Loading...
02-20-2018 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 27-2017 Seaton Property Holdings 1. Special Use Permit 7-2017 Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61 FURTHER TABLING Site Plan No. 74-2017 Queensburywood, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-35 Site Plan No. 12-2018 O'Reilly Auto Enterprise, LLC 11. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.7-1-28 Site Plan No. 15-2018 Six Flags Great Escape 19. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 13-2018 Parker Hammond Dev., LLC 26. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-18.4 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) FEBRUARY 20, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, February 20th, 2018. This is the second meeting for the month of February and the fourth meeting thus far for 2018. We have, there should be some agendas on the table at the rear of the room. If you have, like I do, a cellphone, please turn it off or silence it, and we'll get to our agenda. The first item being an Administrative Item. Site Plan 27-2017, Special Use Permit 7-2017 for Seaton Property Holdings. Requesting further tabling. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS FURTHER TABLING MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant and the Town Board have not finalized the language and the change of Code for the type of use that they're proposing. So that's still in the middle of that gathering information and writing it down, and so at this time you can either table it to the second May meeting or the second June meeting, and I don't have a preference. I just, there's still working those details out and I don't know how long it's going to take. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, the second May meeting would be May 17th. That's on the Thursday this year because of the, I think that's because of the tax abatement issue that we have every year in May. People get to, at least that's what I have on my calendar. We have a Tuesday and a Thursday that week. MR. DEEB-Steve, should we go with June just to be safe? MR. TRAVER-Would you? MRS. MOORE-I don't have, I really don't, once it gets through the process it'll move rather quickly to set up the public hearings and things like that. It just hasn't been completed yet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, why don't we go with May 17. We can always table it again if we need to. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't want to push it to the 30th because they're both open? Gains you another two weeks. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but I mean they're looking at quite a bit of time between now and the second meeting in May. Hopefully it's just an issue with language drafts with the Town Board. So hopefully they'll be able to get that resolved and we can get it off our to do list. If not we can table it again. So are we ready for a motion on that? RESOLUTION TABLING SP #27-2017 & SUP 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS MOTION TO EXTEND TABLING OF SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) Tabled until the May 17, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we move to our regular agenda. The first item being a previously tabled item, Queensburywood, LLC. This is Site Plan 74-2017, Harbor Freight tools. SITE PLAN NO. 74-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. QUEENSBURYWOOD, LLC. AGENT(S): KENNETH BROWNELL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 871 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING RAY SUPPLY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT 16,000 SQ. FT. "HARBOR FREIGHT" BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PARKING ARRANGEMENT, RETAINING WALL, LIGHTING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED UPDATED INFORMATION FOR SITE WORK PER PREVIOUS PLANNING BOARD MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: 2000-519 COMM. ADDITION; 094171-3537 STORAGE & CAR STEREO INSTALLATION BLDG. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 2.13 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-35. SECTION: 179- 3-040 LUIGI PALLESCHI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MRS. MOORE-1 have the applicant proposes a 16,000 square foot Harbor Freight building with associated parking. At our last meeting we went over some items that the applicant was to clarify and I'll just go through some of those highlights. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So under Signage, the applicant did come up with the size of the wall sign, the detail behind that and the size and alignment. The wall sign is 109 feet and is to face Route 9. The monument sign is 40 square feet located 15 foot setback is required. Under Traffic his revised site plan shows the north access point to have right hand turn entry and exit only, no left hand turn, and the south access point allows for full movement, and under grading and drainage plans we talked about the wall heights are shown for the building area and they are clarified for the parking area. I apologize, but we did revise that information, and under Landscaping Plan we note that along the Carlton Drive or the rear of the building that the northern spruce that are being installed, there's 17 proposed at an 8 foot height, and then the retaining wall sections along the back of the building and into the parking lot range from 8 feet to 13 and a half feet, and then under Elevations, the applicant revised the plan showing the color scheme which is browns and neutral colors with green awning elements and stone face edging at the building base front. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PALLESCHI-Good evening. Luigi Palleschi with ABD Engineers. Here tonight for a project located at 871 Route 9. The project is about just over two acres, outlined in red. There's an existing building that sits on there today known as Ray Supply. The project is located on, it would be the west side of Route 9. You have the Pizza Hut on the south, a couple of residential abutting properties on the west. Wal-Mart and their entrance would also be on the west and the north of the project. The proposal is to remove the existing building to make way for a 16,000 square foot proposed harbor Freight building. The 16,000 square foot building would be a one story building situated in the southwest corner of the site. Access to the site will be from Route 9, similar to what you see today. There are two ingress and egress points on Route 9 currently, and our proposal is to keep the southernmost entrance a full access curb and then the northern entrance would be a right in and right out. I know that was sort of the discussion at the last meeting here in front of the Planning Board. The 16,000 square foot building did not change since the last time. That's still situated in that area there. Also 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) discussed at the last Planning Board meeting the islands within the parking lot area have been adjusted slightly to increase the green space within the islands so that we meet the Town's Code. We're at 80 parking spaces provided for the Harbor Freight. We are banking seven parking spaces. So 73 of those spaces would be built up front and then seven reserved for future. All the landscaping islands and along Route 9 will be heavily landscaped. Lighting will be with wall packs and poles, light poles. A lot of them will have double heads. The height of the pole lights will be about 20 feet. They're LED type lighting, all down type. That was another item that was discussed at the last meeting. So all down type lighting. As far as sidewalks, we are proposing a sidewalk along the front of the parking that would connect to the existing sidewalk on Route 9. At the rear of the building we are proposing an eight foot vinyl fence and also 17 northern spruces to help buffer the back wall building and, you know, help buffer it from the adjoining neighbors, even though the neighbors are far away, and the existing trees that they have in the backyard, this will only help the situation. Grading and drainage all drains on site. If you recall the existing site does currently flow out to Route 9 right now and what we're proposing is onsite infiltration, utilizing the sandy soils on site. There is a little bit from the driveways that will go to DOT drainage system, but it'll certainly be significantly less than what what's going there today. We've been working with DOT. I've provided a letter from DOT and their letter wasn't earth shattering, nothing significant in regards to site plan changes, just a few comments on crosswalks and sidewalks and radiuses coming in and out of the site. At the southern driveway entrance we had proposed a wider curb cut and DOT came back and commented to narrow it a little bit. However, in order to narrow it a little bit we're proposing a mountable curb with a little additional asphalt so that we could get the tractor trailers into the site from there. So we are narrowing the curb cut over the mountable curb. We'll certainly work with DOT with the minor items that they had in regards to the site plan. We also received stormwater comments from Chazen, the Town designated engineer. We've gone through every one of those and again there was nothing significant. We were able to go through each item and address each item that we feel they're minor technical comments. We'll certainly work through that aspect of the stormwater design. Another item that we're requesting is a waiver to remove an easement from the Wal-Mart to the site in itself. I believe years ago the Ray Supply was granted an easement for Ray Supply to access Wal-Mart site. It wasn't so Wal- Mart could come here and use anything on the Ray Supply site. It was really because they thought they were going to have a lot of truck traffic through their back entrance in through the site. So that's what the easement was set up for, and due to the grades and the retaining wall we'd like to remove that easement, and then back to another waiver request here is, again, for the buffer along the southwest rear of the building. Code requires a 50 foot buffer to a residential property. Right now we're proposing 27.1 feet. However, as discussed previously, you know, we're providing a greater buffer so that we will install an 80 foot solid vinyl fence an also, you know, eight foot height Norway spruces. So, you know, we're here tonight for hopefully final site plan approval with any conditions that you may have, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. MR. TRAVER-The only question I had was with regard to the parking. You mentioned tonight we had seven spaces banked and I think on the application it says five. So you're having more real spaces and fewer banked spaces, and you've increased that by two from five to seven? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, I don't have the previous site plan here with me. However, even with those two additional spaces, we still meet the green space requirements. So I don't think it's an issue. I think having the extra two banked spaces. MR. TRAVER-I just noted. MR. PALLESCHI-Okay MS. WHITE-The note in the letter says the number of planned parking spaces has been reduce to 73 to accommodate landscaping to paving ratio. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Very good. All right. Questions, comments from other members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Do you know how many cubic yards you'll be pulling out of there to lower that thing? MR. PALLESCHI-I don't have that, but, you know, it is a, you know, a 13, 14 foot high retaining wall specifically in this one site, and then it obviously tapers down. I don't have those calculations. MR. MAGOWAN-You're even lowering the front. There's a lot of fill coming out of there. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2013) MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, right. There is. It's a tough site, trying to balance the site and getting all the parking lot rates to work, especially for handicap and so forth. So we're doing the best we can with the, that we have that are challenging on the site. MR. MAGOWAN-So one of the questions I've heard from the neighbors behind is the back, and I believe I saw a picture somewhere. The back, you know, they're afraid they're going to be looking at and hearing all the rooftop A/C's and that and the heaters. I told them that the buffer, wait a minute, here it is. What is that height? Do you know the height of the back there, the next one over, the last one? MR. PALLESCHI-That's the side. