Loading...
07-23-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23,2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 62-2011 Queensbury Partners 1. FWW 6-2011 Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 Site Plan No. 37-2013 Jeffrey&Sarah Merrigan 2. FWW 2-2013 Tax Map No. 266.1-2-46 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 38-2013 Cover 3 Inc. 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.6-1-56 Site Plan No. 35-2013 Sobert Realty Corp. 6. Tax Map No. 288.-1-52, 53 Site Plan No. 36-2013 Stewarts Shops Corp. 21. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-16.3 Site Plan No. 39-2013 Omall Family L.P. 23. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-13 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. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, July 23, 2013. Members of the audience, welcome. I would ask anyone who's got a cell phone on them to please turn it off at this time so it won't disrupt the meeting. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER,ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING 0- OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK ROADS SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL, AND MULTI-FAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREA AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX, OFFICE AND BUSINESS RETAIL IN AN OFFICE ZONE. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN 300 FEET OF BAY ROAD AND SETBACK RELIEF FOR ONE BUILDING ON BLIND ROCK ROAD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013 WARREN CO. DPW REFERRAL MARCH 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9,CHAPTER 94 MR. HUNSINGER-For anyone in the audience who's here for the Queensbury Partners project, since the Zoning Board tabled it,we will not be doing any action on that this evening. It will be tabled to a later date. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Since we didn't get notice of that,why can't this be? MR. HUNSINGER-We don't have a project to discuss. Not until the Zoning Board acts,we don't have a project to discuss. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-We had a public hearing scheduled tonight. There are people here to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-You're here for that project, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I am. MR.TRAVER-We're not conducting a review. MR. HUNSINGER-We're not going to take any action on it. So there's no reason to hold a public hearing. MR. SALVADOR-That's okay. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-There's nothing before us because the Zoning Board didn't act on it. MR. SALVADOR-But there's a public hearing scheduled. That's what we're here for. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It's still on the agenda. It's still on the website. MR. DEEB-There's a public hearing tomorrow night,right? MRS.MOORE-There's a motion to table in your application materials. I can pull it if you want to. MR. HUNSINGER-What's that? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to table it as it occurs on the agenda, or do you want to table it as an administrative? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I brought it up at the beginning of the meeting as a courtesy for the members of the public that may be here for that project. We'll table it when it comes up on the agenda. MR.TRAVER-We can table it as an administrative item right now. MR. KREBS-Or do you want to do it right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We can do it right now. It doesn't matter. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make a motion. MR. KREBS-That per the Staff Notes. MRS.MOORE-The suggestion is to table it to August 27th. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 62-2011 &FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS On 7-17-2013 the ZBA tabled Area Variance 61-2011 Queensbury Partners to their 7-24-2013 ZBA meeting,therefore, MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the August 27th Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 231d day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And obviously we will be taking public comment at that meeting. MRS.MOORE-The public hearing is left open for August 27th. MR. HUNSINGER-August 27th. Not tonight. Well, if the Zoning Board doesn't approve the variance request,then there's no project. So there's no reason for us to take public comment when we don't even know if we will have a project. It would be a waste of everybody's time. MR.TRAVER-And we don't know what form that project. MR. HUNSINGER-You can comment at that time, or you can provide written comments to the Town, which will be read into the record. MR. SALVADOR-We're prepared to do it tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,John. We tabled it. There's no project for this Board to consider, until it goes to the Zoning Board. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. SALVADOR-There is a project. You've just tabled it. That's all. There is a project. MR. KREBS-No,John,because unless the variances are approved or disapproved,there's nothing for us to work on because we don't know what the Zoning Board is going to do. MR. HUNSINGER-If the variance requests are denied by the Zoning Board, there's no project before the Planning Board. MR. SALVADOR-What's the likelihood of them being denied? MR. HUNSINGER-I read the minutes. I can't speculate on that. MR. SALVADOR-What's the likelihood of them being approved, just as there's likelihood of them being denied. MR. HUNSINGER-That's fine. Either way we'll take public comment. We'll do it in the right process and in the right sequence and in the right order. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it's been scheduled this evening. People have taken the time to prepare and to arrive here on time to be heard. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why, as a courtesy, I brought it up at the beginning of the meeting, so that people who are here for that item can decide to stay or leave. I could have waited for an hour and we could have talked about it then,John. MR. SALVADOR-In all fairness, why wasn't the public put on notice when you were put on notice that they wanted to table? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think anyone that was following this project certainly knew that it was tabled by the Zoning Board. There was a huge article in the newspaper about it. So if you didn't know that we weren't going to talk about it tonight,that's not my fault. Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Just to clarify, if they show up in an hour and (lost words), it's definitely tabled? MR. HUNSINGER-We just tabled it, and there will be no further discussion, there will be no action taken. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 3 7-2 013 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2 013 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY&SARAH MERRIGAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-5A LOCATION SW SIDE OF INTERSECTION OF BOULDERWOOD & WILDWOOD PLACE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES ADJACENT TO A WETLAND. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO A WETLAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PROPOSED DISTURBANCE OF LAND WITHIN 100 FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK OF THE RR-5A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 37-13, GRANT ACRES, PH. II APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 1.68 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-2-46 SECTION 179-3-040,CHAPTER 94 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a single family home on a 1.68 acre parcel in an approved subdivision. The Zoning Board of Appeals requires a recommendation from the Planning Board in reference to activities occurring near a designated wetland, and setback relief is required for the proposed home to be located less than 75 feet from the shoreline. That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. If you could state your name for the record,please. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I'm here with Jeffrey and Sarah Merrigan, and we're here because the Merrigans wish to construct a home for their family at the corner of Wildwood and Boulderwood, which is Lot Number 39 of Phase II of Grant Acres 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) subdivision that was approved by this Board, I believe, in 1989, as well as the Adirondack Park Agency permit was issued for that subdivision. It was a small portion of wetland on that parcel. It was there. It's on the original subdivision map. It's still there. It's still in centrally the same location. The Merrigan's are proposing their house to be located in the same location that the house was shown on the approved plan. The wastewater system will be as shown on the approved plan, and in accordance with the APA permit. Since the approval of this subdivision, I guess two things have happened within Queensbury. The wetland is now subject to shoreline setback requirements, which wasn't at the time, and Queensbury now issues Freshwater Wetland permits. So we're here with a house plan, as per the approved subdivision, and we're asking your support for our variance request to the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night for, to locate the house 52 feet from the wetland, the shoreline, pardon me, because it's a shoreline setback. The original house was shown about 50 feet from the wetland, on the approved plan. So we bettered it, if anything, but it's essentially the same plan as was presented in '89 and approved, and with that, if you folks don't have anything to add, I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-My only comment was that I never thought that was shoreline property,but that's okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,let's talk about the buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any, I know its site plan issues. Did you have any comments about any of the engineering comments? MR. HUTCHINS-I thought they were I see no issue addressing the engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-I can specify more silt fence. I can specify application rates for grass seed, and there were a few other things that I thought were miniscule. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? It's a Type II action and there's no public hearing scheduled. Unless there's a question or comment, I'll entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 37-2013 JEFFREY&SARAH MERRIGAN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling with associated utilities adjacent to a wetland. Construction activities adjacent to a wetland require Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed disturbance of land within 100 feet of a regulated wetland. Variance: Relief requested from shoreline setback requirement of the RR-5A zone; The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2013 JEFFREY & SARAH MERRIGAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 231d day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. KREBS-Of course you do understand that in the final site plan approval we'll require that you get engineering approval. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2013 SEQR TYPE II COVER 3, INC. AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 714 UPPER GLEN STREET SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING WENDY'S STORE INCLUDING NEW ATRIUM. SITE/BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK, PERMEABILITY, AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI ZONE. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE CI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 38-13 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 LOT SIZE 0.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-56 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-10 JON LAPPER, MATT STEVES&TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura. MRS. MOORE-The project is to renovate the interior and exterior of the Wendy's, including the atrium that is to be located 25.86 feet from the front property line, and also requires permeability relief and recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board is requested. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Matt Steves and Tom Hutchins, who disappeared but will be back. Very simply,this is an architectural upgrade to a nonconforming site, but it's staying almost identically within the footprint of what's there. With just, the main improvement is this red panel, which is a fireplace. You saw the design on the inside. Ironically it actually takes out seats that are there now, so that it's a more comfortable interior from what's there, and what we're offering to justify this is to put in the two lanes that will be a right turn out and a left turn. Part of the traffic issue on that site is that it's difficult to make lefts, at least at lunchtime. So if people are waiting to make a left, and you just want to scoot out and make a right on Glen, you can't go until somebody makes a left. By making it a conforming 24 foot curb cut, there'll be a right lane and a left lane, and move the traffic a lot better than it does now. Beyond that it's just the cooler in the back and this architectural upgrade, and everyone will probably agree that the architecture could use to be upgraded a little bit,old fashioned looking windows. MR. FORD-That 24 width will only be on the exit. Is that right,Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FORD-On the north side. MR. STEVES-And if you look at the records, just a quick clarification as far as the signs on the building. There is only one on the front. That is just the Wendy's international standard. It is not what's being proposed for this site. We let the Staff know that. That's just what Wendy's international sent us, is the one mounted sign, what they call the blade on the front of the building, and the existing pylon sign, and the new sign for the pylon actually (lost words) by about 22%. It's a smaller sign and it's a conforming sign. MR. FORD-Is that smaller than the current one? MR. STEVES-I just wanted the Board to be aware that we were not looking for Sign Variances for the two additional signs on the face of the building. That's just the Wendy's international standard which is not part of this project. MR.TRAVER-Just a question,if it's a standard,why isn't it part of the project? MR. STEVES-When Wendy's international sends out their architectural guidelines, that's just what they typically show and then what they say at the end of it is to make it compliant whenever possible for each local municipality. