 and we just 31 11,m �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) completed our new expansion. During our final site review it was pointed out that the lighting wasn't compliant or current with the site plan on file, so here we are to seek approval for the site plan that was submitted this go around that accurately shows the lighting plan on site, including a couple of lights were moved in the course of the project. There were a few lights that were attached to the, what would be the north end of the building that weren't drawn on the site plan thanks to an architect. They're back on the building lighting similar building areas and there's also the addition of a small pole where I would like to, I was hoping to install some residential style motion detector lights to deter theft in the back corner of our lot. Otherwise it's the lighting that's been in place at least since August of`14. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess the issue being that some of the lights are not Code compliant because they're not cutoff. Is that essentially the case, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So can you make the fixtures cutoff so that they would be compliant? I mean, that's the problem for us. The Code is the Code. MR. LENDRUM-The lights that are there were put on poles where the old fixtures were. The old fixtures were angled lighting, and these lights are adjustable but if we do, we will have spots that are very well lit and then dark corners throughout the property, and if they just aim down, we'll have the corner of the new car lot, the customer parking area in the back corner of our lot, the back side of our building will all be dark. MR. MAGOWAN-And it's dark over there. MR. LENDRUM-It's wooded. The back perimeter of the property where the lights shine is all surrounded by a wood line. So the lights do aim backwards towards our wood line and otherwise the wood line does make it dark, but the lighting aims towards it which kind of helps fill in the gaps. MR. MAGOWAN-Now when you were retrofitting, you didn't add any more poles. You just replaced the fixtures that were already up there which were major, if I remember. MR. LENDRUM-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-They were much brighter. Because I'll tell you, I remember the older lights. The newer lights I didn't notice when you did change those. The spill off goes right off your property but you are concentrating the light right down on your property. I know that far back corner, north of your home style posts, they're not on all the time. It's only when the motion is. MR. LENDRUM-Right. Well, we had some theft back in that corner because they can drive around behind the building, park amongst the cars, and I've had a few things broken into, and the other end of the property I had a car, convertible vandalized and we're trying to deter that kind of stuff. The back corner's our biggest problem. I mean, of course we do want to keep our inventory well presented. MR. MAGOWAN-You seem to have a pocket of your building right in the trees there, and I know it is dark in there. That whole stretch of that road is dark. So you really don't get any light from anybody else. Like I said, I thought that the new lighting was a significant improvement from the old lighting. It's nicer, not as much spill off of it. I like your cars. I want to see them. MR. TRAVER-Now you mentioned wanting to put some additional lighting with more household type motion detector type. Is that in dark corners? MR. LENDRUM-It's just one of them. It's the one on the left side of the photo. It's back in the woods, kind of down a path that Niagara Mohawk used to use to get to the power line. It's back behind the building. MR. TRAVER-And that's to address the theft issue you just talked about. MR. LENDRUM-Well, in one area, yes. We have some sheds back there where they keep breaking in because they must think we're growing something that they want. I don't know. So I just want, so if they do pull back in there, there's something that comes on that says, hey, you're being watched. I mean, I also plan on putting some cameras on there, too, but I think that whole idea of the light turning on is going to be more effective than actually having light there. 36 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. TRAVER-But those apparently are not the lights that are the issue with Code. Right? MR. LENDRUM-No. The way it was worded to me by the inspector was that the site didn't match the site plan. So I brought that up just to make sure that you realize that that was drawn on to the site plan that we're proposing. MR. K. LENDRUM-If you go all the way back to our initial program, we had a very good a contractor, but unfortunately he used an architect based out of Rochester, and we lost touch with him. We couldn't get his attention. We couldn't get anything done, and we wouldn't use him again, and I think that that's where a fair portion of these issues came from is that every contact we went back to him and he went to sleep on us. So even though the building came out gorgeous, but every time we had contact between the engineer and the building inspector and the architect he was the wrong guy. So that's where part of the stupid conversation came up. MR. TRAVER-So have you spoken with Town staff as to suggestions as to how you could remedy the situation? MR. LENDRUM-Well, his suggestion was first to see what your opinion was. We were trying to avoid re-lighting the place. So we were hoping that we could get by with minor modifications. So that's where we stand now. If we have to do something. MR. TRAVER-Well, my understanding, and I guess, Laura, I'll ask you. Our options when it comes to Code are pretty limited. I mean, that's a law. MRS. MOORE-Well, that's where, the lighting is at your discretion. The