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Well let's go up there to that top one, then. What's the white? MR. PALLESCHI-That's the roof. MR. MAGOWAN-The back of the roof. MR. PALLESCHI-The back roof pitching. MR. MAGOWAN-So what is the height of the back that's pitching from the ground, and then the height of your units about five foot? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, so I believe it's 22 feet from the bottom first floor to the back of the roof, okay, but as you come over into this corner here you're only going to see maybe eight feet of the actual building because the retaining wall is the building, okay, and then so you have eight feet and then plus another four or five feet for your units, you know, you're at like 12, 13 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-So my question is when I'm checking it out, I mean, I just, what are the neighbors going to see? I know it slopes up there. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, and by providing an eight foot solid fence, you know, and they're up here looking down, you know, they're actually going to be looking at that solid fence, and then we're going to put eight foot trees on top of that, you know, and in few years they're going to grow and be taller than the fence, and then you also have the mature existing trees that are there on their property. So we feel that, you know, looking through the back, we've got a lot of trees that are currently there and we're adding to that buffer by providing the fencing and additional pine trees. MR. MAGOWAN-So those eight foot trees, is that from the ground up or is that from the bottom of the ball? MR. PALLESCHI-That's from the ground up. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So they'd be like 10 foot, 10, 11 foot. MR. PALLESCHI-And it could be a little deceiving as well because this land is going to be sloping down towards the building. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, so that's what I'm wondering is, you know, how much higher are they going to be looking at the back of the roof? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. They're going to be seeing the vinyl fence, and then over time those pine trees will grow over the fence. MR. TRAVER-So with the vinyl fence as proposed in place the neighbors will not see the building at all. They'll see the vinyl fence. Right? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. It's hard to tell. I do have. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, see and that keeps going up to the neighbors' yard. So they're going to be, you know, looking it over, looking over. MR. PALLESCHI-Right, but if the fence, can I walk over? MR. TRAVER-Yes, certainly. MR. PALLESCHI-So at this location here, right, you've got that eight foot of exposed. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. PALLESCHI-Okay. And this continually slopes up, right, so the higher you put the fence, you know, the higher your line of sight is cut off to view the building. So if that's eight feet and you come up to here eight feet, right, and then you project a line down, you know, they might just barely see the roof of the building, but not necessarily the back of the wall. If that makes sense. MR. MAGOWAN-And how many rooftops do you think are going to be up there, just two? MR. PALLESCHI-I believe just the two as shown. MR. MAGOWAN-Usually when they're, but when you're kind of higher than them, I'm just, you know, worried about the, not that they make a heck of a lot of noise, but. MR. PALLESCHI-Right, and if the rooftop units are positioned in the center of the building, you know, you're, I don't know, I would say hundreds of feet away. So, you know, for every foot away from the building or from a noise, you know, the decibel readings actually reduce exponentially, and with the buffering, you know, the fencing, the trees also help reduce the noise. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-It has to do with the access to Wal-Mart. If you drive up there now, that road from Wal-Mart down to Ray Supply does not look very steep at all and I'm wondering if, are you lowering the first floor elevation considerably from what is there now with the Ray Supply building? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes we are. MR. SHAFER-How much and why? I'll get to the question in a minute. MR. PALLESCHI-So here you can see the building, the existing building sits closer to Route 9, okay, and you've got the same entrance coming in and out, and, you know, there's very little parking up front. In order to build the required parking spaces for the site you need the parking up front here and pushing the building back, right, and in order to keep the parking flat and still have a reasonable slope back down on the south entrance is how we develop this site here. MR. TRAVER-And you can see the intervals there. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. I'm going to read that right now to you. MR. MAGOWAN-There's a substantial amount of fill coming out of there, John. MR. SHAFER-Yes, I understand. It just seems such a shame to, you know people are going to go to Wal-Mart and then to Harbor Freight, or to Harbor Freight and then to Wal-Mart and then go out onto Route 9 when they don't have to now do that. It just seems like a terrible shame. A detail question on the site plan, the retaining wall. If you start by the dumpster and you go to the east, and then there's a right angle over to another right angle and the retaining wall goes behind what I guess are the seven banked parking spaces. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. MR. SHAFER-And that's the snow storage area. Could you have extended that retaining wall straight down and yes you would give up the seven spaces, and you could slope the retaining wall down to ground level, would that allow you to continue the access to Wal-Mart behind the retaining wall? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. PALLESCHI-If you look at these grades here, this is a one on three grade. That's 33%. So even if you did that, it would be very steep to access around that retaining wall. MR. SHAFER-So that's all driven by the huge amount of fill you're taking out of the site to lower the building, it seems. MR. PALLESCHI-I don't know what benefit having a connection here anymore anyway with the right in, right out. It's not, like right now I can see people turning left in here to make the short cut. Instead of going to this entrance, they make a left in here and come up through the back. MR. SHAFER-Well there's a light in front of Wal-Mart. That would make sense. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, I guess I don't understand what the interconnection here would be, as opposed to the back service area, right to Wal-Mart, come up through this entrance here, right. If you come up through here, you're coming this way to Wal-Mart. MR. SHAFER-Understood, but if somebody goes to Wal-Mart and then they want to go to your place, they could simply go down that little access road. MR. PALLESCHI-And they would come out here, right out. It's pretty convenient. I don't think they're going to make a right out and then come around. I don't know. MR. MAGOWAN-1 believe when they were in here the first time for discussion, I think we went over that and we tried to figure it out and you'd have to build that ramp that would almost be down pretty close to that first big 90 island there. And then you'd be losing all that parking. And I'm sure they could do it but then they'd be eating up all their green space. MR. PALLESCHI-And it would be an eight percent grade. If you just take the difference in elevation from Route 9 to the back property. MR. MAGOWAN-You said eight degree? MR. PALLESCHI-Eight percent, eight to ten percent, depending, and then you're going to have to come in here and possibly go a little steeper. MR. SHAFER-What's the depth of the lot? How deep is the lot? MR. PALLESCHI-243, I believe. MR. SHAFER-So you'd be going from elevation 466 to 448, 18 feet, and past that distance, if you were to use that retaining wall as a retaining wall. What does that work out as a slope? I can't do it in my head. MR. PALLESCHI-So what is it, 18 over. MR. SHAFER-Half of the side dimension. MR. PALLESCHI-So 120. That's a 15 percent slope. MR. SHAFER-Fifteen? Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, if that's the case, I mean, we did go over that back and forth. I mean, I see coming down Wal-Mart to make a right and a right back in. You're just doing kind of a U turn. That's a lot safer. I mean, otherwise you'd have to have a connecting road right down near the bottom of Route beforehand. So with that retaining wall and everything and banking those, the parking lots, like I say we went over and over it. Putting that building back in there and putting that huge retaining wall really puts a damper on using that access road. MR. SHAFER-I'm okay, Brad. MR. DEEB-Well, we discussed the utility of the access road last time. I think we were pretty much decided that it wasn't needed because it wasn't going to be used very much anyway, and the importance of it wasn't what was intended for originally. I thought that's what we discussed. MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, we discussed it at length. All right. Well, we did open the public hearing. Last call. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments, Laura? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments, but I do have a comment to talk about from Chazen's letter. So I don't know if you want me to talk about it now. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-They did mention the issue about the retaining wall and there's a detail that they suggested that the Board obtain, and I think that, there was a detail in reference to the retaining wall being designed by an engineer, and the idea was that the applicant would be able to provide that prior to the Building and Codes review of the application materials. It'll be brought in as part of site plan. That's the only suggestion that I would encourage the Board or the applicant either to explain what the detail is behind the wall and that we could probably use a little more detail besides just a generic script. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we want detailed drawings of the proposed retaining wall to be submitted as part of the building permit approval? MRS. MOORE-No, as part of their site plan. MR. TRAVER-Part of their site plan. Okay. MR. DEEB-Then you want engineering plans. Right? MRS. MOORE-1 don't know if you had any other information about the retaining wall? MR. PALLESCHI-No, other than the retaining wall is part of the building structure. It's a concrete, basically a foundation wall that has concrete in it. That would be designed by the structural engineer and the building itself as well. It's not like your typical retaining wall where it's like a segmental wall. It's part of the building structure. MR. TRAVER-Well the wall does extend beyond the building, though, correct? MR. PALLESCHI-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And with that slope I can understand from the engineering standpoint wanting to understand the structure and how it's. MR. PALLESCHI-Right. So that would be designed by the same structural engineer, because, you know, they would design this wall as they would along the entire back to retain the same distance, pretty much the same slope that is being retained throughout this entire rear section, and I think that's what we were thinking as far as, you know, during the building permit it would be part of the building design that the building inspector would be reviewing the building plans for the details of that wall. MR. HUNSINGER-Is Chazen's concern that they want to review it and not leave it up to Staff? Is that the issue? MRS. MOORE-1 believe so. They just wanted to give us a little more feedback on how that wall is constructed and if there's something else that we needed to be aware of. MR. TRAVER-And that's Item 12 you're referring to? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I just thought you did a really good job addressing all the concerns from the last meeting. MR. PALLESCHI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And it was very clear, too, in your letter in your plans, too. MR. TRAVER-All right. Aside from the issue of the retaining wall detail. Okay. We do have a SEQR review on this project as well. This is SEQR Unlisted. We'll close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2013) MR. TRAVER-How does the Board feel about proceeding in the context of the Comment Number 12 from Chazen? MR. DEEB-I'll add it to the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but we're kind of in a Catch 22. MRS. MOORE-1 agree. I think you could include it as part of the resolution. I mean the applicant's required to get engineering signoff. There's other elements of the comments that they need to address. So I would include this. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you see the most recent letter, the one dated February 15th? MR. PALLESCHI-From Chazen? I did, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we're just receiving that this evening. MR. DEEB-But that's the one you said you didn't have any problem with. MR. PALLESCHI-Correct. Yes, we reviewed every one. Just to note, I guess if they're not really requesting that they review the engineering of it. MR. DEEB-They may not be, but we are. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. They're asking if it should be done at Site Plan or Building Permit application, obviously the design of the wall isn't going to change the layout of the site. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALLESCHI-The building permit application would be more applicable, but whatever the Board wants to do. MR. TRAVER-As with the other comments from Chazen, you need to get their signoff anyway before there's final approval. MR. PALLESCHI-Right. We would accept that as a condition. MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, it is a condition. MR. DEEB-It is a condition. MR. TRAVER-So that's good. MR. PALLESCHI-We're in agreement. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. So we now have, we now proceed, if the Board feels ready to do so, we can move on to the SEQR review and resolution. Do members of the Board feel comfortable moving ahead with the environmental review? Okay. Then I guess we're ready to entertain a resolution. RESOLUTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 74-2017 QUEENSBURYWOOD, LLC The applicant proposes to remove existing Ray Supply building and construct 16,000 sq. ft. "Harbor Freight" building with associated parking. Project includes new parking arrangement, retaining wall, lighting, stormwater management and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use 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; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 74-2017 QUEENSBURYWOOD, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move on to the Site Plan itself. We spoke about the language for the one condition which indicates that Chazen will have an opportunity to review. You've got it already. Okay. All right. Go ahead/ RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 74-2017 QUEENSBURY WOOD, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to remove existing Ray Supply building and construct 16,000 sq. ft. "Harbor Freight" building with associated parking. Project includes new parking arrangement, retaining wall, lighting, stormwater management and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/19/2017 and continued the public hearing to 02/20 2018, 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 02/20/2018; 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 74-2017 QUEENSBURYWOOD, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) 1) Waivers requested granted; including buffer to be set at 27.1 feet, instead of the required 50; the proposal for seven banked parking spaces; and removal of the 20 foot wide interconnect to Wal-Mart. 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) Town Engineering review of retaining wall to be included as part of the site plan. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So I have another comment. So the applicant, we have some of our standard waiver requests that are generally granted. In this case the applicant has requested three specific waivers and you should probably identify those in addition to the waivers that are generally approved. MR. DEEB-All right. MRS. MOORE-And they're identified in the Staff Notes there. So the sections are already, and then one of the things the applicant has pointed out is the buffer is now at 27.1 foot buffer, and the banked parking spaces are seven. That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Waivers requested including buffer be set at 25 feet, and that the proposal for the seven banked parking spaces and removal of the 20 foot wide interconnect to Wal-Mart. MRS. MOORE-Just a note, it's 27. 1 feet not 25. MR. TRAVER-27. MRS. MOORE-One foot is the buffer that the applicant is proposing, versus 25. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. HUNSINGER-We were reading it off the Staff Notes. MR. DEEB-I read it off the Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-He mentioned during the, unless the applicant, unless you want to grant 25, the applicant is proposing 27.1. MR. PALLESCHI-Twenty-five gives us a little bit of wiggle room during construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Hey we heard last week how they can construct a house site within an inch. So we're not going to give up two feet when we know you can engineer. MR. DEEB-Well, I'll try this again, the amended, amended resolution. MRS. MOORE-You just need to identify the number. You don't have to go through the whole thing. MR. DEEB-All right. The buffer will now be at 27.1 feet instead of the required 50. MR. TRAVER-Questions on that motion from members of the Board? If not, Maria, can we have the vote, please. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. PALLESCHI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda is under New Business, and this is O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, for a Site Plan Modification 12-2018. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN (MODIFICATION) 12-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISE, LLC AGENT(S): BOHLER ENGINEERING MA, LLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 682 GLEN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR A 7,453 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BUILDING FOR AUTOMOTIVE PARTS. MODIFICATION IS A WAIVER REQUEST FOR POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-080 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: DISC 5-2017, AV 41-2017, SP 44-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2018. LOT SIZE: .76 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-28. SECTION: 179-3- 040, 179-6-080. JOSHUA O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant intends to, or this is a modification to the project originally for a 7,453 square foot single story building for automotive parts sales, and so in this request the applicant requests a waiver from the post construction stormwater requirements, and so I've identified information under grading that the volumes are higher at certain design points and the information has been shared with the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer doesn't seem to think that this is a, seems to think that this is an okay request, however the engineer has indicated that the Board could, as we've done in the past, ask for less, or additional green space. MR. TRAVER-More pervious. MRS. MOORE-So it's up to the Board, but it's not impossible for the waiver to be granted. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. TRAVER-Understood. All right. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. O'CONNOR-So it's been since July. I don't know. Do you want to hear the whole song and dance for the sake of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think all of us were here when we did the initial review, but if you want to discuss the. MR. O'CONNOR-I'll do the cursory. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and then certainly the modifications and then members can ask whatever additional detail they want. MR. O'CONNOR-Understood. For the sake of the record, my name is Joshua O'Connor from Bohler Engineering, an engineer in the State of New York. We're looking at the site at 682 Glen Street. Currently the vacated Fit Fast Food facility, formerly a Friendly's Restaurant. As discussed this past summer, we're proposing an O'Reilly Automotive Parts approximately 7500 square feet to be located in the center mass of the site here, and again, opposite the Price Chopper. As discussed, the site included, like I said, a 7500 square foot retail auto parts facility, reduction in curb cuts. As it stands today the site is generally open to Glendale and has an opening on Glen Street which is being maintained. We've worked through the engineering of that opening with DOT. We have a signoff from them. They've actually, pursuant to the waiver issue they've reviewed our drainage and accepted the drainage shelf that's associated with the permit application. That said, we're proposing landscaping around the site. Following the meeting and a condition of the previous approval we provided a street tree on the front. One of the other conditions of approval was the provision of signage along this roadway widening here permitting parking, and additional signage demonstrating that it's a dead end and directing people not to go down into the residential community. MR. TRAVER-There was a resident that had some concerns. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and so the plan as we see it today has addressed all of those concerns, has addressed all the conditions imposed by your Board when we had the approval, and again as Laura mentioned, with the exception of one, and it's the absolute satisfaction of the engineering review. I'd like to address kind of the nature of it and go over why we're in the position that we're in. The site as it's configured today has no stormwater management facilities at all, and that's just the way things were for a long time. It's graded generally from Glendale to the south and it basically drains across the site onto the neighbor's parcel Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and I do have a little bit of background information. My manager, Chris Boyea, years back, had designed and approved a cut off swale around the back side of the Enterprise Rent-A-Car to handle and divert that runoff. MR. TRAVER-They did some modifications, too, a few years ago that included some stormwater. MR. O'CONNOR-And so it was a known issue there. So we're looking at dealing with the regulations. So first and foremost the site's not eligible for coverage under the SPDES Permit. Our total site disturbance is under an acre. So we're not subject to the preparation of a SWPPP. When we do that we're left with working with the Town's regulation. Generally speaking our charge is not to increase the runoff rate during the various design storms, and this gets heavy technical stuff here, but for us to achieve that on this site, it basically means the site has to match the existing drainage pattern. So first of all if we match the existing drainage pattern, we're maintaining the discharge of all of that runoff to the neighbor's property, which from an engineering standpoint isn't desirable either way. The only way for us to reduce that runoff without changing the drainage pattern is to lose the water somehow and we can do that with a number of different methods. We could do it with infiltration practices, and that was our intention when we came to the Board back in July. I've done, as you know, plenty of work in Queensbury and I have a pretty good understanding of the types of soils and the types of infiltration rates we've got, and we kind of took it as an article of faith here that in Queensbury we have good sandy soils and we have a good capacity for infiltration. Turns out we have a very high groundwater table here, and because of that high groundwater table, we can't do an infiltration practice per the State guidelines. They require a certain separation from the bottom of your infiltration practice to the resistive layer of the ground, seasonal high groundwater in this case. So infiltration went out the window for us once we completed our detailed analysis of the soils. When you consider that we're left with, as Sean mentioned in the letter, potential reduction in the pervious. We do actually manage a slight reduction in the impervious versus the existing condition today. Noting also we have a variance for a reduction in the number of 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2013) parking stalls we required. So we've already reduced the number of parking stalls we would normally do for a, that the Code would require normally for this type of development. My client doesn't feel it's necessary for this use and that was the basis for the waiver, the variance, which as stated was granted, but that said, we're only really left with the ability to re-apportion the drainage on the sites. We have to take more of it to the rear and discharge it to the neighbor's property to meet that requirement. So what we've done instead, we've provided a detention facility on the side, and that detention facility provides storage so that we can decrease the rate of discharge during all but I think the 50 year, the volume of discharge during all but the 50 year event. Another point that I really want to draw your attention to here. There's a subjective issue of analysis here that we've gone back and forth with Sean at Chazen over, and basically the way the Code is written it's required that you analyze the site from each discrete discharge point. So we take this side of the site as a discharge point and we're taking the right of way as a discharge point. But those discharge points both go ultimately to the Halfway creek not even 200 feet up the road. So our charge when we're analyzing for rate and volume of discharge is the impact to the receiving waters, and the impact to the downstream condition. So I think it's a very fair argument that if we take them as a single analysis point, the Halfway creek, which was stated is within a couple of hundred feet of the project, we're decreasing both rate and volume in all events. What it comes down to is that when we get into that granular detail where Sean's asking us to analyze at this point and this point, we show an increase to the State right of way in volume not rate, and that's simply because we have no way of losing that water. We can't lose it to the ground because of the high groundwater, but when you take the whole site during all of the rainfall events, we decrease the discharge to our neighboring site so dramatically that even adding that in, the total volume and the total rate is still less than the existing condition. So considering all of those things, considering that the site isn't eligible for a SWPPP design, considering that DOT has accepted the design as it stands, because DOT's reg matches the State reg. They only consider rate. They don't consider volume. So since DOT's willing to accept it, it meets the requirements for the State. It meets the requirements for the Federal government for discharge, for a reg we're not subject to in this case, it really comes down to this fine detail in your Code, which is the reason we're asking for a waiver today and what we're asking for is a nominal increase in discharge to the State right of way which has been accepted by the State. I'd be more than happy to bore you further with further technical details if you want. MR. HUNSINGER-So when I looked at this I got real confused because I can't comprehend how you can reduce the rate while at the same time increasing the volume. MR. O'CONNOR-Well the volume isn't increasing. So basically the drainage pattern today, and I guess it's probably better to show on the aerial here. Really from this corner of the curb back, this all goes to the neighbor's property. Okay, all of it does. For us to effectively grade the site, we need to send a portion of the front forward. You can't get it around the building, but even if we could get it around the building, we're still outletting it on our neighbor's property. MR. TRAVER-It would be even worse because that's into the residential area. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. So that said, the volume only increases because there's such a small portion that goes to the right of way today. It's just this little bit in the front. MR. TRAVER-So it's the change in volume not the volume itself. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. So because we have to shift that, because the drainage pattern changes, so that this larger front parking lot goes to the right of way versus just this small bed, that's really where the volume increases, and that said, we've gone through just design permutation over and over again with Sean. I mean we've really banged our heads against the wall with this. There's no real effective way to get the water to disappear. We're not sprinkling the site. So you could store it and sprinkle it, but if you look at the Town reg, that still gets spread on the site. So over the course of that sprinkling activity technically we're still discharging the same volume. It doesn't actually, I mean we need groundwater infiltration. That said, you know, given that limitation, there's really no practical way to achieve it, and even speaking to Sean's point about decreasing the impervious cover, it may help, but it would take a dramatic change, and really what it comes down to is we are matching and slightly improving the impervious cover in the drainage area. So it went from 32.1 to 32.4% green. We would then, I mean we'd have to, I believe almost a third of the store we would lose, and that's just not an effective site and it doesn't operate. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we did get the report this evening and he states, as we talked about re-using the, as a possibility of reducing the impervious as you have said yourself, it says it is noted this may result in parking, access way, or building size reductions that may make the site not feasible for the proposed development. MR. O'CONNOR-So as stated we already have a variance for the parking, down from the required I believe 38 to 25. A reduction in building square footage in kind to get to that number. So our project dies on the vine at that point. MR. TRAVER-Well, again, getting back to the Chazen letter he states, because of these factors and in this unique circumstance only (whereas the non-compliant discharge is going to NYSDOT's systems who approved said discharge to the same) our office does not take exception to the requested waiver. So they're basically saying it's not an ideal situation, but they're not going to object on that basis. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, and that said, this is the way codes work all over the State of New York and wherever we have a zoning code. We try to write a code that encompasses the condition all across your community, and let's be frank. You have low groundwater and good infiltrating soils all over Queensbury. This is probably one of the few sites where this is a condition that you're going to encounter, and it truly is unique in that regard. So, you know, a waiver for that reason, it's not setting a precedent. It really is an oddball kind of site. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Understood. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-But you're improving what is existing there now. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and that is, that's key, too, because there is in the Code some subjectivity, and Sean is making, and I'm not arguing whether it's the right choice or not, but he is making a call in how he's asking us to analyze it. He's asking us to analyze it here and at the road. I think you could make a very strong engineering argument that the analysis point could be the Halfway creek as the ultimate receiving body and we would then be assessing the impact to that ultimate receiving body as one analysis point, and if you do do that we meet the Town reg., as it stands. MR. HUNSINGER-But in your table in your stormwater report, you do show a total discharge volume going up for the 50 year storm, the combined, discharge runoff volume. It goes up. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm sorry. I haven't looked at it in. MR. HUNSINGER-This is why, in the narrative, in the table, the combined total discharge volume does go up in the one year and ten year storm. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, but it's percentage based, and that is the issue. Okay so the combined discharge volume for the one and ten year storm. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess the question is, you're only identifying two points, two discharge points. If you were to analyze the entire site, would that change? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the entire site is routed through those points. So, you know, we look at the two downstream discharge points, one's to the road. One's to the neighbor. I mean we could do a number of analysis points along the adjacent property, but. That said, I'm not sure, I'd have to review the number again as it appears in the table. Technically if we're not increasing the volume of impervious cover, or the area of impervious cover, the runoff volume shouldn't change. Then it just becomes a characteristic of maybe it's because when I generated the table I did it for a 36 hour rainfall event versus a 24. There's something technical there that does that, but on general, on a general basis the runoff co-efficient for the soil doesn't change and the runoff co-efficient of 99 to 98 for impervious cover doesn't change. So if the green space number doesn't go down significantly. It shouldn't change the volume of discharge. So I'm kind of perplexed myself on that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Well that was part of the reason why I was so confused how the rate could go down fairly dramatically 39, 43 percent, but then the actual volume went up. MR. O'CONNOR-Well the rate goes down because we're detaining it. Right now it just sheets off the end of the site and it goes off fast. Because we provide storage and a small opening, we go from the whole side of the parking lot discharging on the neighbor's property to a two inch orifice in the bottom of an outlet control structure. So it can only leave our pond at the speed that that two inch orifice allows it to. So it's really easy to get rate low. Volume low is another 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2016) issue. I mean we capture that whole volume and it has to leave the site. I think what's throwing you there is the percentages. Since so much goes through the front, I'd have to review the table again. I felt pretty good about it when I put it together. With that said, and 1, yes, I'm going to hold off on it. I'd have to look at it a lot closer than I can right now, but that said, the basics stay the same. We are not increasing the amount of impervious cover in the analysis area, and we are basically just shifting our drainage, and here's what it really, I mean, we went back and forth with this a number of times. We had smaller openings on our discharge pipe so that we could detain the event longer, and allow it to overflow onto the neighbor's property, and it worked, because our pond would flood out on the neighbor's property during some rainfall events, which, you know, mimics the existing condition. As undesirable as that is, that's what we have to do, I guess, per the Code. Sean had an issue with the size of the openings. We basically had a number of drill holes in the side of our pond, had it designed so it's rapid fabric that piled up with stone so that it wouldn't clog over time, so that we could get such a low volume out to the right of way and still find a way to get it to leave the property. What it really comes down to is there's no way for us to daylight. We can't do a conventional design because there's no way for us to send, like if there was an existing culvert that went out to the wetland in the rear, we could tie into that existing pipe. We could send a whole volume out there to the wetland, but because we're high above the site and there's nowhere for a new culvert to discharge, all we can do is run it off the site, and because of that, there's really nothing we can do about it. I mean, you could, you know, as I said, you could sprinkle this minimal lawn. MR. TRAVER-Well at least by putting in the pond you have, in effect, I suppose, some tertiary treatment before. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, and that's a good point, too, you know, it does, we can't call anything an infiltration basin because of the seasonal high groundwater, but the fact remains it still is good high perking sands and a good portion of the year the groundwater is not high there. We can't take any credit for infiltration because of that seasonal high, but it doesn't mean it's not going to infiltrate. We're not providing an impediment to that happening. So, you know, in reality when this is built, constructed and operational, it's going to comply with all of those standards and chances are it's not going to increase a higher volume, but again, we can't take credit for that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I have one. This Halfway creek, where do you find that name? MR. O'CONNOR-It's on the USGS Quad map and what they call stream status. It's another Federal program, and that's just what it lists it as. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we call it Halfway Brook. MR. O'CONNOR-Halfway Brook? Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And the funny thing is is when they did the bridge down here on Ridge, they put up Halfway creek. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Us locals threw our arms up and the next thing you know they changed the sign to Halfway Brook. MR. O'CONNOR-So now when you go on the USGS Stream Stats GIS Viewer it gives a name for the waterbody. MR. MAGOWAN-So that's where they came up with the name and had the sign made originally I'm sure. We'll have to get that changed. MR. SHAFER-Josh, did we, the previous applicant, Harbor Freight, we had a lot of impact on the look of that building. Have we seen an elevation of this building the last time out? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes we did. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-1 did bring it back for reference. MR. SHAFER-Good. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. O'CONNOR-It's actually a fine looking building for this type of retail, and frankly it's one of the nicer ones O'Reilly does. MR. SHAFER-It wasn't in the recent packet and I just didn't remember. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it should be quite an improvement over what's there today. Okay. Anything else from the Board before we go to public hearing? All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience this evening that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any hands. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we can close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we also have a SEQR Unlisted review on this application as well, and bear in mind this is only for the modification. Correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It is, but I would propose or request instead of a full SEQR that you're going to do a re-affirm the previous SEAR, seeing it hasn't changed. MR. TRAVER-The only change being this. MRS. MOORE-This requested waiver for the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-The discharge which has already been reviewed by the engineer. Okay. Very good. Is everyone comfortable with that? MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I guess we're ready for a SEAR. MR. DEEB-We're going to re-affirm the previous SEAR. MR. TRAVER-Re-affirm the previous, yes, finding, which was Negative. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING PREVIOUS SEQR NEG DEC SP # 12-2018 MOD O'REILLY AUTO The applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan for a 7,453 sq. ft. single story building for automotive parts. Modification is a waiver request for post-construction stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-080 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an approved 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; 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 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM PREVIOUS NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 12-2018 O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISE, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we can move on to the Site Plan. MR. DEEB-Before we do that, you said you wanted to review those figures. MR. TRAVER-Well, he needs to get the, it'/s already in the conditions that he get the Town Engineer to sign off on it. MR. O'CONNOR-And Sean also requested another change to our model that's a minor clerical. It is in the letter. We just had a discrepancy between a couple of elevations in the system. Again, it is clerical in this case. It doesn't change the design. MR. TRAVER-That's not unusual. MR. O'CONNOR-We do need to re-submit to him regardless, and that said, I'm pretty sure the table's right, but I'm not effectively communicating it. I would need to go through my numbers again, but your question, I don't know how you can decrease rate and increase volume, well technically you can't, well you can, the volume should not change total. It can't. We're not getting more rain. The site doesn't change. The disturbance area doesn't change. So if the table that I provided indicates that, the table's wrong, and I'll have to look at it again, but we're not making the lot larger. So the volume discharge during rainfall event pre and post, can't be different. MR. TRAVER-And again, all of that is subject to engineer's signoff. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. I'll review it again with Sean, but, yes, I am puzzled. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. It wasn't just me then. MRS. MOORE-There is one more item. In Chazen's letter they also asked for the DOT letter of signoff that you received. MR. O'CONNOR-We'll provide that. Sure. So they are doing a Perm 33 review, not a Com. We have a conceptual approval from Guy Tedesco who's the reviewing engineer. Since we're not doing the Com review, the big detailed review, it's a little more informal than that, but I do have that e-mail. We can provide that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we can note that as a condition. MR. DEEB-I've got that. MR. TRAVER-Good. Then I guess we're ready for that motion. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 12-2018 MOD. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISE, LLC 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan for a 7,453 sq. ft. single story building for automotive parts. Modification is a waiver request for post-construction stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 & 179-6-080 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 02/20/2018 and continued the public hearing to 02/20/2018, 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 02/20/2018; 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 12-2018 O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISE, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; Waiver requested is having design points with higher volume than pre-site condition. 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 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; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) DOT signoff letter to be submitted with the full site plan. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-In reference to the waiver, do you want to include the specific waiver that the applicant's requested for this design requirement? MR. TRAVER-For post construction stormwater is the waiver. MR. DEEB-All right. Waiver requested is having design points with higher volumes than pre- site conditions. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have an amended motion. Do we have a second on that? MS. WHITE-I'll second the amended motion. MR. TRAVER-Any questions on that motion? Maria, can we have the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Thanks. Yes, Chris and Rob always tell me make sure you don't get into the technical stuff. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda is also under New Business, and this is for Six Flags Great Escape, Site Plan 15-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. SIX FLAGS GREAT ESCAPE. AGENT(S): FRANK PALUMBO, C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW RIDE "PANDEMONIUM" NEAR THE "SCREAMING EAGLE" AREA AND "SKILLET" EATING AREA. THE NEW RIDE IS APPROXIMATELY 48 FT. WIDE AND REACHES 22 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REGRADING OF THE RIDE AREA (5,724 SQ. FT.) LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. TWO NEW PATIO EATING AREAS FOR THE "SKILLET" ARE PART OF THE PROJECT— 680 SQ. FT. AND 979 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 66-2014 SUPER NOVA RIDE, SP PZ-23-2015 GREEZED LIGHTNIN RIDE, SP 5-2017 BONZAI PIPELINE RIDE; SEVERAL MORE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2018. LOT SIZE: 237.64 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040. CHARLES DUMAS & FRANK PALUMBO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a new ride called the "Pandemonium". It's near the Screaming Eagle and the Skillet eating area. The ride is approximately 48 feet wide and reaches 22 feet in height. The project also includes additional work areas. Surrounding the two areas where the Skillet is they're proposing new eating areas and then across from the bridge entryway into the Park and into this area is proposed a new island re-configuration. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DUMAS-Good evening. For the record I'm Charles Dumas with Lemery Greisler and I have with me Frank Palumbo from C.T. Male who's the civil engineer. I think you have a visual image of the ride that's being proposed. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2015) MR. TRAVER-We do. MR. DUMAS-Yes. This is being proposed to be located just sort of southeast of the Screaming Eagle. This is the Skillet area here where food is served, and the idea here is to replace a very similar ride. The Pandemonium is a trivant style ride and that's spinning on one plane and then it takes a decrease in change of plane. It'll accommodate roughly, I think, 24 riders at a time. MR. TRAVER-1 think I've seen, if not the same, a similar. MR. DUMAS-Yes. It's to replace what was there back in 2012 I think it was removed, and it's really the same style ride and the purpose here of course is to freshen the location. It's not anticipated to be a substantial attraction for additional people, but the course of disturbance would include this Work Area A right here and then Work Area B which would be a freshening of the seating area for the Skillet which is located here to service this facility, and then Work Area C which is the upper seating area, then also there's another area of disturbance which is proposed over here to create a landscaping effect. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-The civil engineering Frank will talk about in a minute, but by in large in terms of stormwater the idea here is that there would be a decrease in impermeable surface. There would be introduction of some permeable pavers in this area and this area. So there would be a decrease in potential stormwater consequence. The GEIS which was done in 2001 was designed to a 50 year storm level and also 100 year storm level, and at that point in time a series of measures of detentions and drywells and so forth were put in place which substantially improve the runoff, and it's our sense and our feeling, and I think the history of this Board's approval of various rides, that there's a reduction in the impermeable surface. That it's not really necessary to go through a full stormwater drainage study. So that's one of the benefits of what it is we're doing, the introduction of these permeable pavers in this area. The ride is going to be located, it is proposed to be located within the 200 foot area which is the area, the Park is divided into four different areas in terms of height. The height, fully extended, of this ride would be 22 feet. So it wouldn't even come close to the threshold limit that's subscribed to this particular area by the GEIS. In terms of traffic impact, there's a bi-annual monitor that is done and it was submitted to the Board. We talked a little bit about it, of course in relation to the Johnny Rocket's project. We're well within the thresholds that would cause a trigger for the next bit of remediation. We're well beneath those thresholds. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I think the same is with, concern with noise. Right? MR. DUMAS-Yes. There's an annual monitor that's done and we've just concluded that in August, and it's substantially in compliance with the threshold established by the GEIS. A couple of curious facts about that. The monitor shows that when the Park is closed the L 90 levels are equal to or greater than when the Park is open. So that's just an interesting fact. MS. WHITE-So there will be no special noise, new noise with this ride? MR. DUMAS-No, and you know, there's a couple of interesting facts. First off the ride itself is electric motor, which tends to be quiet by its very nature. The second thing is that there's a pit right here that all of the mechanicals will go in. So any noise that would be generated or potentially generated by that are located in this mechanical pit in the center of the ride. So in many ways, I hate to use the expression, it's kind of self-mitigating. The other factor is in these newer rides, these updated rides, there's fewer metal parts, and a lot of the moving parts tend to be rubber or nylon as opposed to steel on steel. So the ride in and of itself, it's modern and it's quiet. The other factor, of course, too, is that it's located substantially forward toward Route 9 as opposed to being buried further back in the Park. So those are the comments I have about noise. There was a comment letter that was supplied by Chazen Engineering and there were some points on there of a relatively minor nature, but just to sort of backtrack to the earlier point that I made about stormwater. The one comment Number Two in the Chazen letter talked about a 50 year stormwater development model, and I submit that that really isn't necessary in view of the criteria that was established by the GEIS and the procedures that were invoked and put in place at that time. I'm going to let Frank talk about the rest of the items there. I would point out on Item Five that there is a protocol established in the GEIS for the installation and maintenance of permeable surface. So that is something that's already contemplated and it's already part of the effective protocols in place that the Park has. They're already obligated to maintain their surfaces and they do have a program for doing that. So, Frank, did you want to talk about certain things I've missed? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2013) MR. PALUMBO-Sure. So as was just discussed, the sort of minor issues are the ones three through six that we have in the letter from Chazen, and the other thing is we wanted to just sort of hit those so you know that we have the full capability to address those. So Number Three where they were asking about the pipe that we show going from the pit area that ultimately connects to an existing catch basin. So as Charles indicated, there is the center of the pit, four feet down, mechanical equipment and the M bed plates for the ride structure itself are in that area, and there is a pipe which comes down to an oil water separator here, and then crosses to an existing catch basin here. Chazen's question was about the tributary area and the sizing of that pipe. What we have is that area is about 173 square feet. Anything above that, the decking, concrete decking, slows, so nothing else is going into that pit area. So it's only the rainfall that we get directly in there. So a very, very small amount. We honestly believe that a two inch pipe might cover it, but we would never use a two inch pipe. So the six inch pipe that's going there for the purposes of anything that might get caught in a smaller opening, but that's going to the oil water separator which again Six Flags management there realized that they don't want to take any chances. These are moving parts and mechanical parts. So the oil water separator is not by a health department standard or anything like that that you might have at a restaurant or the likes. This was their own good practice to place that there. So it's a standard Fort Miller Oil/Water separator. Very capable of handling the flow from this small area, and we'll provide Sean with the details of that if he didn't understand exactly what we're doing there, but I don't know if they thought maybe more of this decking was going into that area, but it's very, very concentrated to just the central pit area. The other Question Number Four was the raingarden. The raingardens, we have one here on this side of the path and one here on the other side of the path. Just to give you a past history, you may know that this was, this is all asphalt right now, that whole entire run there. By changing that to just the pathway up to the ride here and exit for Screaming Eagles here, all of that is being transferred to green space. The raingardens were not traditionally, they weren't being designed as stormwater features. They happened to be good planting medias and the Park has adapted them wherever they can because, A, it means some less watering of landscaped areas. So it was really a landscape feature, not really subject to detail that is called for and pointed out in the Code for that 12 inches versus the 9 inches. I think that we will explain that to Sean, but we didn't really want to get bogged down in the details of that, and then the, as Charles had already pointed out, the paver areas. So this area here where Bob's Fishing Hole is now is 100% concrete in that area underneath where the Fishing Hole is. We are using the permeable pavers there. These are just indicators of the seating tables in that area. Again, here's the Skillet. So an eating area here. Here's the Skillet, an eating area here. This is the area where the Funbrella is. So there's shade up in that area, but additional seating near the restaurants is handy, and the mannering to do that because you can use the pavement surface there to sort of differentiate that that's a sitting and eating area. It also works very well for us to make that permeable. We'll put on our plans the notes regarding the porous pavers, you know, permeable pavers there, so that, you know, any maintenance plan, which has already been referenced, is identified that that's what's happening there. And then the last comment, erosion and sediment control. We already got this on Friday, drafted one now that we'll send to Sean. It's very, very simple in terms of where the placement of erosion and sediment control measures are, but again, not as much towards the technical side because as we've pointed out, if we decrease the impervious surface based on the GEIS that we should not really be moving into those area. We will show something because we do think it's good detailing to address and we don't take any exception with the fact that it was asked. So we'll address it, but I don't think it has to, you know, go into the nature of, well this must be achieved in a manner just like the applicant was talking about. They don't want to get into a philosophical difference with Sean on this, and I think that the fact that the overall Park stormwater management was handled at that time and has been continually looked at from that vantage point, we think we've got everything covered here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There were a couple of questions in reference to Staff Notes. One was the ride lighting. There are lights on the ride itself, but is there additional lighting besides what is on the ride that you plan on installing? MR. PALUMBO-No. There may be some re-location of a couple of lights as we said. This is in an area where it already had lighting, and just because of the new parts, some may need to be re-located, but there's not additional lighting in this area. MR. TRAVER-So the re-locating of existing? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And then the other had to do with the operator booth. There's an operator booth and ride access fencing and gates. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. PALUMBO-That's where I'll call your attention to the third page that I just gave you. MR. TRAVER-That you just handed out. MR. PALUMBO-And I really have to thanks the folks from Six Flags who worked diligently in getting the comment. This is our actual plan. They incorporated that into their visual simulation, and if I can sort of go to the, this image here on this upper corner, I'll go from here first. That is right here at the operator booth. So you're looking at this here, in this direction, from the corner of the Skillet right towards the operator's booth there. Then we have, and you can see what looks like the blue and the yellow fencing in that same image. That's the fencing here that extends down to separate the whole ride area and the queuing line, and then the yellow fencing that you can make out through there is a little bit here and then some, then in the back going around the ride, obviously for the ride safety and the safety of the passengers and the people in the queuing line is a high priority. So if you go to the one to the right of that, upper, the right upper, that's looking in a direction sort of from here, actually from right about here, you know, looking into the ride here. So what you can tell is happening there is that from the entry of the operating booth is in the upper part of that picture, we slope down and keep continuing down here, that fencing is only going to be four feet high. That's enough to keep people separated from the ride but the fencing around, if you look at the bottom image here, you can see what they show in yellow here all the way around. That fencing you want to have at least six foot. Now let me explain that. The ride itself, there's a wall around here. Up here we're level, and this is indicated on our grading plan. We're up at the upper level here where people are entering and exiting the ride. That's all at the same level as this pavement right outside of it. As you get around to here, the wall starts to get about one foot high and everything is sloping down in this direction naturally or existing, but at this point that wall is two foot high. So that fencing on top of the two foot high can be four feet high, so 48 inches high. So around the clock here, about there to there, that's going to be 48 inches high because you have six foot of safety there for somebody who would be trying to, if they were trying to get into the ride from the outside. We also have, for aesthetic purposes on the landscaping plan in our set, landscaping around this side of the wall. So you're not just looking at the wall. So we think we have an attractive view point, and that was something that was very important to Six Flags that when you come across the bridge here you're going to be looking up in this direction. There's a new ride. There's a sign image on one of the other pages there, will be placed right here so that people when they come across they know there's a new ride, the Pandemonium sign is there and there was also a question about signage. We have a policy that you have to have the ride indicating, you know, basically the safe procedures that the people should be using when they're going to the rides. So it's two very small signs. One sign is for the ride attraction and one that's really a safety measure there. So that's from this direction. So as you look up here towards this, you'll have landscaping in this area. You'll have landscaping in that raingarden again, you know, so it can really do some nice things in that foreground, but above you're going to see the ride and you'll see only the four foot high fence, and then on the backside here, where it needs to be, like right around here, you know, to the exit ramp here and to the operator booth and then around here where people would be standing in this line, it will be six foot high there so that nobody can reach across and try to reach in to their friend who's on the ride. So all of that has been thought out really with Six Flags giving us a lot of direction on the rides, helping out with that as well. So what you see in this image is really what the aerials will look like, and I think it addressed the questions that the Staff had had. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board before we go to public hearing? MR. DEEB-That's the actual color? That's going to be the color? MR. PALUMBO-It is bright. MR. DEEB-It's quite colorful. MR. DUMAS-It increases the enjoyment level. MR. DEEB-Yes, it does. Visual. MR. PALUMBO-Brings you right to it. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this? Yes, sir. If you would give up the table for public comment for a minute. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive. I just have a couple of questions. If there are going to be any additional speakers that go along with this ride that they pipe music, wherever they're going to be, microphones with announcements, and if there are speakers which way they're going to point. So that's an added noise issue, and then I just had a question also because it does look like a very bright ride. So I'm just curious if they could talk a little more about the intensity of those lights. I think there's something about strobing in the site plan that they talk about how far away you can see those lights. That's it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Laura, are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And if you want to address those comments. MR. PALUMBO-So there will be speakers associated with the ride. They will be pointed in toward the ride which actually would be more in the direction towards Route 9. MR. TRAVER-So away from the back of the Park, toward the front of the Park. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-What will the speakers have, music? MR. PALUMBO-There'll be music for the ride. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-Yes. I would just add, relative to speaker placement and direction, that was provided by the GEIS. When new music was contemplated for rides and so forth it was to be directed away from the Glen Lake area, which I believe is Mr. Derby's concern. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DUMAS-Also, too, relative to lighting and visual, the GEIS provides that if it's less than 20 feet from the threshold, the 200 foot, it's not really deemed to be something reviewable at site plan. If it comes within the 20 feet of the threshold. MR. TRAVER-Which would be 180 feet. MR. DUMAS-Which would be 180 feet. This is 22 feet. It's low to the ground, and, yes, there will be lighting associated with it because that's, you know, part of an amusement park ride, but. MR. TRAVER-And to the comment about strobe lights, is that how you would describe the flashing? I know there's mention of flashing or something. I don't know about strobe, but is that how you would describe the lighting as well, that there are strobe features? MR. DUMAS-1 haven't been on the ride, but I suspect that the lights would flash, and maybe flash in combination with some of the music. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUMAS-Because it's designed to give both a physical and a stimulation for the senses. MR. TRAVER-Are there other rides in the Park that have similar type lights, flashing lights? MR. DUMAS-Yes, I believe so, yes. MR. PALUMBO-And also because of the centralized location of this, there is a lot around buildings, like this ride, when it's tipped up, really won't be that much higher than the Skillet 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) building right next to it. You do still have trees in the area where, between us and the Screaming Eagles ride. A lot of the natural trees are there. So still a good amount of wooded area. The other side here, they are lower buildings but you still have mass there and you have a lot of trees that are along various parts of the Park that are shade, but they also provide light blockage. So really this centralized location where there has always been a ride and most of those rides, I won't say that they've all looked like this in the past, but they were very, you know, very close. In the environmental sense, a sensory type of ride, they will have that, but we, by no means would that have an impact on neighboring properties. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other follow up questions from members of the Planning Board before we consider the SEAR? MR. SHAFER-One other question. Do the other rides within the Park have their own individual sign, and if so are they about the same height, 15 feet? MR. DUMAS-Well, I believe it's a legal requirement. Each of the rides have to have some signage in terms of advising the public as to who is eligible to go on the ride and on what conditions, and then of course there's also the sign identifying the ride, and again, I believe that's all sort of contemplated within the context of the GEIS in terms of identifying and also the compliance with the legal requirements. MR. SHAFER-The 13 foot height is fairly typical? MR. PALUMBO-1 think yes when you think of it in the context of the Park. If that 13 foot high sign was say out on Route 9, it's a different feel. Inside the Park here where you have a lot of other features there, that 13 foot high sign is not going to be as much of an impact. Is it similar, some other rides may have the sign up on the ride. There's all different ways that that occurs based on the ride. So I think it's very much in the context of its location and so I think, you know, just saying 32 feet high may be a little more, I think in the place where we're going to have it it's going to be very, it's going to be identifiable for people to know where they're going, but it's not going to be something that's going to be obtrusive. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? Okay. Well, then we are ready to look at our. MS. WHITE-Was the public hearing closed? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-1 think so. If not I'll close the public hearing. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, I think it was. MR. TRAVER-Good question, though. We do have a SEQR resolution which is basically because we have a GEIS in effect and it's been determined that this application does not exceed those thresholds, we don't need to repeat that review, and there is a resolution to that effect. I guess we're ready for that. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING PREVIOUS SEQR NEG. DEC. SP # 15-2018 SIX FLAGS The applicant proposes a new ride "Pandemonium" near the "Screaming Eagle" area and "Skillet" eating area. The new ride is approximately 48 ft. wide and reaches 22 ft. in height. The project includes regrading of the ride area (5,724 sq. ft.), landscaping and stormwater management. Two new patio eating areas for the "Skillet" are part of the project — 680 sq. ft. and 979 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Whereas, The Planning Board has determined there's no need for site specific or separate specific SEQRA review because the proposal falls within the thresholds previously approved as part of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The Planning Board has determined the proposed Site Plan does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts from the previous Final General Environmental Impact Statement of 7/11/2001 and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement of 4/10/2004. MOTION THAT NO FURTHER SEAR REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR SITE PLAN 15-2018 SIX FLAGS GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) As per the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we can move on to the Site Plan resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 15-2018 SIX FLAGS GREAT ESCAPE 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 new ride "Pandemonium" near the "Screaming Eagle" area and "Skillet" eating area. The new ride is approximately 48 ft. wide and reaches 22 ft. in height. The project includes regrading of the ride area (5,724 sq. ft.), landscaping and stormwater management. Two new patio eating areas for the "Skillet" are part of the project—680 sq. ft. and 979 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; 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 02/20/2018 and continued the public hearing to 02/20/2018, 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 02/20/2018; 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 15-2018 SIX FLAGS GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: MR. PALUMBO-Can I ask a question, the conditions a. through i? MR. DEEB-I can read them, but they're all the conditions that are. MR. PALUMBO-Were they in the Staff Notes? MR. TRAVER-They're in the draft approval resolution. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. DUMAS-Thank you. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item we have under New Business on our agenda is Site Plan 13-2018, Parker Hammond Development, LLC. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. PARKER HAMMOND DEV., LLC. AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: SILVER CIRCLE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CLEARING 6.4 ACRE VACANT PARCEL FOR MARKETING. PROJECT PLAN SHOWS AREA OF CLEARING, BUFFER AREAS AND STOCKPILE OF MATERIALS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CLEARING OF VEGETATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 20-199 (THREW). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 7.86 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-18.4. SECTION: 179-6-010. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes clearing a 6.4 acre vacant parcel for marketing. The site is approximately 7.86 acres, and the applicant has identified areas that will be used for stockpiling and temporary drainage basin and an area of the property that will retained as a 30 foot buffer and match properties along the Carey Industrial Park. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. DOBIE-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Planning Board. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. I'm actually the B Team on this one where I didn't do the Site Plan. So I'm just a touch out of the loop but trying to get up to speed because the boss is in Switzerland. It's a pretty straightforward project, a little boring compared to what we've had tonight with the other nice commercial projects. Our firm did, as you may recall, the Kamco building and also the Parker Hammond building on the smaller parcel in the middle of 2010, 2012. Parker Hammond's been, a gentleman bought the vacant parcel to their west, of the future industrial development which I'm glad to see we're starting to see pretty well in this neighborhood, and it's my understanding we'll have the pressure sewer system in some time this year and as you may recall we did the parcel to the south for the selective clearing probably two or three years ago and we also did behind the Taco Bell parcel for Mr. Parillo some years ago. So that's what they're hoping for here is to do the same kind of deal, and hopefully we'll have a nice good sized industrial project and we can get going this summer. And as Laura said, we're proposing a 30 foot buffer along, a no cut buffer at this point along the north on the west, which are the other neighbors, and then it's pretty straightforward. It's mostly what I call the scrub pine, generally six to ten inch pine and a little bit of oak in there, and they'll log what they can salvage, probably mostly chips for the mulch businesses and other than that it's pretty straightforward and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The only one I have is, I mean you look on Page Two here, I mean you're basically clear cutting it for the buffer and then piling up the material. MR. DOBIE-Yes, material storage will be the topsoil from the grubbing area. I believe the stumps and slash and everything get shaken out, chipped and hauled away for the mulch. So, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 just hate to see all that go just for marketing. What do you think about clearing up the lot, kind of doing what you did, you know, down at the end of the road there, leaving some nice mature trees and that and getting rid of some of the scrubs so they can actually see the lay of the land and that way, I just hate to see clear cut, taking all of that beautiful forestry out of there and, you know. MR. DOBIE-Yes, I could certainly, from my perspective it makes sense to leave something like maybe over 15 or 18 inch mature and then grub the rest of it down. I think that's what we did on the Taco Bell parcel. They did 15 inch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's the one I was thinking of. I think you guys did a really good job with that in leaving the valuable trees. MR. DEEB-And I agree with Brad, too. Some of those trees could be marketable if you sell that property. Let's not waste them. MR. DOBIE-Sure. I'm in concurrence with that. I can speak for the applicants in saving those mature trees there. If we want to put a dbh diameter on them, I'm comfortable with 18 inch if that works for the Board or something like that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, not knowing the size of the trees in there, and I wasn't going to go trekking back there and measure them, how about four inch? MR. DOBIE-You can't set foot on the property there. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, I don't know what size, and you don't, you know what I'm saying? I mean 18 inch, that's a pretty good size tree. MR. DEEB-I'm comfortable with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and you mentioned some hardwoods in there, too. MR. DEEB-Especially the oak. I hate to see those going. MR. DOBIE-Like the whole thing, I went in two, three hundred feet today and most of the pine I saw was eight to ten inch probably. It's all stacked on top. MR. DEEB-Scrub pine. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. TRAVER-So what if you just tried to set aside, you know, spare the life of the hardwood trees that are in there? MR. DOBIE-The hardwoods, say over four inch hardwood, something like that. There is a little bit of small oak, a little clump along, right along Silver Circle that would be tough to, when they're mobilizing. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean basically you want to just get it so there's a visual, people can drive up and kind of look in between the trees. You know what I'm saying? MR. DOBIE-Sure. MR. TRAVER-It actually might be more attractive if you had some hardwoods in there anyway. MR. SHAFER-Does the owner have any potential buyers for the property? MR. DOBIE-Not that I know of. MR. SHAFER-Because one of my thoughts was you could clear a much lesser area, including a driveway, in addition to what the rest of the Board's suggesting, and not the whole property. MS. WHITE-1 mean that's a big area, and when you hear clear cut, that's harsh, six acres. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the flipside of that is, I mean it is an industrial park. I mean look at the lots that have been developed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And you may end up taking it all out anyway, but why take it out in the beginning if you don't know. MS. WHITE-Yes, on spec, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. DEEB-You can always clear more later. MS. WHITE-Yes. So I don't think what we're asking is unreasonable. MR. DOBIE-No. I agree entirely. MR. HUNSINGER-So we just need to come up with a criteria. MR. DOBIE-We'll proceed with that, and if that doesn't fly then we'll come back for a modification if they're uncomfortable with our discussions. MR. TRAVER-So if it stands, you're talking about clear cutting and seven acres out of basically about eight acres. So we've already talked in terms of sparing the hardwoods of larger than, what did you say, six inches? MR. DOBIE-1 think six is a fair number, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Six inches? Okay, and then does the Board feel that we want to ask the applicant to consider reducing the number of acres that are being cleared? MS. WHITE-Well they also said anything over 18 inches as well, even if it's pines. MR. DOBIE-Pines, some softer woods. MS. WHITE-Yes, so keep some of those bigger ones. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So hardwoods over 6 and anything over 18. So what about the discussion regarding the amount of clearing that's being done at this phase? MR. SHAFER-If they happen to get an owner that's going to put something in there that's going to require clearing a whole lot, then those trees would stay, in other words you only clear cut what you have to for the business at hand. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2013) MR. TRAVER-Right, but I'm talking about in terms of the application before us tonight. They want it cleared so they can show it. So we're already leaving quite a number of trees behind. So we're no longer talking about clearing it completely. So do we want to reduce the area of impact from seven acres to something less than that? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, what's the number? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what's the number? MR. MAGOWAN-One, starting our negotiations here. MR. HUNSINGER-Or would it be to increase the depth of the buffer, you know, instead of 30 feet maybe, I don't know, bigger. MR. TRAVER-That would be a good way of doing it. Yes, because I could understand that the applicant would want to have potential purchasers see visually the size of the lot, and if it's only partially cleared, they're not going to get. MR. MAGOWAN-They want a 30 foot buffer. MS. WHITE-So increase that to 50? MR. TRAVER-How about if we did that? MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking more. MS. WHITE-More? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I would say more like 60 feet. MR. TRAVER-Sixty feet? MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know what a good number would be. MS. WHITE-What were you thinking? MR. MAGOWAN-Just double the size of it. They want 30. We say 60 and then leave some trees in the center. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we're already talking about leaving quite a number of trees. So I guess I would ask the applicant's rep. MS. WHITE-1 was happy with keeping the trees. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's a big improvement over clear cutting it. So how do you feel about increasing, at least for now, the buffer? MR. DOBIE-I think that's fine. Visibly when you're walking the property, 60 you're starting to see the borders of your property. MR. TRAVER-And when it's sold you'll be coming in any way for something, presumably some kind of development and we can re-evaluate everything at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we're not saying keep the 60 foot buffer forever. We're just saying for now, for the purposes of marketing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-Well 60 feet's about the width of this room. Right? MR. TRAVER-Close. Maybe a little less. Any other questions for the applicant? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. MAGOWAN-The width of this room is 60 feet, give or take a few inches. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. There aren't any folks left in the audience, but I didn't know if we have any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we can move on to the SEQR process. There is a draft SEQR resolution in our materials. They are talking about cutting. We've done some modification to that. Do members of the Board feel that there's environmental impacts that require us to do anything other than a Negative Declaration? MS. WHITE-No. MR. TRAVER-1 guess we're ready for that motion, then. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 13-2018 PARKER HAMMOND The applicant proposes clearing 6.4 acre vacant parcel for marketing. Project plan shows areas of clearing, buffer areas and stockpile of materials. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, clearing of vegetation shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 13-2018 PARKER HAMMOND DEV., LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we can move on to the Site Plan resolution. We've added, I think, two conditions to what's there already regarding the cutting of trees and the buffering. Does anyone feel that we need any additional conditions? I think we discussed that pretty thoroughly. MRS. MOORE-May I just get clarification? The buffer that's currently proposed is only on the north and the west side. That's the only portion that's going to be increased. I just want to clarify that. MR. TRAVER-Well, but on the east side is the existing. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my intent in the suggestion. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I don't want it to be it comes back and it was supposed to be for the entire site. MR. TRAVER-Right. No, we're just increasing the buffer that's proposed. MR. DEEB-On the north and the east? MR. HUNSINGER-North and west. MR. TRAVER-North and west. We could really say increase the proposed buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Yes, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure the Board understood that there was only two sides that were proposed for a buffer. MR. TRAVER-Good point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was certainly my intention. MR. TRAVER-That's a good idea, a good solution. All right. As soon as that's ready, we're ready for that motion, then, I guess. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 13-2018 PARKER HAMMOND DEV., LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes clearing 6.4 acre vacant parcel for marketing. Project plan shows areas of clearing, buffer areas and stockpile of materials. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, clearing of vegetation 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 02/20/2018 and continued the public hearing to 02/20/2018, 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 02/20/2018; 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 13-2018 PARKER HAMMOND DEV., LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) Hardwoods more than six inches dbh are to remain. m) Any tree over 18 inches dbh is to remain. n) Increase the size of the proposed buffer to 60 feet. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. Good luck. MR. DOBIE-Very good. Thank you, Board. MS. WHITE-Appreciate your compromise. MR. MAGOWAN-Lucas, thanks for being so accommodating. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business to come before the Board this evening? MS. WHITE-Laura, the clearing on Country Club Road? Awfully big trees coming down. I just didn't know what that's for. My old friend's property. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/20/2018) MRS. MOORE-1 haven't heard anything lately. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I saw they were doing logging in there. MS. WHITE-Yes. Big, big, big trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I drove by there yesterday. MR. TRAVER-Well you can clear, what, up to an acre without a permit. Right? If it's your own property. MRS. MOORE-1 can let the Board know that March we have applications for three scheduled meetings and I have enough projects in that you will have three meetings in March. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and they're already scheduled? MRS. MOORE-Potentially, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The cutting on Country Club? MS. WHITE-Do you know anything about it, Brad? MR. MAGOWAN-You know, I'm glad you brought that up, because you know what's really bothered me. It was done on Saturday and Monday, and I didn't see anything going on today. MR. SHAFER-Are we adjourned? MR. TRAVER-We haven't adjourned yet. MR. SHAFER-Laura, is there any way we can get the Chazen comments as part of the Staff Notes so we can read them beforehand? MRS. MOORE-It was an odd month because we had three meetings right in a row. So, yes I normally try to get them in as quickly as I can. MR. TRAVER-All right. We're ready to adjourn then, I guess. We have a motion to adjourn? MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2018, Introduced Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, folks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 34