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-So you're doing that. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. STEVES-That's what we're doing. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? On the full scale plans, you have a bunch of,you have,you have a label for all the different color schemes,but they don't,they're not all labeled on the actual drawing? So without this, there was really no way to know, you know, what the actual colors were and the color scheme. MR. STEVES-That is the actual color scheme,that photo or that rendering. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And then all these buildings are franchised. So the actual franchise owner works with Wendy's international to comply with their standards, but then also to meet the individual municipality. MR. TRAVER-It's nice that they allow the local franchise that flexibility. There were some other corporations that are much more rigid with regards to their design. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? MR. FORD-It will in no way impact the flavor of the chili. I just want to make sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Just like the last application, this is a Type II SEQR. No public hearing has been scheduled. It will be during the site plan. So unless there's anything else, I will entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 38-2013 COVER 3 INC. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes interior and exterior refurbishment of existing Wendy's store including new atrium. Site/Building improvements in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from front setback, permeability, and Travel Corridor Overlay requirements of the Cl zone. Also,relief is required for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Cl zone. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2013 COVER 3. INC., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 231d day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. KREBS-At least they didn't make you tear the entire place down like they did McDonald's. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 35-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SOBERT REALTY CORP. AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ARTHUR W. MC DONALD, TRUSTEE OF C. & G. BECKOS AND INTER VIVOS TRUST & D. & B. MC DONALD BECKOS 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1415 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 49,615 SQ. FT. RETAIL PLAZA WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR PARKING, STORMWATER AND LANDSCAPING. NEW RETAIL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 LOT SIZE 1.04, 5.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-l-52, 53 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER,TOM MACE,&COREY SHAMUS REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes construction of a 49,615 square foot retail plaza with associated site work for parking, stormwater and landscaping. New retail uses in Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval, and I'm just going to bring to your attention that under the Summary, the Board may also consider the waivers as requested by the applicant from the 100 foot buffer along the property that borders the Northway, and discussion items may include tourist, traffic accommodations, delivery truck access, minimizing curb cuts and pedestrian interconnect to similar facility to the north. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Corey Shanus from Sobert Realty. Corey is the principle. Wendy Holsberger from Creighton Manning Engineering and Tom Nace who just flew in from Nace Engineering up the street, Haviland Road. Corey (lost word) the purchase of the outlet center across the street which we all know as where Polo is located in 2012 and had the opportunity to purchase the Montcalm site from the Beckos family, and it seemed like a natural fit to him to be across the street and to have, to be able to market them both together for tenants. What he did was go to a nationally respected architectural firm out of Baltimore that specializes in outlet centers to have this designed to meet what they feel are the standards that the better outlet tenants are interested in. So we started with that, and then brought on Tom Nace, a renowned local engineer who understands what Queensbury is looking for in terms of site design, and got everybody together at a sort of a design charette and figured out what to do with the site, and that's how we arrived at what we have here. A lot of the design here had to do with Northway buffer and the entrance drive, starting out using the existing curb cuts and just to try to design something that would complement his center across the street and also fit the design or the constraints of the site, if you will, and that's how we got to this modified U shaped building. What is before you doesn't require any variances. So green space, parking, everything is conforming. We then brought in Wendy from Creighton Manning to do the traffic analysis, knowing where we are in this outlet corridor, that traffic's always an issue. So she did a traffic report, submitted it to DOT at the same time that she submitted it to the Town with our application, and we did get a response from DOT, which they got back to Laura this week,and I believe it probably showed up in your packet recently, but as we expected ,Wendy will go into detail, but they agreed with the methodology and agreed that there's no off site mitigation needed,but they also agreed with some of what was in her report about trying to consolidate curb cuts and deal with pedestrian, and so once we get farther into this tonight, we'll talk about what we're now offering to do is basically eliminate the middle curb cut and relocate the other one slightly. It would be cheaper to leave everything alone because this is DOT approved curb cuts from when they re-did Route 9, but the right answer is to minimize the curb cuts and try and align this with the Mobil station across the street, and so we'll be back to talk about that in a few minutes, but in general the goal is to do something that is visually appealing. The design guidelines here are something Adirondack and they, what the architect said is they looked at The Sagamore in terms of, they didn't want to do it in a dark wood because we already have that with French Mountain and Log Jam. So they wanted to do something to distinguish it, and they said this is somewhat of a Sagamore resort type theme with the white clapboard and the green roof. So that was the theme here. With that said, I'll ask Tom to walk you through the details of the site plan,and then get to everybody else. MR. MACE-Very basically, we're trying to keep traffic flow into the center so that trucks have an entryway. We're trying to keep traffic so that the truck flow can come in from the northern entrance, around the north side of the building, access all the stores in behind with deliveries and back out. Most of the truck access, other than just before opening of the center itself, will be delivery truck type trucks. It will not be tractor trailers. There will be very few tractor trailers entering the site once it's in operation. The utilities we're using existing utilities entrances. There's sewer on the site for the existing restaurant, there's water there. We're simply pulling off those existing utilities. Drainage,right now there are two drywells on the site. (Lost words) sort of ponds down somewhere in the southeast corner. Some of it gets into the State system, some of it doesn't. There's a ditch line along the eastern side of the Northway ramp,the on ramp to the Northway, and that ditch line goes all the way around the southern end of the site into a culvert that goes 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) underneath Route 9 and outlets down toward jail. Some of the drainage presently gets into that system. Like I said,there are two drywells on the northeast corner of the site, (lost words) existing parking lot to take some drainage, but we're proposing a system for reflecting all of the onsite drainage and infiltrating it on site. Most of the (lost words) of the pavement we're using infiltrator beds. For the rear access road, the parking lot there to the south, since there's that nice open area to the center, that we're putting a shallow ditch line there. (lost words) in that low spot just above the bottom of that low spot, we're providing some drywells, where in the present conditions the drywells will take the drainage,and that's it in a nutshell. MR. LAPPER-Wendy? WENDY HOLSBERGER MS. HOLSBERGER-I'm just going to give a brief summary of what we did for the traffic portion of the project. We looked at the ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the trip generation rates, which I know many of you are familiar with. What we did is we compared the current use at the site to the proposed use at the site, for both the p.m. and the Saturday, which are the commercial retail peak periods. The result of that comparison is the p.m. peak hour is kind of a wash. They're about the same amount of trips. The Saturday peak showed a plus of 15 trips with the new proposed use at the site. So with that level of change in traffic,there really wasn't a need to do any really detailed traffic impact analysis. Again, we did receive a letter from New York State DOT that agreed there was not any off site impacts associated with this project that we would need to look at any mitigation or anything. Just one thing also to note that we talked about in the report is, you know, the trip generation kind of talks about new uses and single uses, and this corridor itself is kind of already filled with this type of land use. So,you know, in general,you know,the trip generation rate showed that little bit of,you know, addition in the Saturday peak,but it's likely that a lot of the patrons of this site are already going to be in the area for, you know, recreation or already shopping that that draw to the area is probably already there. So, you know, worst case, there's a small amount of increase, but it's really negligible compared to the volume on the roadways. The one thing, which again Jon had mentioned, is our recommendations were to consolidate some of the driveways, three curb cuts. We always try to reduce those. That's also consistent with the Exit 20 corridor management plan, and also the Comprehensive Plan which talks about, you know, access management and consolidation wherever that can work, and that, aligning the driveways where we can,you know,we're not quite lined up with the project boundary on the north side, so that that's difficult, we can't do that, but the southern driveway, we are going to try to,you know,work internally and line that up with the gas station driveway across the street, and the other thing is the pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent French Mountain Commons, which we are also working on, and unfortunately with the grade differentials there, like a vehicle connection just doesn't work there. It is something that we did look at, but it just; it can't work with the geometric constraints. So, again, New York State DOT actually sent a letter, the formal letter was dated today. So, I mean, I don't know if you have it in your packet. It was sent via e-mail, but again, it might not have gotten to you, but basically it does agree with our methodology. It states specifically that they, our conclusion that the proposed re-development does not require off site mitigation, that's stated in there. They agree with our recommendations to try to consolidate, you know, and of course, you know, we're working on that will be coordinated with them as well. We need the DOT, highway work permits, and we also want to look at another mid-block crossing as well, which there are already two in that corridor, pedestrian mid-block crossing. So that's something,again,that would be coordinated with the State. MR. HUNSINGER-So are the curb cuts going to change from what you've presented? MR. LAPPER-Based upon the DOT letter,what we're proposing,you have that drawing? The one on the south could be relocated so it's essentially across the street from the Mobil station. MR. FORD-Moving that north? MR. LAPPER-Moving that north, yes, about 45 feet from what's shown, over what's existing right now. MR. MACE-I don't know if you can see the red, but (lost words) on the southern end,you have (lost word) to the north of the existing, straight in to the circular road (lost words) and come straight in to the rear access road. MR. LAPPER-Relocating the northern one also accomplishes separation between the gas station driveway. So that's an improvement, moving it farther south from the gas station, and what Tom didn't mention is, in the location where we were showing the middle, the existing middle curb cut, 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) that's where we'll put the pedestrian connection across the street. That will go to Corey's other center. So we don't need any permission from anywhere else, and DOT just said in their letter that the final location will be subject to their approval, because it's their road. So wherever exactly they want it is fine, but that way it can nicely connect both, with the theory that you could park in one and walk, and Corey's willing to put in an electric crosswalk, if DOT will allow it, because, again, that's up to them,as a condition. So if you pushed a button and the light went on. MR. FORD-Good move. That would be helpful. MS. HOLSBERGER-Well, I just want to explain it a little bit. We're not talking about a full like pedestrian crossing like a red light, per se, but there's some newer technology that actually the pedestrian,you know,the yellow pedestrian signs. They have LED lighting associated with them,so that if a pedestrian presses a button, similar to what you would at a traffic signal, the pedestrian button, that light, the stop sign, excuse me, the pedestrian sign, the pedestrian sign has some LED lights that come up and it just kind of really makes the drivers more aware that there is a pedestrian waiting to cross. So it's not a red light type. MR. MAGOWAN-Actually, I think that's an excellent idea. See if you could push for it for the rest of the place up the road. MS. HOLSBERGER-Well,that's likely,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-People are just anticipating, everybody's so frustrated, you know, they're not really, and there's so much traffic and so much going on on the side. So I think that's an excellent. MS. HOLSBERGER-It is likely something which I had mentioned,when we started talking about this, because, you know, it's something that's relatively new and it's. You know, kind of cool for the traffic engineers, but that it might be a consistency thing. Certainly DOT might push that as well. You don't want to have one then,you know, with all this awareness and then the next few without the awareness. You want to have the consistency. So whether it goes, you know, wherever, that's something that,you know,the applicant is willing to. MR. FORD-Are you aware of the history of lights like that and their usage? My concern, very honestly, is that frequently when you push a button like that, it is at an intersection where there's a traffic light and so there's an anticipation on the part of the pedestrian that traffic is going to stop, and all you're doing is alerting the traffic that there's a pedestrian who wants to move across. MR. LAPPER-Under the law in New York,which changed about 10 years ago, drivers are required to stop. Of course if they're wrong,you're dead. So that happens. MR. FORD-That's what I was referring back to, wanting to know what the history was of this, because there's such congestion there. MR. LAPPER-This is a way that not only do you see the guy standing there starting to walk and you think, I better stop,but there'd be an LED light in your face as well. So it's sort of double. MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes, and this, yes, no, absolutely, that's something that we'll talk to New York State DOT about. All we're saying is that, you know, the two that are existing there are already in the corridor and they don't have that type of signing. All we're saying is that we're willing to look and see if there's a better way to put this in. If DOT says, yes, then we're willing to do it because, you know,there's, obviously it's not an inexpensive,you know, it's more than just putting a sign up, because it has all that connectivity and the push buttons and the lighting and, you know, so anything, you know, it's not just putting of signs. So we're not saying that it's absolute. We're saying that it's something that we want to talk to DOT about and see what their thoughts are. It is relatively usually during those congestion times that traffic is moving relatively slow, which does work to our advantage,you know,as far as that alertness goes,but you have a valid point. MR. HUNSINGER-And I really think, and maybe it's just me, because I'm more aware of it now, but the crosswalks that were put in across Route 9 seem to really encourage pedestrian traffic, and I think it's., you know, increasing all the time, and I think, I mean, that was the one comment I had, you know,on the project was the pedestrian crossing and the pedestrian connection. MR. LAPPER-And we haven't yet talked about the other one, Wendy mentioned it because of the grade change for French Mountain Commons, and what we've said in the application is that Corey will build it up to the location. We don't want to be in a position where we've agreed to do something with you where if the neighbor says no, we don't have any control over that. So we will 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) agree, as a condition, that he will construct it from his property to the property line, at the location that's acceptable to the neighbor. It doesn't matter to us, anywhere along there is fine, and it goes into the far end of their parking lot by where the bears are. So wherever the neighbor wants it, Corey will pay for it and construct it as part of the project. MR. HUNSINGER-So would you then lose a parking spot along that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-But we just gained a bunch of parking spaces by taking out the middle driveway. So we're fine. MR. HUNSINGER-The other comment I had on the proposed change, by changing that southern egress,is truck traffic,does that impact truck traffic at all? Because you've got a tighter turn. MR. LAPPER-If you look on that map, you can see there's a whole grass area. There's no parking spaces put near that. So that will be, maintain the same. So it's easy for truck radius to work. The angle of the grass median there,the curve. MR. KREBS-But also by moving it a little bit to the north, it takes away from where you would go on to 87. So that's an advantage,too. MR. DEEB-Jon,have you had conversation with the neighbor about the walkway? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. DEEB-Not yet. So you don't know if he's going to agree to it or not. MR. LAPPER-WE think that it's good for everybody to get the pedestrians, but we have no control over him. So we would agree to it as a condition and agree to pay for it,but it's,you know,unless he comes before you and has a site plan change, you can't force him, and so we can't force him, so we're kind of powerless,but we'll agree to do it and pay for it if he'll agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? I'm sorry, were you finished with your presentation? MR. LAPPER-Well, the other point, I want to introduce Corey and let him tell you a little bit about his philosophy, but we've got a 24 point letter from the engineer which Tom's already drafted a response that we're basically saying yes on every one. Some of these issues were where is the construction entrance,which really isn't a question when you have, usually you have a dirt site and we've got three DOT approved entrances and he said,you know,you modeled a 100 year storm,but you didn't model a 50 year storm, which in this case goes without saying. So, I mean, there were a number of comments but none of which were a problem, and Tom can talk a little bit more about that. MR. MACE-If you're interested seeing them at this point, I have a response to his comments, or I can go through any particular ones you're interested in. We have no problem accommodating all of them. MR. KREBS-Well, and the draft approval provided by Staff says, in Number Seven, engineering signoff required prior to the Zoning Administrator's approval. So,you know,to go through all those is kind of a waste of time. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean„ I can't speak for the whole Board, but the vast majority of the comments relate to stormwater management,which is, I kind of see that as a technical issue,and the engineers worked that out and tell us they worked it out and we say okay. MR. SHAMUS-Good evening. I'm Corey Shanus. I'm the president of Sobert Realty Corp. As you probably know, we acquired the Lake George Plaza Outlet Center in November of 2012. We acquired the Lake George Plaza Outlet Center November of 2012. Shortly after that, we became aware that the Montcalm Restaurant was on the market. We like the area, obviously, because we acquired an Outlet Center in a terrific area, and we envisioned putting a high quality outlet center, comparable to what we have, in the Montcalm site. We are planning to make improvements to the existing center, to do the rehab to try to match the architectural style as best we can. I don't mean 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) the details, we haven't done it, but the architectural firm that we hired, we searched a long time to find the right firm. That was a big part of this project. It's LED Solutions in Baltimore. These guys do outlets, and the main architect, Dan Washcot, is from the Adirondack area. So he's very sensitive to matching the style, and The Sagamore idea he came up with. I met him here. He flew in from Baltimore and he drove around the area presenting us with a couple of solutions, and all of us liked that one,but that's basically it. We want to put a good project there,and be good neighbors. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MR. FORD-If these renderings are any indication of the quality you're going to proceed with, that would be fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How are you doing signing up stores now? MR. SHAMUS-Well, we've sent out letters of intent. We don't have anybody signed up yet. So I really shouldn't mention names. Obviously tenants are saying to us, until you get approvals, we can't lease. That's obvious, but our hope is that we do get your approvals, obviously, and that we can begin construction in the fall. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think the design is really attractive. I think you did a great job in designing it. Other questions,comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-I agree that the design looks very good and it's attractive. One issue I have, again, I'm going back to it, is traffic. I mean, that's been a problem area for years and years, and is the outlet going to draw more traffic than would be at a restaurant is what I question, and I've been thinking about it. I really think it will, and it's not so much how many more cars. It's the bottleneck. I mean, we've all been up there in the middle of summer, and it is really hard to get through there. So, I mean,that's really the only issue I would have with it. MR. SHAMUS-And that's a fair concern. Let's discuss that. It's my opinion, for somebody in real estate, that the impact will be the exact opposite. Now let me explain why. The outlet center is bringing in a shopper. For the most part, these people are already there. The Montcalm or any other restaurant that would replace it would be what we call in real estate a destination location restaurant, meaning it's bringing a diner, somebody to go in there to eat, not necessarily shop. So it's our opinion that if you replace it with another restaurant that did very well, it would bring in more traffic than this center would bring in. In addition, restaurants, by their nature, the traffic is concentrated at lunch time and dinner time, as opposed to an outlet center is more even distribution. So I understand your point. It's a very good point,but if you stop to think about it,the kind of restaurant that the Montcalm is,a destination location restaurant,brings a whole new traffic flow in, in contrast to an outlet center. So we think it would be, the traffic would be worse if you had another the restaurant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What you're really doing is just, you're adding more parking and your customers are going to go back and forth across the street shopping in other stores, and they're not just coming to your place to park and leave, I don't think. If you look at what people do up there, and I'm sure you do,you'll see they park and then they walk and spend the day. MR. KRE B S-Particularly if other owners allow you to have a walkway between the two. People are going to park either in one parking lot or the other, and then walk back and forth. MR. SHAMUS-I think it would be beneficial to everybody. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They'd be foolish if they didn't do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And the technical answer is that that's why we wanted to get to DOT in advance, so that we could get them to tell us whether they felt that there needed to be any mitigation in that corridor, and they agreed with Wendy's study. So that was not just us saying it, but we've got the State saying it as well, and just taking a step back, in terms of the economics, that is a cash cow for all of us for sales tax, and so we sort of don't need everyone going 55 miles an hour. Retailers like everyone going slower and looking in the stores and stopping. MR. KREBS-Well,that's kind of like our Glen Street,right? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. LAPPER-And the other thing that was mentioned in the DOT letter, when a corridor study was done five years ago, about that, and what they looked at, for the future of this site, they had anticipated 75,000 square feet of retail and this is 49,000. So this is actually less, and part of that is because of the buffer for that, and if it were not for the Northway buffer, we could have fit more stores. MR. HUNSINGER-Since you mentioned the buffer, from the plans, it looks like you're not going to cut any of the existing trees that are back there. MR. LAPPER-And not only that, but a lot of the trees are even on the DOT right of way which is certainly not something we're touching, but Tom has augmented this with a lot of planting, and when you drive by the French Mountain Common is built right to the property line. I don't mean that foot, but very close, and this is, these buildings are 100 foot from the property line, and even though we couldn't, but I don't think we needed to maintain 100 feet of trees, we're doing some really dense plantings in addition to maintaining as much buffer as we could. MR. HUNSINGER-There's a very heavy forested buffer there now. MR. MACE-We're adding 100 and some odd pines. MR. LAPPER-Corey said,so I guess they're not going to see it from the Northway. MR. HUNSINGER-That's the double edged sword, right? Other questions, comments from the Board? What's the, well, before we go any further, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? We have at least one hand up. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to state their name for the record, and to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is available on the Town's website, and the tape is also used to transcribe the minutes. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED MOORE,JR. MR. MOORE, JR.-Good evening. How are you doing? My name is Ed Moore, Jr. from French Mountain Commons,the neighbor next door. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MOORE, JR.- So we've been up there 25 years. I think you guys know our properties pretty well. Our only concern is, and it seems like they've addressed it a little bit, is the curb cuts and the bottlenecking that's going to be created. I mean, even today there was a bottleneck, and I left the shopping center at 4:30, and it was pretty bad, on a slow day. So not to disagree with what was stated before, I think the Montcalm Restaurant,the new outlet center will see a lot more traffic than the Montcalm Restaurant. I've been there for a long time. I know it. I mean,you're talking 49,000 square foot of retail space with bodies in it compared to, I don't know, a 10,000 square foot restaurant. Just the employees alone, four employees in every store, adds, you know, if you have ten stores, four thousand square feet, there's 40 more employees, 40 more cars, 40 more people pulling in and out. I'm not saying I don't want the outlet center. I do. The more the merry. The more better stores we have, the more better stores mine do, everything works out right, but the traffic situation needs to be addressed, and that's a main, main concern. It's been addressed in the past. There's actually been studies done on the Exit 20 corridor,which we went down our corridor by Warren County a few years ago. Now the light's going to be an issue, people making a right hand turn. No matter how north that curb cut is, it's going to be an issue. If there's going to be bottlenecking just like you said, there's going to be a bottlenecking, people coming off from the south going north to make a left hand turn, no matter how north that curb cut is. It'll obstruct the flow of traffic. So I don't have the answer. I really don't, to be honest with you, but I think it's a major issue, and I'm not saying don't build the outlet center. I'm saying we've got to come and,you know, make a good decision, and plan out for the future. I mean, I don't think when the Montcalm Restaurant was there, and the Mobil was there and we were there and a couple of other little places were there, we thought a light and a couple of curb cuts would work. Well, it's grown up to be this huge thing, cash cow as Mr. Lapper, for the Town, has alluded to, but the masses are going to be here, and we have to plan for it, and that's really my only concern. As far as working with the new owners and everything,we're all ears,let's open,you know,we're good neighbors. We're not trying to stop anybody or hold anybody up, but it's, bottlenecking with traffic, it's an issue. It's an issue, also, in the same concern of people go in and they have all that time,they're not going to want to go 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) there. Like Yogi Berra said,don't go there anymore. It's too crowded. You've got to make it flow so that it works for everybody and that it's safe, and that's really our only concern, I mean, to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Since you're here, do you have any comments or thoughts about the pedestrian connection? MR. MOORE,JR.-Well,tonight's the first time I've heard about it. So, I mean. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't mean to put you on the spot. MR. MOORE,JR.-Yes, I mean,we saw a glimpse of the plan. Nothing seemed upsetting or,you know, whatever, but, you know, I will say this. People, this time of year they walk. I will say that. If it's nice out, they walk, but come September/October when it's raining and snowy and gray, for those seven, eight months out of the year, they don't walk. It's just that simple, and we actually have, French Mountain and the Log Jam, which the Log Jam is about 100 years south, north, and they don't walk. It seems to be the traffic flows better up north, but even on a busy, at the (lost word) that's at the north of the Million Dollar Half Mile,whatever they call it, seems to flow better because they dump out onto 149, but when you pull in and you've got people coming up from the Great, I mean, Exit 20, that's where they get off for The Great Escape. So,you add more outlets. You've got a new Great Escape park. That all comes out, out of that corridor. So, I mean, it's a concern, and that's just where we're coming from,and that's really all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MOORE,JR.-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes,sir,come on up. Good evening. DAVE KENNY,JR. MR. KENNY,JR.-Good evening. Dave Kenny,Jr. My family has, like Ed,been in the area (lost words) outlets, and like Ed,the biggest concern would be the parking, or the traffic, and going in and out of the parking lots, connecting the parking lots. They said they did a traffic study at 6:15 on Saturday. What about 10 a.m. on a Sunday when the restaurant's closed and all of the traffic going to The Great Escape, and people taking lefts. I also have a concern about the traffic coming off the Northway northbound, getting on, and taking a left. That traffic backs up to a quarter, half mile currently on the Northway. Now you're adding another people turning left right there. How much more is that traffic going to back up on the Northway? With a left, the left hand turns across Route 9. A traffic survey at 6:15 on a Saturday is great, but the traffic's bad during the day. 6:15 at night on a Saturday is probably some of the least traffic down there. The big concern really is the traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. DAVID KENNY, SR. MR. KENNY, SR.-Good evening. I'm David Kenny, Sr. The same concerns, really. I'm in favor of the outlet center. I think the exiting has got to be addressed. I don't know how many road cuts they're going to keep or what the final plan will look like. I think the one north has got to be moved south, because it's right on top of that gas station,which they have done? Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,you missed that. They brought it 60 feet down. MR. KENNY, SR.-Okay. That and the one on the north end, if you moved it a little bit further north I think,but I do think this time, I don't know how we're going to address some of the traffic concerns leaving the Municipal Center. I think that it's, it's not the Town's responsibility. That's a County road, I believe. I don't know if the Town can put a request in. We work together on the future of this, you know, the more stores that come in, we're going to propose something tonight, I know you're a little bit aware, because we're very concerned. We're going to try to eliminate some more road cuts because we don't believe, the road cuts are a problem. Other than that, I'm behind the project. I think, like I say, it will bring more people to the area, but it will definitely bring more people to the area which is what we want. We need the sales taxes. We need (lost words),so,but at the same time, and,you know, with all the sales tax money that strip has generated, I do think,you know,it's between jobs and the money it's supplying,can we look at somehow funding some type of putting some of that money back into a traffic study and help and,you know, before, like young Ed said, you know, Yogi said, if you can't get there, they're not going to come anymore. Eventually 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) could be, kill us as much as help us with all this new development, and other than that, I'm behind the project because I would like the traffic. I don't think it can be done today for this project,but it's something I think,for the future,has to be really looked at seriously. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Jon,that is a County road,right? MR. LAPPER-It's a State road. Route 9 is a State road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I think if all of them get together and put the pressure on the intersections,that's where the backup is. The backup is the intersections and the goofy way you get on the Northway. You've got to have (lost words) and also 149 where it meets that road. Traffic flows pretty good for all the traffic that's in there by those stores, but then it gets backed up at either end and then it(lost words). MR. LAPPER-Our answer is that it's a State highway,so it's DOT's call. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is. MR. LAPPER-And the Northway and Route 9, and so it was really encouraging that they reviewed Wendy's stuff, and again, it wasn't just us saying it,but the State said these improvements are what they want. There's three curb cuts now. There'll be two curb cuts when we're done. When they re- did it a number of years ago there is that left turn lane, which helps for people to bypass, if you're making a left you can wait. I'm not saying it functions perfectly, and it's certainly not 55 miles an hour, but it works, and we're replacing kind of a tired building, even though I miss the restaurant a lot, it's time to get rid of the Montcalm building and re-develop that, and as Corey said, you know, you can argue it both ways but there's definitely no longer that restaurant destination, and the people that will be there are going to be the shoppers that are there now and,you know, some new ones, but it just makes it a better shopping area, I think, for both of the neighbors that, you know, rising tide lifts all boats in terms of just having shoppers. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? I mean, we do have a new plan to review. There's at least some new curb cuts and such. MR. KREBS-Well, I think the new curb cuts they've done have improved it significantly, because they brought it south on the north end, and north on the south end,which eliminated the one in the middle which reduces significantly the amount of traffic going into the oncoming traffic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think they've done a pretty good job. The one issue I did have was how are they going to get in and out of there. MR. KREBS-I also like the circumference move for the trucks so that the trucks are always coming in on one side and going out on the other. So you don't have them coming out on both sides at the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-So what I'm hearing is the Board's comfortable moving forward? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, the DOT letter, I can read that into the record. Do you want to; would you like to hear that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we should at least hear what the whole record was. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated July 23rd, addressed to myself. "Dear Ms. Moore: We have reviewed the traffic evaluation and concept plan submitted with the June 13, 2013 letter from Creighton Manning Engineering to Chris Hunsinger,Town of Queensbury Planning Board Chairman as per your request and offer the following comments. 1) The trip generation estimates and methodologies used in the traffic evaluation seem reasonable and we agree with the conclusion that the proposed re-development does not warrant off-site mitigation. 2) We also agree with the recommendation and conclusion of the evaluation that the number of driveways for this site be reduced as identified in the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan study as a means of good access management techniques. 3) Proposed driveways should be located opposite driveways on the east side of Route 9 whenever possible and also lined up with internal site driveways to maximize the safe and efficient operation of vehicular movements into, out of, and within the site. 4) Pedestrian connectivity as discussed in the evaluation to encourage foot traffic between sites should be evaluated. We are willing to consider a marked crosswalk across Route 9 though it is difficult for us 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) to comment specifically on this issue without having something shown on the plan. 5) The plan should be revised to reflect the recommendations in the evaluation in regards to both access management and pedestrian connectivity. 6) A copy of the Drainage Report which evaluates the pre and post-development flows into the adjacent Route 9 drainage system must be provided for our review and approval. The Department considers the Drainage Report to be a professional Engineering document and must be stamped and signed by the New York State Professional Engineer responsible for its content. 7) It is unclear if there is any utility work proposed within the State right-of-way. 8) A NYSDOT highway work permit(s) will be required for any proposed work within the State right-of-way. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please contact Lorinda Tennyson at 457-5283. Sincerely, Mark J. Kennedy Regional Traffic Engineer" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Just one more clarification. Delivery trucks are going to be off hours, correct, when the store is closed? MR. LAPPER-The answer is that the larger delivery trucks in the back will be off hours. There'll be package delivery trucks like UPS and FedEx coming in. MR. DEEB-Smaller ones. MR. LAPPER-Yes,smaller ones. MR. DEEB-That can get in and out. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I want to refer to Tom's remark, too, about the light and, the hand coming up and the light. I think New York State law says vehicles have to yield to pedestrians, and I really feel that that,though it will have a positive effect on traffic, people might be,get a false sense of security that they can just run across that road, and sometimes traffic can move pretty good. So I'm just a little worried about an increase in accidents up there,and I just was wondering if you could address that. MR. LAPPER-We will agree that if DOT allows it to pay for and install the yield sign that Wendy described. MR. DEEB-Well, I'm thinking that it could be more of a hazard than a help. MR. LAPPER-Well, I'd say it's their road so we'll defer to the State. MR. FORD-And they are willing to allow it to be marked as a crosswalk? MR. LAPPER-Yes and we think they're going to want the light. MR. FORD-Probably the light and maybe some additional signage. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FORD-Indicating the pedestrian crossing. MR. SHAMUS-I think that's a great point. What you're saying is accurate, and from our perspective, we don't want people getting injured. Nobody does. I think signage would address a lot of it. I know today I walked from one to the other. Where I went, there was no cross walk, and I was like this,and I didn't feel particularly safe doing it. So it might not be a perfect thing what we're going to put, but I think it would be better than having nothing, but we will have signage, and safety will be the paramount concern. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that's what I was going to say, I think the bigger concern currently is that people cross other than the crosswalk, and I think having another marked crosswalk that encourages pedestrians to cross there would be more beneficial. MS. HOLSBERGER-Right, and that's kind of the point now with an outlet center going in across from the outlet center across the street. When you have the marked crosswalk,you know,not everybody crosses in those marked crosswalks,but it does tend to filter people into where that marking is. So, you know, having that there just in itself will help kind of bring people to one spot, and then the drivers do become more aware of that because it is a marked area. So, you know, there's several 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) levels of, you know, just having the crosswalk itself, you know, will provide more people going to that one spot because it is marked so it is safer than just crossing, you know, anywhere in that section. MR. FORD-Something that just popped into my mind. Has any consideration been given to either foliage or fencing or anything of that sort to try to minimize the multitude or, actually the whole thing is open for pedestrian traffic,anybody that wants to go anywhere. MS. HOLSBERGER-You're saying along the roadway itself? MR. LAPPER-That's all within the right of way. MR. FORD-Inside the curb,back from the curb. MR. LAPPER-They re-did that with period lighting and the sidewalks on both sides, that's all, that's the State right of way. MR. MAGOWAN-I find that the warnings, when I'm driving down,they come to the crosswalk areas and they have signs up, it reminds me, as driver that this is a crosswalk, you know, pay attention, and the people that seem to jot out,you know, on their own, it makes it,you know,you have to be a defensive driver, but by seeing the sign it reminds me, getting adjusted over the last 10 years with stopping. I remember going to New Hampshire where that's always been a law and,you know,you tend to forget that when you came back to New York because we didn't have it, and then you go out there and people just automatically, but having a sign there lighting,you know, warning the driver and also the people that it's basically,you know,both parties have to use their head. MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes, and that sign that I'm, the lights that I'm talking about is on that same sign. It just makes it one step brighter, especially, you know, this area, this seasonal nature, and in the evenings,you know,when it is dusk and whatever,you know, it makes it that much more apparent. They have the reflection and everything,but if it's something that helps,like we said,we're going to look into it, and,you know, if not, in the minimum there would be the pedestrian crossing signs and the crosswalk which will help,you know,get people safely across. MR. KREBS-I'd be tempted to suggest that,you know,the merchants in general get together and put bridges across so that the people didn't have to walk,but then I've watched the people, there was a million dollars spent to put a bridge at The Great Escape and people still are walking across the road. So I don't know what you do. MS. HOLSBERGER-I mean, I've worked on that Exit 20 corridor plan myself, and that is one of the things that was talked about, the difficulty with that, and you know from down the street is at The Great Escape you have to almost corral people to force them to use it, and in that environment you're going to one destination. Here there's so many destinations. So to actually put up those blockages,you're going to actually,you know,impede on people going to different retailers and,you know, it's almost impossible, and you're right,what happens is it becomes inconvenient. The safety becomes inconvenient, and then people don't use it, which is an extremely high expense for those bridges. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You cannot trust people anymore. I was in the Village today. I stopped at two crosswalks. I looked in the rearview mirror; they're crossing behind my car. Welcome to America. They're going to do what they want to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? I see you have the SEQR form out. Were there any other comments, Laura, any written comments? MRS.MOORE-No,there were not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And move on to the Short Form. MR. KREBS-This is Environmental Assessment. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. KREBS-Based on that,we will declare a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 35-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SOBERT REALTY CORP.,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. 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. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of, July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess there would be any discussion on any conditions that we may want to have. MR. LAPPER-You've got the two crosswalks. MR.TRAVER-And we've got the reduction in curb cuts and,well,relocation of the remaining two. MR. KREBS-Yes,but those are already on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,but they weren't submitted. MR. LAPPER-Steve's right. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things we haven't talked about at all is lighting. Is everyone comfortable with the lighting that was presented? MR. LAPPER-Can we say that the exact location of the curb cuts and the crosswalk will be subject to DOT final approval? MR. HUNSINGER-That works for me. MR.TRAVER-That would work. MR. LAPPER-I see on your resolution for the waivers it says stormwater management, grading, landscaping, and lighting, and it really should only be buffer. I think that's the only waiver request that we have. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, on the draft resolution there's only one waiver shown, and that's for the 100 foot buffer to the northwest. Since we didn't discuss it, were there any questions or concerns or comments about the lighting plan? Okay. I don't think you have a copy of the draft resolution in front of you. MR. LAPPER-I do, they don't normally send it to me and this time they did, and the waiver one in Number Three doesn't say buffer. It says stormwater,grading,landscaping and lighting. That's the default. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the one I'm looking at says waiver requests granted or denied, less than 100 foot buffer along property borders. MR. LAPPER-Excuse me. I like yours better. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I guess the only condition is the change in the curb cuts and really the parking and crosswalk and pedestrian access to the property next door. MRS. MOORE-The question in reference to the property next door, that's not necessarily a DOT comment. That's a comment that you're agreeing to. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-We'll agree to construct it at the location that's agreeable to the neighbor to the north. MRS.MOORE-So I believe that's two different conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. KREBS-Isn't that kind of really between the two owners? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except it is a site plan issue. MR. LAPPER-You want to make sure that we're saying we'll do it. MR. KREBS-Right. If Mr. Moore doesn't agree to it,then it's. MR. HUNSINGER-But it is a site plan issue. MR. LAPPER-Remember Hanneford and CVS where I never was able to get that done, and now there's that. MR. MAGOWAN-And it gets wider and wider. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can drive through it now. MR. LAPPER-That's when only one side wants it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or concerns? So I guess whenever our secretary's ready. I did like the landscaping plan,by the way. It was very well done. MR. LAPPER-That was your old friend Jim Miller who's now in North Carolina but still does it on line. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. That's interesting. Okay. Are you ready? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 35-2013 SOBERT REALTY CORP. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 49,615 sq. ft. retail plaza with associated site work for parking, stormwater, and landscaping. New retail use in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 7-23-2013; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2013 SOBERT REALTY CORP., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) 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; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) Waiver requests granted: less than 100'buffer along property that borders the Northway; 4) 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, 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 6) 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; 7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 8) 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 aU site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 9) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) 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; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 10)In addition to that,we are adding: a) Reduction of one curb cut and relocation of two others as described by applicant subject to DOT approval. b) Applicant agrees to provide connecting walkway to adjacent property. We're adding that the pedestrian crosswalk must be approved by DOT. 11) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Subdivision,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 12) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 13) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 14)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 2013, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-You want to add information about the other DOT reference to the pedestrian crosswalk in the approval. MR. KREBS-Okay,but the point is,it's DOT. Why are we, DOT,we're saying that DOT has to approve it. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MRS. MOORE-But you only discussed the curb cuts. You didn't discuss the pedestrian crosswalk. That's up to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree with you. I think it should be in the resolution. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it's not on the plan. MRS.MOORE-Correct. It is not on the plan. MR. KREBS-Okay. We're adding that a pedestrian crosswalk must be approved by DOT. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2013 SEQR TYPE II STEWARTS SHOPS CORP. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION 402 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 522 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING STEWART'S STORE. SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN AN OFFICE ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 10-11,PZ 1-05,SB 17-04 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16- 1-16.3 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes the construction of a 522 square foot addition to an existing commercial store, and then this is a Type II SEQR, requires no further review, and then I do have a public comment when you do open the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LEWIS-Hi,there. Tom Lewis. I'm the real estate representative of the Stewarts Shop. So we're going over all of our shops to see where we can make an improvement, and make the inside better. So we want to add about another 500 feet onto the store, and we've got that on the site plan. We'll be re-doing the entire inside,the back room, and the storage area we'll have more room. Where the customers go we'll have more room. There'll be a nicer, larger bathroom, and everything else remains the same,lighting,landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-It's hard to imagine you can make that store any better,because every time I go in there it's packed. MR. LEWIS-Thank you. Well,no, no,that's why we're doing it,because the ones that are not packed, we just don't make them. MR. KREBS-But it's also making it more like the more recent one on Route 9 which has tables you can sit,you can look out the windows. MR. LEWIS-I mean, when I began this in 1992, all of our shops were 2400 square feet. Now we're up to 3500 square feet on the new stores. So it makes them function better. MR. FORD-That is a growing business. MR. LEWIS-We are a growing business,yes. That's all I'm asking,that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-It's pretty straightforward to me. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is, and it was hard to tell from the plan, but the distance between the gas pump overhang canopy and the door,that traffic aisle, has that changed at all with the proposal? MR. LEWIS-No. You can see by the plan,this is where the entrance was. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was the only question I had. MR. LEWIS-The next time that I come before this Board it won't be so easy, and we will get into what you just asked. MR. HUNSINGER-You're going to want to put in more pumps probably,right? MR. LEWIS-Yes, but I purposely wanted to separate them because this is pretty easy and straightforward. The other one I'll prepare you in advance that I accept no very gracefully, but I also accept yes gracefully. It's the only way to function with Boards. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-You said you had a written comment? MRS. MOORE-I had one public comment. This is from, I believe it's Gary Poster dated 7/17/2013. "This is fine with me and I look forward to their success." MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,if there's no other public comments; I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no further SEQR review is required. They did request waivers. I'm assuming everyone's okay with the waivers that they requested. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 36-2013 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 522 +/- sq. ft. addition to existing Stewart's store. Site improvements in an Office zone require Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II; A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/23/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2013 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) 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; 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt.,grading,landscaping&lighting plans; 3) 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; 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 231d day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. LEWIS-We'll see you next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED OMALL FAMILY L.P. AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 102 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND RECONFIGURING THE INTERNAL SPACE FOR TWO EXISTING FLOORING TENANT AND A FUTURE FURNITURE TENANT. SITE ALTERATIONS INCLUDE RELOCATION OF BUILDING ENTRANCES,PROPERTY ACCESS,PARKING,AND LIGHTING. LANDSCAPING TO BE INCREASED ON THE SITE. RETAIL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 LOT SIZE 1.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1- 13 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER&DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes re-development of the property and reconfiguring the internal space for two existing flooring tenant, a flooring tenant and a future furniture tenant. Site alterations include relocation of the building entrances, property access, parking, and lighting. Landscaping is to be increased on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record,Jon Lapper and Dan Ryan. Dan did the site plan. Everything about it, I think, is an improvement over what's there with the open curb cut, the lack of landscaping. This is one of those old fashioned 1970's site, and much better. So do you want to just go through the highlights, Dan? MR. RYAN-Yes, I'd be happy to. Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering. Yes, as Jon mentioned, basically it's one of the few sites that has yet to be developed along that stretch of Quaker Road. Essentially, the goals of the owner are to dress up the front of the property, which as you probably all are aware of, is one large curb cut and entirely asphalt. So the goals of this project, one of the primary goals,was to take that front area in front of the building and be able to provide some green space and landscaping and vegetation. That will help buffer the size and appearance of that building and you're driving by, and then will also give us the added benefit of having one primary entrance and exit to the facility rather than people kind of using the entire 100, 200 feet for in and out for vehicular maneuvering. Ultimately, currently the site contains I believe 45 parking spaces which is more than adequate for the types, the flooring business and furniture store. Since the tenants are essentially going to be the same, we don't anticipate any need for any additional parking. In terms of calculations,the parking does not meet Code,but the existing 45 spaces would still remain as part of the re-development. So essentially we would be taking some of that parking in the front of the building and just reconfiguring the spaces to the east side, where all the parking 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) is now. We are able to achieve, through this re-development project, and increase in the permeability, which for this zone is 30% required. The existing permeability is 15%. So we are able to achieve an additional 15% to ultimately get to the 30. So that is certainly an added benefit. We would basically ask for several waivers. One of the restrictions of this type of re-development is that we don't plan to remove all the asphalt that's on site for an existing parking and future parking. So without, and we're not demolishing the building. So ultimately we're confined by the existing finished floors, confined by the existing access to Quaker Road. So we did ask for some waivers to avoid having to submit and go through extensive lengths, since we really are not making drastic changes to the grading or drainage patterns. So some of those waivers are really related to the restrictions in terms of how extensive we are developing. We do have some proposed landscaping in the front of the building. If you saw Drawing C-4, that essentially outlines the proposed landscaping and does depict the main entrance that we're proposing towards the east end of the property. The intent of that landscaping is to buffer the parking lot, essentially, as you drive by on Quaker Road. Our hope is to screen some of that parking area. The signage that is in front of the building would remain. I believe the owner is anticipating an upgrade or an improvement on the sign, which would certainly be Code compliant, but if necessary we'd come back for additional approvals. At this time, it's my understanding that the signs will remain and there are no re- location of those at this point. As you can see on Drawing C-4 as well,the entire area in front of the building, which I believe is about 30 to 35 feet in width before Quaker Road, will be lawn and landscaping. So that'll certainly add some greenery along Quaker Road. You'll see that we abut; I believe it's the O'Toole's restaurant to the east. So we're somewhat confined there in terms of what we can do. A lot of the existing parking lot does flow or slope to that direction. So we are, even though we've asked for a waiver for stormwater, we are proposing to put a stone trench along that east property line to help mitigate any runoff that might discharge on a neighbor, and also to promote some infiltration. We do have shallow groundwater. I believe it was three feet. So we're somewhat limited in what we can do for storage and so that's why we're asking for a waiver,but we have provided that as a mitigation measure. Along with a substantial reduction in pavement, obviously on the property. There is an existing infiltration trench along the rear side of the building. I don't know if that was part of a previous re-development of the site, but that's about a three foot by three foot deep drip trench which does collect a predominant share of the roof runoff. That's really the main one story building on the east side. The two story building is reported to collect with internal roof drains and ultimately dump into a catch basin in the front of the building in the County system. Ultimately, we'd like to think that this is somewhat simplistic of a project. There was one change I would like to make you aware of that is not in the plans that you have in front of you. That is the location of the refuse area or the dumpster enclosure. I believe we showed it somewhat in line with the entrance. I'm looking at Drawing C-4 or C-3 for that matter. You'll see that the refuse is basically in view, as you pull into the property. The owner didn't like that and preferred that and preferred that the dumpster enclosure be behind the building. So I did provide a quick 11 by 17 I'll hand out to you just so you can see where we've moved it to. It essentially moves it behind the building so it's out of view, and that is the only change on here. It basically keeps the same 45 parking spaces and moves a couple of those down to accommodate that new location. So you see behind the building, basically we're accommodating the three dumpsters that are there today, just relocating them. They'll be out of view, out of sight, and a little less susceptible to damage with plowing and that sort of thing on the property if they're kind of tucked in the back corner. I'd be happy to answer any questions, entertain any comments you have, and whatever you have,we'll take care of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I have one comment. Having been in the furniture business and carpet business,if we ever had 45 cars at one time,we would be happy. MR. LAPPER-This is the Boychuk family that owns Mark Plaza,Al Boychuk bought this. MR. MAGOWAN-I really like the grass lawn area in the front. Because right now it just looks like a building and a huge parking lot. I really like the landscaping. The dumpster, definitely, that's the first thing I saw was straight across. The other nice thing about that is a truck can pull straight in and back straight out. It's much easier to tuck it behind the building and (lost words) you gain another parking spot. You had 35. Now you're 36. MR. RYAN-Yes, along that back stretch, the whole of 35 stayed the same, but we were able to gain an extra along that back wall,or that back property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? I think you did a great job with the site plan. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. The Fire Marshal indicated they didn't have any comments at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. Wouldn't it be Type II? MRS.MOORE-I have it as Unlisted,and they completed. MR. HUNSINGER-A Short Form. MR. KREBS-Okay. We'll do the Environmental Assessment. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Based on that,we will declare a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 39-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: OMALL FAMILY L.P.,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. 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. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of, July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: ONE MR. HUNSINGER-We had a draft resolution. I don't know if there's any conditions that we need to consider. Seeing how they submitted a revised plan that showed the relocation of the dumpster. It's already taken care of. I don't think we need to do anything in the resolution, and we did have waiver requests. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 39-2013 OMALL FAMILY L.P. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes redevelopment of the property and reconfiguring the internal space for two existing Flooring tenant and a future furniture tenant. Site alterations include relocation of building entrances, property access, parking, and lighting. Landscaping to be increased on the site. Retail use in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7-23-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2013 OMALL FAMILY L.P., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 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; 1) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater, grading, landscaping, buffer, topographical survey, landscaping and building elevations; 3) 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; 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 231d day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Nice job, Dan. Our next item on the agenda is a discussion item. DISCUSSION ITEM: DAVID KENNY: APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF FRONT SECTION OF THE ADIRONDACK OUTLET MALL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY NEAR Lake George PLAZA. DAVID KENNY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura,did you have anything else to add? MRS. MOORE-I'll just read, the topic is applicant proposes relocation of the front section of the Adirondack Outlet Mall to the south line of the property near Lake George Plaza. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Do you have an extra of one of those plans? Thanks. MR. KENNY-Good evening. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. KENNY-We're here for preliminary discussion. We'll be submitting. I'm David Kenny, Sr. DAVE KENNY,JR. MR. KENNY,JR.-Dave Kenny,Jr. MR. KENNY, SR. -We currently have an approved project from a year ago, a year and a half ago, which we started on, and basically with the industry going the way it's going, what's happening in the industry, Lake George has become, slowly but surely, Queensbury has become a very popular area for the tenants, and there's quite a bit of expansion, but one of the things they don't like about the area is all strip centers. It's not what they want, the major tenants, the real top anchors. So after being in discussions with them with what's going on, basically what they want is a racetrack atmosphere. In other words, the centers would align like a racetrack so you can walk, because all your major outlet centers throughout the world, throughout the United States, are basically racetrack designs. So we looked at them. We met with some of the major players, and the (lost words) to re-design the existing center,the one we're building,taking the two pods off the back and moving them out front. What the future plans, if the market (lost words) could be taking down the Quality and the Clarion Inn and putting, continuing, we have that plan here. This would be in the future. We're really showing you what the feel the future of the outlet shopping can be. MR. KENNY, JR.-Yes. The first page, the shaded area, if you recall the original plan had five pods kind of going back. This shows the first three in the back,two were going to be moved. MR. KENNY, SR.-And in between them there's a 60 foot grass area, which (lost word) pedestrian walkway. So one car's parked in either the front or the back, they're inside, it's outdoors, but it creates that racetrack atmosphere. They're saying they don't need the road frontage. They don't need the,they want the racetrack. They want where people can shop three stores within 50 feet of each other,just keep walking, and it's a walking environment,you know, umbrellas, and the 60 feet between these stores will be all landscaped and walkways, and,you know, it's a major undertaking because we'll be taking down a hotel that's, in the future, if this is acceptable to the (lost word). It also, it would be eliminating two more road cuts, if the whole project goes through, because once the Days, if you look on the second page, once the Clarion comes down,we feel that roadway that is there now, all the traffic will go to that, come in and out of that and go to the parking lots. So it will eliminate, again, we are very concerned about traffic. We do think there is a traffic problem, and the only way to get rid of it is get cars to park and park for the day. Give them a shopping experience that's a four hour shopping experience. If I can keep a car in the parking lot for four or five hours shopping and walking around and walking the walk where they don't have to cross roadways, they don't have to get into traffic again, that's what we're looking to do. We do feel this will be approximately 200 square feet total, with hopefully the Log Jam would connect to it, give us 250,000. Then we've got the other 25 acres behind. I know John McCormack is seriously looking at doing something like that, but basically all the tenants are telling us they'd love to see a racetrack down there, instead of the strip centers. It was designed as strip centers. No one knew it would get this big, but you're talking $400 a square foot. The build out here is probably, 350, 400,000 square feet. Take 400,000 square feet times $400 a square foot,that's $160 million in sales. Take the sales tax number and generate quite an accounting to the Town of Queensbury. We have stores up there doing $1,000 a foot. You've got your stores doing 250, 300, but it's very fast becoming what we would call in the industry an A center. Right now it's considered probably a B, B minus, but the numbers have grown every year. It's no longer a, some of the busiest months, November, December, January, February, March, our tenants (lost words). We're becoming a shopping destination for the City of Albany,which is our major market, and the other thing,it's bringing more and more Canadians down from Montreal to shop the outlets. So we feel that the right design concept to buy into,or at least to explore, and that's what we're trying to do. MR. MAGOWAN-You're saying that the tenants that you've talked to are more looking for individuality? MR. KENNY, SR.-If you travel the outlet center, there's two companies. We're considered the one, you know, Simons Development, which was Chelsea, practically owns the industry. Premium, but it's owned by Simons, and they probably have 65, 70% of the outlet centers in the country. They own Orlando. They own (lost word) New York. They own Rentham, Mass. They own Lee, Mass. They own the new one in New Hampshire, and they're all designed around this racetrack,just like a horse track, and that's where, if you look on this second page here, the center here would be the start of the racetrack, and we go around again. They like the fact that people, when they park, they walk in,make the loop. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-It sort of forces you to every store. Right? MR. KENNY, SR.-Forces you to almost every store, but you can see them all, and it's pleasant. You have a store facing this store,but they're 60 feet apart with grass and walkways,sidewalks. MR. KENNY,JR.-They'll tell you the reality is when people get into their car,they don't go to the next center. They leave, and they don't come, and if it's not close enough where they can walk really close,they don't walk across the street or they don't walk(lost words). MR. KENNY, SR.-Up here they will, because it's like a Kittery, but it's not an ideal design, and so we're trying to create something we know there's 40 acres of land behind us that can be used also to accomplish, you know, the tourists are the retail customers. My customers are manufacturers, and you've got to try to answer some of their concerns, and this is one of their concerns. This is what we've been led to believe. I've been going to conventions for 15, 20 years, 25 years now, and everybody wants to go to a racetrack. If it works,you know,this will reduce traffic on the road, and It'll be getting rid of a hotel and a restaurant,but cars will park and be parked just like when you go shopping down at Harriman,you're there for,they've got one entrance in and out of Harriman. MR. FORD-It's the same concept as downtown Sarasota, FL. MR. KENNY, SR.-Yes,it's a racetrack. I mean,it's probably owned by Simons. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's your timetable? MR. KENNY, SR.-Well,this construction on the existing project has already started. I mean,we have the building permits issued. We're building the first two pods right now as we talk. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I noticed you did start doing some earthwork and stuff. MR. KENNY, SR.-Well, August 3rd, we're digging next week. Foundations are going in next week. The tie up there has been getting steel for the rebar for three weeks back ordered. Three weeks ago we ordered the steel for the rebar, and August 2nd is our delivery date. The other half is coming August 7th. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So what's the priority of this project,versus your hotel project and whatever? MR. KENNY, SR.-In Lake George? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. KENNY, SR.-This here is,they're both,you know, I'm probably stretching myself a little bit,but I enjoy doing what I do. So the hotel project we're going to site plan next month. I mean, I have all the plans. All the plans are done. The hotel is,the plans are done. I mean,there's an issue there yet. APA has still got to approve it. So everybody thinks it's a done deal, but it's, you know, this here, we're constructing. We're also reconstructing the bowling alley in Lake George. I've got my son and my daughter there taking over and I've got my other son, they want to get involved and I'll be stepping back, naturally, but that's, this here is a major commitment. It's a major commitment to the Town because I'm taking,demolishing basically, but I'm going to tell you one thing. The Clarion, it's a great property. It's been great for us for all these years. It's not what people want. Who goes to a hotel without a lot of, who goes to two story hotels anymore? I mean, it works because there's nothing else, properties in the area,but people want vertical. The next generation wants to walk in, push a button, elevator to the third floor, four foot walkout, and get in their room. That's, and with this here project, it does open up the possibility of putting in a, I mean, we're talking, the Marriot's going in Lake George, but we're talking about putting a Fairfield, possibly. Again, you don't need road frontage for that. You need people,but you don't need the road frontage. MR. HUNSINGER-So the original discussion item for the Adirondack Outlet Mall to move that around. MR. KENNY, SR.-The Outlets of Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that off the table now? MR. KENNY, SR.-Well, what's on the table now is what we'd like to get done as soon as possible so we can present it to shows is the concept of, we want to take the two pods off the Outlets of Lake 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) George, that project that was approved, and move them up front. That's a separate site, still, because the road going back there is between them. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. TOM MACE MR. MACE-To answer your question, Chris,yes,the (lost words) in front of the existing Mall. MR. KENNY, SR.-Is off the table. MRS.MOORE-Is off the table. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KENNY, SR.-But when we looked at it, we met with tenants, we talked to people, they'd rather, again, we sat down, and they said this design we would like. We would like to see the whole project,take the hotel down and everything,as soon as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. I mean, just in terms of the, you know, looking at your S-2, personally, the change, I think, is an improvement over what we had previously approved. You've got parking in the back and putting the stores up front. I think that,to me, I think that's a better design. MR. KENNY, SR.-The concept, it's an improvement, it's what, you know, again, my customers, tenants, and it's hard to convince them, if there's a choice between one and two, they're going to always go with their first choices. MR. KREBS-Again,look at the reduction in the curb cuts. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. KENNY, SR.-I do think, you know, we've got to look at coming out of the Municipal Center where Gurney Lane is to put a roundabout there so traffic coming off the exit from the north, making that left hand turn, I watch the cars back up. If everybody went up to Gurney Lane and made a roundabout there before you get, so it was all, then you came out on the Northway going south, it would just move traffic so fast it would create, and that's a simple roundabout right, you know,where West Mountain Road comes in. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got land sitting right there,and you could put that roundabout. MR. KENNY, SR.-No, I'm talking about when you come out of the Municipal Center and cross the Northway. You turn left,now,to get onto the Northway,and traffic coming off the Northway always stops because traffic coming out of Gurney Lane and West Mountain is so much now. To go up to where the Gurney Lane is and just put a roundabout there, it's all owned by the County, and then so the cars go and won't make a left. They go up and go around the roundabout and then put a turning lane in where they just built the apartments there. MR. KENNY, JR.-If you're coming off 87 south,you get off Exit 20 and a line of cars,you go by them on the right,take a right,you'll (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you're saying. MR. KENNY, SR.-You go up right and make the U turn and come back. MR. MAGOWAN-I was actually thinking tonight that land right across from the Municipal Center, just making that one big. MR. KENNY, SR.-I do think if this works, and, you know, your demand is there for the money, the economic growth, I would love to go back to, if this goes in, and creates the revenue and the jobs and the economic impetus to make this really a homerun to put Warren County on the map, off Exit 20 right across, now this parking lot's right there, the Municipal Center's right here. They could tie off Exit 20 right into this parking lot. We're doing all the work for them now. So,you know,you've got this, you've got the Lake George plaza right here, and then that's where the exit comes off, but let them go straight and it's only a quarter of a mile down to where their gel ring road is. That road would come back right into this parking lot. So instead of cars getting off the Northway making a left,straight ahead,boom,you're right into the Outlet shopping. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-It makes too much sense. MR. KENNY, SR.-It's all drawn out. It's all been approved. The State approved it. The Feds approved it. It's all been approved. It's sitting there waiting. Last time, I don't know if you read about,probably about a year ago, I don't know if it was a year ago,you know,that Mary Lemery,no, not Marv, the sheriff, he was concerned with traffic going by the jail. The impetus, that would, I think something like that where you have access, I mean, typically retails are also concerned about traffic. This here is, to me, this is, you know, like I say, if you took $400 bucks a foot into 400,000 square feet, that's a lot of sales tax and jobs and everything into Warren County, with very little State money or very little County money,very little Queensbury money. It's just a natural location, and it's growing. I was the first person to build in 1985. Back then they said shopping wouldn't work up. Well, obviously we know it does, and to me, I spoke to Ed tonight about it. If this road where it goes through, where I have it on Page Two, it's on Page One also, to connect the turning lane onto 149 to this is only a couple hundred feet. There's a small turning lane down there now, you know, where you turn to go onto 149. Well, if that turning lane was connected all the way, to where this extended south about 300 feet, cars pulling out of here, going around to 149. Now, it's planning for the future. It's planning for 20 years down the road, rather than waiting until it's gridlock and it's too developed and you can't do anything. If anybody thought this was going to grow the way it is, some of these buildings wouldn't have been built. They would have been designed a lot differently. So now we've got, you know, do I like the idea of talking to the bank about taking down a four million dollar property, well, that's the cost of the future. Eventually it will be a great investment for the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the benefits of the build out that you show on your S-3 is the interconnections that you have between the space, I mean,that keeps the traffic off Route 9. MR. KENNY, SR.-It keeps the traffic off,and,you know,it creates, I mean,we still have to address the one issue of the parking in the back here. (lost words) connect directly to the Log Jam, on the left hand side. There's an elevation change there where this road goes in,where the stores are,but that can be addressed with (lost words) design stage, and that's where it takes neighbors to work together. We really want to create a shopping environment, instead of walking on the roads and walk up along Main Street and walking across streets. We're trying to create and make a destination shopping center. MR. HUNSINGER-So what other input do you need from us? MR. KENNY, SR.-Well, I guess we're going to put the final plans, on this section here, Phase I, we're taking the two pods out,that has to come back for a re-visit of the existing site. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENNY, SR.-And that's what we're looking at doing,but, in good faith,we wanted to expose the whole plan, because a lot of people, I don't believe in segmentation, and we're showing you what our whole future looks like. It may take three years. It may take four years. It may take a year. Once we show this on the drawings, once we get it all drawn out, then I'll come in. Because there are three sites still, but we're connecting them all. So we're keeping the sites separate but we're connecting them all with interconnections. MR. HUNSINGER-So would you keep them as separate sites,or would you ever? MR. KENNY, SR.-You know,at that point we may merge them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENNY, SR.-Once we get that far. We can't connect them because the roadway which we're putting in is actually owned by John McCormack,the 20 acres out back. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KENNY, SR.-And if you look at that roadway, we purposely, you know, we talked with Tom quite a bit about how do we make that so cars can stack coming in and out of it without,you know, so you can get a certain amount. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. KENNY, SR.-Eventually, you know, we talked about, you know, will there be a light there. It depends on the growth process,but if we can connect to 149 with a turn lane,we'll really,but again, I can't do that. That's a State issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENNY, SR.-But we are willing to (lost words) if this whole project goes forward. I mean, I think if we're going to be successful in 10 years we've got to answer retailer's concerns. So that's what we're here applying for. I just wanted to advise you, and as soon as Tom does the stormwater, we've got to do stormwater, do some grading and re-do the existing plan. It won't affect the existing building we're putting up,you know,at all,because the elevations are all there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENNY, SR.-And that's a parking lot. We're just moving that parking lot to the back,but there's some engineering work to be done. Actually there's going to be more green space between the buildings because stormwater (lost words) the whole center between them is all green space. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENNY, SR.-And so the drainage will be better also. It's going to be a different environment. it won't be the strip center that was proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the architecture going to look like. Have you thought about that yet? MR. KENNY,JR.-We have the architecture. It will be similar to that. Open ceilings. (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I just want to make a comment. Over the years, I've enjoyed listening to David and his vision, and you've, once again, proven yourself to be, not only a problem identifier, but a problem solver. I,for one,appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS.MOORE-I'll take another clean copy,because I wrote on mine. MR. HUNSINGER-We had a request from Mr. Salvador for five minutes of our time. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you for the time. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good evening. MR. SALVADOR-Today at the Lake George Park Commission monthly meeting the Commission approved modifications to a very sizeable docking facility in the Town of Lake George. The interesting thing about this project is that it started about three years ago, and the Town of Lake George was getting heavily involved in this, and suddenly the Appellate Division came down with that decision on the Lake Placid case involving jurisdiction, and then Judge Krogmann ruled on another Lake George case that the Town had no jurisdiction on the navigable waters, and suddenly the Town disappeared. They were not present today. The Town Supervisor was at the meeting and had nothing to say. So the point is the towns do not have jurisdiction on the navigable waters of Lake George. Now, as you know,the Hoffman case is still hanging out there. MR. HUNSINGER-We were talking about that last week. MR. SALVADOR-Who was? MR. HUNSINGER-We were,after the meeting,yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The case is older than you,John. MR. SALVADOR-Where do we stand? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just where it was,nothing's changed. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing's changed. MR. SALVADOR-Well,the centerpiece of their defense is you have no jurisdiction. That's been going on for six or seven years. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So how are you going to put washing facilities in the lake if they don't have any jurisdiction? MR. SALVADOR-The Park Commission has, they have the jurisdiction. How can they put what facilities? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Didn't I hear today they were going to put mandatory boat washing facilities in? MR. SALVADOR-That's another thing they did. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But their jurisdiction is in the lake. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,they're going to put a washing facility in the lake? MR. SALVADOR-Well,good point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I don't think Queensbury, I can't(lost word) where they'd want to put it. MR. SALVADOR-Well, they did adopt, that's another issue here, but they did adopt, today, their environmental impact statement, and they did it and as you know the DEC has not agreed to secure the public launch sites to prevent launching during hours when there's no supervision, no inspection, no washing, and the caveat is some Commissioners agreed that they would approve that resolution, still has to go before the DEC, I believe, and the Governor, but they would approve it based upon the fact that the Commission would continue to try to get support for some way, funding, doing something to secure these, to either have inspection on extended hours or to secure the sites. The problem with this whole program is that the Commission, the way I see it, okay, the Commission is patterning their approach around their experiences they got from going out to Lake Tahoe. They went out there and visited Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe has Asian Clams. Lake Tahoe has the situation under control, but Lake Tahoe only has a handful of launch sites. I think it's less than 10. We have over 100 on this lake. I mean,how are we going to do this? MR.TRAVER-A lot of them are privately owned. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. MR.TRAVER-Many of them are private. MR. SALVADOR-Exactly,most of them are private. Most of them are. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Like yours. MR. SALVADOR-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you going to allow them in your place? MR. SALVADOR-Am I going to allow what? MR. SCHONEWOLF-A washing facility at your place? MR. SALVADOR-I haven't been asked. No, you can't have the washing facility near the lake. What do you do with the waste water? MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. Yes. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. SALVADOR-You can't have it near the lake. It's got to be off. So, not only that,you know,where do they get the water to put in,you can't take it from the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Take it from the swamp and they'll put it back in the lake. MR. SALVADOR-All right. Anyway,that's, so much for that. The reason, one of the reasons I'm here tonight is to talk to you about the project you approved on Assembly Point at your last meeting. At that last meeting, it was unbeknownst to me that there had been a Stop Work Order put on that project. It would have been nice to know,the public would have appreciated knowing the status of that project going into that meeting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How could we tell them, they did it the day before, the afternoon before. We didn't know it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we didn't know there was a Stop Work Order. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We didn't know anything about it. Don't talk to us about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn't know. MR. SALVADOR-At the meeting you didn't know about it? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't. MR. FORD-The first I've heard of it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you read, if you look at the order, the time on it, it was done the afternoon that the meeting was. MR. SALVADOR-The day prior, I believe. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-The day prior to the meeting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So how are we going to know. Anyway, it doesn't affect us anyway, our decision. MR. SALVADOR-And of course the litigation is against the ZBA's action. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. That has nothing to do with the Planning Board. MR. SALVADOR-In any case, one of the causes of action in that lawsuit, and by the way, I'm not a party to it. I'm not a party to it, although I've read the petition and I am quoted in there. Nice of them,but in any case, one of the causes of action in there is the fact the Park Commission wasn't put on notice by the ZBA, by the applicant, I should say, for participation. They had reserved the right to have party status. It's in the regulations, and they weren't noticed. Now, I chased this idea of, you know, what constitutes notice, what constitutes notice. Well, the Town Board answered my request by handing me a list, an e-mail list that the Planning and Zoning Department uses to notice every one of your schedule,of your meeting,your hearing,and that short synopsis. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's it,plus the public notice in the newspaper. MR. SALVADOR-Right. That's not what I consider notice in accordance with Chapter 147. Okay. Well, anyway, I was sitting on an answer to the Park Commission on this issue, and I prepared my answer to them and I'd like to share that with you. I'll give you a copy of my letter. I'll give you a copy of their interpretation. The Park Commission takes the position, with regard to the Town's new Chapter 147. See,we have two Chapter 147's. We have an old one and we have a new one. It's ludicrous that the Town repeals a Chapter 147 and then puts a new Chapter 147 in its place. How does anyone know where they stand? It's not right. MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you're saying,yes. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/23/2013) MR. SALVADOR-That they use the same number, or at least say revision one, or something. Okay. There's no way to tell, and that's, where the Commission answered me by saying that the language of the new Chapter 147 is the same as the language in the old one. Well, if that's the case, why do we need the new one? I mean, that doesn't make any sense, does it? So anyway, I'll give you this, but that issue is out there,and it's going to have to be resolved. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You're welcome. Any other business to be brought before the Board? Motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 23. 2013, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 35