applicant is proposing what's in place now. The Board could have a discussion if some of those fixtures could be tilted differently. That's an opportunity. That's a discussion between you and the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-That was actually my first thought because they are cutoff fixtures. They're just angled, but I agree with what they're saying. There are dark spots MR. LENDRUM-They put them up the same way as the ones they took down, and these were pretty good people. I didn't think there was an issue changing out a fixture. So they put them back the same way that they were. The light is a lot better, like you said, tremendously better than what we had before. It's interesting that we used to have a big problem this time of year with bugs. The other lights would attract bugs and bugs would die all over the cars. If you didn't get it off in a day or two it would damage the paint. These lights, we don't have that problem anymore. It's gone. MR. TRAVER-Different frequency. MR. LENDRUM-So it's a completely different in a lot of ways. MR. TRAVER-Most bugs only see in ultraviolet. So if that's not in there. MR. LENDRUM-1 think that they can be adjusted and the light could still be adequate. MR. HUNSINGER-And the other issue, at least for me, as we go forward is if there's light spilling off your property, and it doesn't appear that there is. You are kind of an island where you are. MR. LENDRUM-Well, nobody can develop to the right of us. We own that. It's wet over there, and the other side is the National Grid driveway. So we are kind of boxed in there. I mean, actually if we could point them downward, now we're. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LENDRUM-1 mean, I guess if you're worried about the spilling, they're not pointed sideways at the road, they're pointed away from the road. MR. TRAVER-So you'd basically like to leave them the way they're currently set, just be able to turn them on. MR. LENDRUM-If you want us to angle them down, we're game for that. We really are. I don't think it's going to be a giant problem, but if you tell us that we've got to turn them off, then we have to come up with another plan. We didn't blacktop because we wanted to make sure you guys didn't tell us start over. 3.7 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J 7/118/2x: 17) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LENDRUM-So we haven't finished the blacktop either. To be clear, there are two lights on the building that the building inspector's office didn't like. They were on the building previously. They were on either end of, either side of the north end of the building. Those two right there. So rather than put a whole new series of holes on the building, we put them on the same stalk and aimed them to the left and to the right. MR. TRAVER-They're not on the building anymore. MR. LENDRUM-The ones you just saw are on the building, but they're not plugged in because the building inspector's office. MR. K. LENDRUM-They were originally on what would be the upper, right there. The other way. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. K. LENDRUM-A little further. They were right there, and now they've moved 30 feet further. MRS. MOORE-Right. So they're at this corner, and they're not on right now. MR. TRAVER-But you want them on. MR. LENDRUM-They're unwired, but I would like them, because that whole corner is full of new inventory now and it's not lit. MRS. MOORE-So they're pointing towards the woods. MR. LENDRUM-The woods. Well, yes one's pointed kind of northwest and the other one's pointed west. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, from what I've seen driving past at night, you know, beforehand and what is now, and knowing how dark that property is, you know, the spill off is minimal, and if you tone them down a little, you know, like you say you'd have to do it in the middle of the night to get the full effect, but like I said, it's not blinding anybody on the road. Car lots, in my opinion, should be lit up a little bit more, but you're isolated there. You're all on your own. You have woods on one side and to deter people, I don't have a problem with that. So to make them change it and do everything else they're going to be adding more poles and more lighting. So it's six of one half a dozen of the other. I think what they've done there is done a beautiful job. They've been there for years, and I don't have a problem with it. MR. TRAVER-How do members of the Board feel about that? MR. DEEB-I don't want to see them have to go out and change everything. I don't think they should have to do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-If we had granted a waiver and approved the site plan, there wouldn't be this discussion. MR. K. LENDRUM-If we had had a sharper architect it might have been on the original plan. MR. LENDRUM-He uses a pencil with an eraser. So he erased the old lights and didn't draw them back on. MR. K. LENDRUM-But the overall project, it came out incredible. Every screw was in the right spot. He's just such a craftsman. I've got to tell you this story because you should appreciate this. We had to re-route the septic system. So when they got done there was a tiny little bow in the line, I mean we're talking four inches out of perfectly straight. So they get it in there and they've got it all covered up, an hour later it's all dug up. I said what are you doing, Lee said it wasn't straight. I said nobody's going to see it it's under concrete, they said we don't argue with him, and they dug it up, I'm telling you four inches on a thirty foot run, nobody cared, right. Lee wanted it straight. So we're pretty excited about it. It came out spectacular. 1Y g �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is very nice. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks great. What a vast improvement. MR. K. LENDRUM-What a change. MR. MAGOWAN-And you've got the car wash going. Is that going well? MR. LENDRUM-It does a nice job. It's a new industry I have to learn now. MR. K. LENDRUM-You know what has happened is it's now, like you used to have coffee in the waiting room, but now we have to have snacks and water because people have become accustom to it. Our snack bill now is $125 a week for snacks, and the next thing is that, and this is coming for the customers because they like it, right, and if they like it they come back, but a car wash is free every time you come in the door. Free. Part of doing business, and our customers are ecstatic over it. MR. MAGOWAN-You sure the employees aren't going there and grabbing one or two every morning? MR. LENDRUM-I'm sure the employees do. MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn't that what Saturn did is every time you serviced your car they washed it? MR. LENDRUM-Yes. MR. K. LENDRUM-Subaru wanted us to do this and we had tried in the past to do it. You can't hire people who will do that on a consistent basis. They will not do it. They call in sick. Because we've tried in the past. So when we came up with the sign, we said that has to be in it or it won't work, and it looks like it's really working. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, let's float a motion, then. MR. HUNSINGER-For the record I do have my car serviced there. MR. TRAVER-Do you? Okay. MR. DEEB-Can I bring my car in to be washed? You said free. MR. LENDRUM-With service. MR. DEEB-Oh with service. MR. K. LENDRUM-The actual instructions are if anybody asks do it. If somebody asks just do it. MR. DEEB-You shouldn't have told me that, Ken. MR. K. LENDRUM-It's all customer good will. That's what it's all about. MR. LENDRUM-Subaru will survey anybody who opens a repair order. So if you come in and say can you empty my ashtray and you open a repair order to do it, you might get a survey and the survey says did you get a free carwash. So anybody who opens a repair order, whether it's for an inspection or, hey, can you inflate my tires, you get a free carwash because you might get that survey. I want it to say, yes, I got a carwash. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Does our next applicant want to comment to the Planning Board about this application? BARRY KINCAID 39 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. KINCAID-No, I think it looks great. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we'll entertain a draft SEAR. So this deals with lighting. I don't believe there are any changes to the environmental impacts that would lead us to not be able to re- affirm SEAR, but let's try the motion and see. MR. FERONE-Sure. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING NEG DEC SP MOD # 51-2017 NORTH COUNTY IMPORTS, INC. The applicant proposes a modification to existing site plan for lighting fixtures and location, requesting them to remain and allow current non-operating fixtures to be made operational. The existing fixtures include lamp poles with lamps on top and lamps on the bottom. Project includes request for a new lamp pole with light fixtures — not operable at this time; then a lamp fixture that was relocated from previous building to the new addition. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SP PZ 123-2016, on 05/17/2016 adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms 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 REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN (MODIFICATION) 51-2017 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, INC. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; Duly adopted this18th day of July, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and then the Site Plan resolution. MR. FERONE-My question is on waivers, are we going to grant the waiver on site lighting? MRS. MOORE-You're granting them as. MR. TRAVER-Well, at this point I think in view of what we're reviewing, I would say yes. MRS. MOORE-1 guess maybe I'd suggest re-wording it that you're granting them as presented, and then there's two, I'm sorry, there's lighting that is now, per this resolution, is being allowed to be active. There's probably some better wording to that, but I'm not sure. MR. TRAVER-Isn't that part of their site plan, though? MRS. MOORE-It is. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. TRAVER-So if we approve Site Plan aren't we saying that by that approval? MRS. MOORE-They're asking they're asking, they're requesting permission to turn them on. So you might want to make that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 51-2017 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, 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 a modification to existing site plan for lighting fixtures and location, requesting them to remain and allow current non-operating fixtures to be made operational. The existing fixtures include lamp poles with lamps on top and lamps on the bottom. Project includes request for a new lamp pole with light fixtures — not operable at this time; then a lamp fixture that was relocated from previous building to the new addition. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/18/2017 and continued the public hearing to 07/18/2017, 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 07/18/2017; 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 MODIFICATION 51-2017 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, 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: Site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal. Notation that lighting is approved as presented by the plan in its entirety. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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. You're all set. MR. DEEB-See, you don't have to take them down. MR. K. LENDRUM-Thank you very much. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under New Business we have Site Plan 50-2017 for Michael Badera. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL J. BADERA OWNER(S) M DREAM, LLC, MICHAEL BADERA ZONING WR LOCATION 55 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE TREES WITHIN 35 FT. OF SHORELINE. NEW PLANTING OF SPRUCE OR OTHER EVERGREEN TREES TO BE PLANTED TO REPLACE THOSE REMOVED IN SIMILAR AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REMOVING VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF HIGH WATER MARK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-95, SP 59-96, AV 83-96, AV 55-96, AV 41-95 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2017 SITE INFORMATION LGPC, APA LOT SIZE .45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-20 SECTION 179-6-050 BARRY KINCAID, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. KINCAID-Hi. I'm Barry Kincaid, owner of KLC Property Enhancement, LLC out of Bolton Landing. Mike Badera asked me to step in for him tonight. He couldn't make it. He's concerned, I don't know if you've looked at the pictures. He's concerned about six very, very large pine trees around his house and in front on the side there. He's got large oak trees in the front. We weren't going to touch those. He's just highly concerned over the damage that some of the limbs have caused coming down on his property and house, and he's also just nervous with all these storms that have been happening all over the place and the damage. As we went out and started looking at the impact to the lake of trying to show the house anymore it's highly filtered. We're not taking any large deciduous trees or any low vegetation. With the removal of these pines there are three that are within the 35 foot setback for vegetation removal. We would not be removing any of the pine stumps, no disturbance pulling out the roots or loosening any soils. MR. HUNSINGER-So what will you do, just cut them as close to the ground as you can? MR. KINCAID-That's what he said, yes. I mean, if in reality later on he says, you know, maybe if we could just grind the stump flat to the surface so it doesn't stick up, you know at least he could throw some mulch over it or something, but we would not be removing the stump base to create any disturbance near the lake. MR. TRAVER-And you're going to replace them with younger trees. Right? MR. KINCAID-That was his plan. It needed to be and it would probably be more on the side, you know, not where the big pines come down, because not removing the stumps, we're going to replace them there, you'd have to kind of try to find a balance somewhere there. So I think he's more looking to put the trees more on the side, whatever plantings he needs to do, but there's still a lot of vegetation, low plants and vegetation, between where we're going to do it, and if we're not going to remove any stumps and create any disturbance, you know, it's very secure. MR. FERONE-1 think you were understating when you said large. The trees are huge. MR. KINCAID-They are huge. MR. FERONE-But I think your challenge is, I mean, I've had trees taken out on my property. How are you going to get the equipment in there to do it? MR. KINCAID-We had a couple of options. We could brought a crane in, and we could reach some of it with a crane, all ropes and lower everything piece by piece by piece and take it all out. It's a lot. One of the hardest ones was the first tree you come to from his driveway going down. One of the big pines, it was just so large. So we ended up having to actually take down another tree, one of the pines next to it, and we're going to use that as a tower to lower the massive. We do it all the time. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, as you know, I appreciate the fact that you want to leave the stumps. The absorption of a stump with no tree really takes a major turn. Trees soak up a lot of water. Is it possible, you know, since you're going to be re-planting the trees, if you're able to re-plant the trees in between the root structure so as those other ones deteriorate and the other growth from the new trees will replace what's deteriorating on the other stuff, and then eventually. MR. KINCAID-To re-plant them in the same spot? 412 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. MAGOWAN-In between some roots. You might have to have a little bit heavier machine to break through some of the smaller roots. MR. KINCAID-I mean, some of that, I mean, those are huge pines. We would have to, I mean, to put a decent tree in there you're going to have a decent sized ball. I can't really speak on the placement of those trees for him. He did have a note, though. Let me just look at that real quick. He thought that if we needed to re-plant some stuff that there might only be room for about four native conifer, or evergreens that can go in the same nearby space without taking out something else like the hemlocks that are growing there now. So he thought planting a couple, four. MR. MAGOWAN-Well four where the other trees are coming out, and then plus some more. MR. KINCAID-The only thing with putting them where the other trees are coming out, now we're, you know, if you look at the lake view there, now we're, how big a tree are you actually going to put there without blocking his, the view he already had? MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's called part of a compromise for, you know, coming within the 35 foot marking. Do you know what I'm saying? He wants the trees down for safety, and we have a buffer zone to keep the safety and the earth from going into the lake. MR. KINCAID-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-A lot of the issues with the lake is runoff from all the neighbors and the lawns. MR. KINCAID-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So, you know, you're taking out some major absorptive trees and they are huge, I admit, and I'm not a pine lover. So to me I would say it would be a compromise to say, look, okay, we're going to allow you to do this but you need to do this. MR. KINCAID-I think he's willing to plant some trees close to the locations. All I'm trying to point out, also, is the view. So, you know, so that there is the balance, that he still has the view he already has. MR. MAGOWAN-So then maybe he can get some there, instead of going with a tree that's going to go up, maybe get a low growing shrub or something. MR. KINCAID-So you're not saying a large, you're just saying re-plant something in the general location. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm looking for some vegetation that's going to go back in there, like what is it a Wandering Jew or something like that, a little shrub that would probably grow right over the stumps and that, and that's also absorption. MR. KINCAID-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just, I mean, I'm just throwing it out there, my own point of view, because, you know, what you're asking is quite substantial, and my next concern is by taking down that group of trees, you've got your neighbor's trees over here. You're taking out a bunch of toothpicks that are working together, keeping each other standing up. So you take these trees down. MR. KINCAID-Correct, but you've got an outside toothpick here, too. That has nothing beside. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I see that, but what I'm worried about is you take down these, right, I'm worried about the neighbor's trees. What's going to hold them up? Because now they're used to going together, and I've seen it so many times when they take that down. I'm just bringing up the question. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. MR. KINCAID-I do tree work all over this basin and I can't agree with you enough. MR. MAGOWAN-So what happens if he takes those trees down and you get a big storm and the neighbor's tree comes down and crashes? Do you know what I'm saying? MR. KINCAID-I get that, but that's not. I was just going to say, he can't control that. He's trying to protect his investment. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. HUNSINGER-So if I'm looking at this, I'm looking at the plan that shows the trees that are here with the legend, a circle or an oval if you will. So where would the new trees be planted? Would they be planted in the proximity of where the? MR. KINCAID-The other ones were taken down. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you said they would be off to the side. MR. TRAVER-The owner's note was indicating that as well. It said the same general area. MR. KINCAID-Right. He did say in the same general area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm good with that. MS. WHITE-With the addition of the shrubbery that was being discussed with Brad. MR. KINCAID-The re-planting. MS. WHITE-Yes, over where the stumps are. MR. KINCAID-Right, in the area. MS. WHITE-1 kind of like that suggestion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, if you were to plant the new trees, you know, if you were to draw a circle where the trees are taken out, if you were to plant the new trees within that circle, is that a fair depiction of what he intends? MRS. MOORE-Sort of like this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KINCAID-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Because you're down lower. You're going to catch what's going to the lake. MR. KINCAID-Right. He could just do some lower trees. MR. HUNSINGER-I like the larger trees that he proposed. Versus a shrub. MR. FERONE-He was proposing four to five, within five to six feet tall. MS. WHITE-1 meant the shrubbery in addition to. MR. KINCAID-There's quite a bit of vegetation down through that whole front is heavily vegetated, and then he's got that big stone wall, or stone riprap section down through there, and he's leaving those great big oaks and those other two smaller group of birches. MR. TRAVER-1 think our concern is what he's removing, not. MR. KINCAID-He agreed to plant some trees in the same general location. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And now what are you going to do for the groundcover there? Because that's been nothing but pine needles and sap for years. MR. KINCAID-There's quite a bit of lawn right there. MR. MAGOWAN-There is a bunch of lawn underneath. MR. KINCAID-Have you been? MR. MAGOWAN-No, I didn't get to this one. MRS. MOORE-1 do have the 2016 RPS data that shows it. MR. KINCAID-What year was that? 414 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J 7/118/2x: 17) MRS. MOORE-2016. MR. TRAVER-So then to clarify, the applicant has indicated they would plant. We need to specify. MR. FERONE-The applicant's letter said four to five conifers between five to six feet tall. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they're going to be quite a bit smaller, and they may not all survive. So why don't we make it five. MR. MAGOWAN-He's taking out six trees. MR. KINCAID-There's only three inside the setbacks, though. MR. MAGOWAN-That's all right. The 36 inch pine you're taking down, I mean, that absorption covers. To me it's a compromise and I think six is not enough for the size trees that are there. I'll go with what the Board wants, but I would at least say if you're taking out six trees, you plant six new ones because I'm sure they're going to be off towards the neighbor's property, because you don't want anything off the corner over near the patio. MR. KINCAID-Well, I wouldn't think if it was your house you would either on that corner right there. MR. MAGOWAN-As it is now the nice thing is, is all you're seeing is all you're seeing is a tree. MR. KINCAID-The stems. You're looking at, you can look through the stems, but as a safety standpoint, you know, some of these and some of the damage it's been doing all around, you know, I just had a spot, it's getting really bad. I had a spot right on Lake George, on the west side in Bolton where the insurance came along, now these people had trees all around their house. The insurance company came along and said you can't have the tree canopy within six feet of your house. So they had to go, they were going to cancel his insurance. He had to go through six feet off the house and go straight up. There was going to be nothing left of the trees. He had to take them all down, all the way around his house for insurance reasons. Some of that stuff is getting brutal with the damage and the insurance companies. MR. TRAVER-All right. So where are we at with the specifics? MR. HUNSINGER-1 would support Brad's comment, you know, replace one for one. Put in six new ones, you know, what's one more? MR. TRAVER-And do we want conifers or deciduous? Or does it matter? MS. WHITE-It doesn't matter. MR. HUNSINGER-They only take up water. MR. TRAVER-Well I was thinking if he went with deciduous then he might be just re-planting the same problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. MR. KINCAID-Well, I mean, if he managed it, though, you know, managed the height and manicured it, you know, then he wouldn't have the problem of the large white pines. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then our only concern is that it needs to be the non-invasive, it needs to be on the list. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. On the native list. What's the official word, what's the terminology, Laura, the approved plantings? MR. TRAVER-For the list. MRS. MOORE-The native species list. I think it has wording that it's whatever's currently listed on the DEC's website. So it falls back, if we're not accurate, then they have to follow the DEC's. �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IB(d"lair-i (,")7/118/ "x: 17) MR. MAGOWAN-1 just happen to have a do it yourself water quality land owner's guide to property management for Lake George with me tonight. MR. KINCAID-And who makes that? MR. TRAVER-The LGA I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-The Lake George Association. MR. KINCAID-Yes, that's the Fund for Lake George. MR. MAGOWAN-This is the one that we go so we have a guideline to follow for people like you that want to cut down trees and put other ones in. MR. TRAVER-All right. So do we have a draft motion? MR. FERONE-We do have a draft motion. MR. TRAVER-Actually there's a public hearing on this application as well, and I see there's no public, but are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And entertain a motion. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 50-2017 MICHAEL J. BADERA The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to remove trees within 35 ft. of shoreline. New planting of spruce or other evergreen trees to be planted to replace those removed in similar area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, removing vegetation within 35 feet of high water mark 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/18/2017 and continued the public hearing to 07/18/2017, 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 07/18/2017; 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 50-2017 MICHAEL J. BADERA, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 46 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir."/ II::II irnirnliirn,� IBc,lcair�,J 7/118/2x: 17) 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution 3) In addition, we are noting that there will be six trees to be planted in place of the trees being taken down. The trees need to be on the approved native species list per DEC and these trees would be conifers between five to six feet tall. Location to be in the approximate area of where the trees are being taken down. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2017 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Do we have any questions or comments on the motion? MR. SHAFER-1 have a quick question. Does the neighbor to the south know about this idea? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they've been notified 500 feet. MR. TRAVER-And there was no comment. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. KINCAID-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. That concludes our agenda tonight. The only thing I wanted to mention, did everyone get a copy of the draft proposed updates, amendments, whatever you want to call them, that I sent out? MR. DEEB-Yes. MS. WHITE-The blue pages? MR. TRAVER-Yes, the blue pages. Right. I did not plan on processing them tonight, but if anyone has any comments or feedback for me I'd be interested in hearing that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 thought it was good. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Ford thought he had a concern, and since he's not here tonight I didn't think it was appropriate to pursue those, but maybe we can tackle that next week or whatever, if the Board is ready. We do have plenty of time before November. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And I'd like to thank Laura for her input on the Roberts Rules and her acting as parliamentary. Thank you, Laura. All right. Then we need a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MR. FERONE-Second. MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. MR. DEEB-See everybody next week. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 18, 2017, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 4.7 �Qa.ueeir.n,ruba.uir.yII::II irnirnliirn,� IB(d"Icair-i (:)A"/118/ "x: 17) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman