Loading...
10-22-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22,2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 1. FOR FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8 Special Use Permit No. 11-2013 Mike Barbone 2. STATUS REPORT Tax Map No. 307.-1-29 Site Plan No. 54-2013 157 Mannis Road, LLC 6. Tax Map No. 289.18-1-7 PUD Site Plan No. 57-2013 Overlook HOA 8. Mod to PUD Site Plan No. 1-1988 Tax Map No. 290.62-1-7, 290.62-1-12, 290.54-1-7 Site Plan No. 58-2013 David Kenny 10. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-19, 20 Site Plan No. 59-2013 Concord Pools 17. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-23.21 Site Plan No. 60-2013 Carrols, LLC 23. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-30 DISCUSSION ITEM Dollar General - 61 Main St. 25. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-57 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 10/22/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD DAVID DEEB PAUL SCHONEWOLF LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. I'll call the meeting to order on Tuesday, October 22, 2013. We have a couple of administrative items. The first one is Site Plan 62-2013 Kirk Roberts. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS-FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-For further tabling consideration. Has there been any contact with the applicant? MRS. MOORE-I've communicated via e-mail with him, and he's indicated that he's still working with the engineer and they're just tied up in getting this resolved, some engineering issues, and so he's asked if he could be tabled to December's meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did he seem to think he would make the November 15th deadline? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make that motion? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the December 17, 2013 Planning Board meeting with a deadline date for submission of November 15th. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2013,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Just discussion,do you have any idea,will we need two meetings in December? MRS.MOORE-In December, I don't have an idea. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder if we should table it to the 17th and hedge our bets that we might not need two meetings. MRS.MOORE-That's fine. You can amend that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that acceptable to the Board? MR. KREBS-Okay. That'll,will that change the submission date at all? MR. HUNSINGER-No,just the tabling date. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. KREBS-Okay. So my motion is so modified. MR. MAGOWAN-I second the modification. MR. HUNSINGER-So we'll table it to the 17th. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We also have an administrative item for West Mountain, Special Use Permit 11- 2013. SUP 11-2013 MIKE BARBONE-STATUS REPORT PAIGE SIDLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Was there someone here? Yes, would you come up to the front table, please. Laura,whenever you're ready. MRS. MOORE-At the Board's request, the applicant has, from the March 26th meeting, we required the applicant to come to the October 22nd meeting to provide a status review of the events over the summer. In your packet you received information about each of the events that were held during the summer, and additional information about some decibel readings at the last event, and I asked Paige if she could provide just some review on what that,what those decibels mean. MS. SIDLER-Yes,so we did,we had a decibel,what we did was we downloaded an app. MR. KREBS-Excuse me. Could you identify yourself for the record,because this is recorded and we need to know who you are. MS. SIDLER-Sure. Sorry. Paige Sidler, and I'm here for West Mountain. Actually Spencer Montgomery wanted to be here but he couldn't also. So he's the new manager at the Mountain. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. SIDLER-Yes. We were concerned about the decibels because electronic music has, there are definitely some issues with that, but the decibel meters. They were within like city street levels and they never reached like into the red,but unfortunately being that there's only two people at the Mountain right now, we're pretty swamped. So I haven't had a chance to do that, but Spencer wanted to,the new manager,wanted to make sure that everyone knew that we're going to seek out more family friendly events,but we probably wouldn't entertain having like electronic dance music during the school season either in the future. MR. FORD-Probably wouldn't. MS. SIDLER-Yes. I'm not sure why previous management booked that event at that time, but, I mean,we would definitely take those factors into account. MR. FORD-So there is no firm commitment relative to electronic music? MS. SIDLER-I mean, I know that the people booking the events right now, myself and, you know, reviews them,but, I mean, it's not something that, I don't want to totally say that we wouldn't do it, but I'm 99%sure that we wouldn't. MR. DEEB-You said during the school year. Are you talking Sunday you might do it? MS. SIDLER-Yes. If we were going to do another like camping or an event where it was more than one day, most likely it wouldn't be during the school season,because my biggest concern going into the weekend with that Freedom of Expression event was Sunday night we technically could have had music until 11, but I know that if I was getting ready for school and work on Monday morning, that's probably not something I'd want to hear. So we decided to cut the music off a little bit earlier than we were required to, just so that it wasn't too invasive, but I know it definitely went into like seven or eight o'clock,but. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. DEEB-That doesn't address the neighbor's concerns, I'm sure, because there were a couple of problems,as I recall. MS. SIDLER-Yes,just a few. MR. DEEB-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a question for you on the decibel readings. MS. SIDLER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-The time is listed as 32:04. Is that,at first I thought maybe it was a 24 hour? MS. SIDLER-Yes, I wasn't sure. What happened was I downloaded an app, because the promoter actually, we asked them, we asked them if they could bring decibel readers. They said, yes, we'll bring them, no problem. So the first day I asked them for them, they didn't have them. So I downloaded an app that sent me a graph to my e-mail, but then after the event, I realized that the whole graph like got merged into one, and it wasn't necessarily a graph. It was just like an Excel spreadsheet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. SIDLER-So what I did was the first evening,because I was worried about the noise level, I went to Founders Way because I knew that was an issue area, and I got out of my car, turned the car off and did the decibel readings, and it was in like the green area, didn't go into the read, and then Sunday night we got a call, well, it was Sunday like late afternoon, and somebody had mentioned that they were up in West Mountain Estates. They said the music was loud and they just wanted to know when it was going to finish, and I had a lengthy conversation with that person, but after I got off the phone, I drove up to West Mountain Estates and I did a decibel reading up there and just made sure that it wasn't in the red, but we still asked the promoter to turn down the music regardless. MR. HUNSINGER-So when I read a time of 32:04,what time is that? MS. SIDLER-It was, I could tell you by my phone records. I believe it was like right around five o'clock,but I don't know the 32. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe because the clock just runs continuously,doesn't it? MS. SIDLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what I thought. Maybe it was from when the concert, maybe from when the event started or something. MS. SIDLER-Yes. I thought it would be an easier graph to read because I was like, wow, this is a great app. You can e-mail it right to your e-mail, and I did it a few times but it sort of like merged everything together. MR. MAGOWAN-So the 100 was definitely a car starting next to you? MS. SIDLER-Yes. Well, even if you were talking, it was really sensitive. So it's, you know, when I had the car running,you know, I had to turn the car off and then walk away for it to do an accurate reading. MR.TRAVER-That application you downloaded was for a handheld device? MS. SIDLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Can you give me a little more detail on the kind of device, what's the name of the software? MS. SIDLER-It's an IPhone 5,and right at this moment I can't give you the name of it. MR.TRAVER-Okay. It's an app you downloaded for an IPhone? MS. SIDLER-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR.TRAVER-Okay. So it's not a professional planning standard? MS. SIDLER-No. I mean, I'm sure it's not, it might not be 100% accurate, but the promoter had mentioned that he requested me to download this one because he said he'd used it before and some of them aren't accurate. So, but I just used the one that he had mentioned he had used in the past, or the sound technician,sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-So you took the readings from your IPhone then? MS. SIDLER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Interesting. MS. SIDLER-Well, I was upset that the promoter didn't bring the device to read the decibel meter reading. So I still wanted to go out and check, because I was curious. I know, you know, some people say their houses shake with because the music is so loud,but, I mean, it's very close to a few houses at West Mountain Estates, so I was worried, but I drove around Bedford Close, and there's one spot in Bedford Close, it must be like right where the sound hits when it echoes off the Mountain,and it seemed,not as a nuisance,but when you're. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Probably when you do your contracts with any promoters in the future,you will require they bring that piece of equipment. It's a very easy piece of equipment to run. In fact, some of the police departments might have them around here. I don't know. MS. SIDLER-Right. Well, that's what, I thought the sound technician would also. So we checked with them and they said they normally bring them, but unfortunately they didn't that day. Murphy's Law. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess we're kind of belaboring a point when you don't plan to have similar events in the future anyway. MS. SIDLER-Yes. Electronic music I don't see, not the benefit in it, and I don't want to be discriminative, but know that we would like to do more family friendly events. It would be nice if we could invite the neighbors over. I know that, even with Summer Jam, a few of them came over, but, you know, in instances, Fire on the Mountain, a lot of the locals come over for that. We offer fireworks and things for the kids to do. So it's, you know, it's a successful event. So I think we'll gear most of the events more family friendly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I've got to just make the comment that I think there may be another source of revenue. I was over at, in middle New York, Old Forge,and at their ski area during the color season they give rides up to the top of the mountain. MS. SIDLER-Yes. MR. KREBS-I think they charge$5. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Gore does it,too. MR. KREBS-And that might be another area of revenue for West Mountain because certainly from the top of the mountain you have spectacular views to the east and to the north. MS. SIDLER-Yes. This year was very strange, and so we're getting situated and then I think in the spring we'll definitely be able to figure out,you know, what kind of a (lost words), but,yes, canopy tours are definitely something that's really popular with resorts. MR. KREBS-Well, particularly since we have so many people, and particularly like on a weekend where you have Balloon Festival and you have all these people here and they have a whole day to spend doing something,you know, so it would be, I was just thinking of it, and being a skier, I,you know,would like to protect West Mountain and see that it continues. MR. DEEB-Can you give us any feedback on Summer Jam,what your opinion is or how it went? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MS. SIDLER-I think it went better than I expected,because I know with previous management there were a few things that West Mountain was required to do. In my opinion,there should have been a little bit more security,just to,you know, make rounds, and we could have had,we started cleaning up the next morning like at 10 a.m. and, you know, we could have started a little bit earlier, but, I mean,it went pretty smooth. There were about 3,000 to 5,000 people there, and,you know, I think it was a successful event,but if we had a large crowd, if we had closer to 5,000 people or more than that,we would have needed more staff. So there wasn't a back up plan in place unfortunately,and I think that, in the future, we need to have that, and then we need to do like a dry run because, there were no instances, but I think I'm worried about Northwest passage. We have like an access road, and there's, you know, easy access to houses there. We probably should have someone just stationed there for the night just to hang out and like make sure no one's going back there, and parking went pretty smooth, but then we fill up fairly quickly, too. So we should have a little extra staff just to,you know,direct cars in the right spot. MR. KREBS-I thought the emergency staff did very well to deliver a baby. MS. SIDLER-Yes. That was at the end of the night. MR. DEEB-And it ended about,what, 10, 10:30? MS. SIDLER-Well,the music ended at 10,and there were fireworks,right around 10:30. MR. DEEB-And people started leaving at what time? MS. SIDLER-10:30, 10:45. I think a lot of people just waited for the fireworks to be over and then. MR. DEEB-So that differs from the electronic a little bit,then,from the time,okay. MS. SIDLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? What Staff has recommended is that, the Special Use Permit expires in October. So it would behoove you to make sure you file another application in August or September at the very latest. Earlier would be better, right? Yes, so that there's no lapse in coverage. MS. SIDLER-Okay. I know that I had,the only question I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead. MS. SIDLER-There wasn't a specific time. It just says, in the site plan, that we're allowed to have summer events, summer and Fall. There's no specific time line. At the end of, does this site plan, or, I'm sorry, special event permit,go into effect in May'til October? Because we have some events in April that are considered part of the ski season, because we ski into April. So I just wanted to make sure that any event we have up until April is covered under our winter operations, and then I wanted to make sure we wouldn't start having events,you know. MRS. MOORE-The way the resolution is worded is the word season, and so it leaves us a bit of an open door, and this is where this question came up,whether the season, as soon as the ski season is over,this special events comes into play. So we can clarify that at Staff level. MR. KREBS-I think the problem is that no one knows exactly what the season is. So therefore, if we have flowers starting in the end of March, we certainly wouldn't want to restrict them from having an event in April. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,the context of the discussion was,you know,obviously it's a ski center. So if it's ski related, you know, it's part of your normal operations. So the discussion was, you know, these would be events that weren't ski related. MS. SIDLER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,that's really the framework of the discussion. MR.TRAVER-I'd say,if I can go up there and buy a ticket to go skiing,you're in season. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MS. SIDLER-Perfect. I just wanted to make sure of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,no,it's a good question. Anything else from Staff or the applicant? MRS.MOORE-No,the Board only asked for an update. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-And an update was presented. MR. KREBS-We appreciate the update. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we appreciate it. Thank you very much, and good luck this coming ski season. MS. SIDLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. MS. SIDLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 54-2013 SEQR TYPE II 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 157 MANNIS ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF A 740 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH A 700 SQ. FT. DOCK AND 629 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM DOCK WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 55-13 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-060 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM &RICHARD HUGHES, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the construction of a boathouse that includes a 629 square foot sundeck and a covered dock of 700 square feet. The applicant has explained that the existing dock has is in a state of disrepair and the new dock will be reduced in size. During Planning Board recommendation the applicant provided a rendition of the previous cover over the dock that was removed some years ago where the applicant proposes the new sundeck, and they did receive their relief from the Zoning Board in reference to the width of the dock. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. I guess I probably should have done this at the last meeting,just for full disclosure. I actually am a patient of Dr. Hughes, but I certainly don't feel that as a patient I have any conflict of interest in reviewing this case, but just for the record. With that, good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants,and with me at the table is Dr.Tom Hughes and Dr. Richard Hughes. They are members of the LLC which is the applicant. This is the same application that we had here last week. We did receive the Zoning Board variance that we asked for. The sundeck that we are applying for site plan review of complies with your regulations, and we stand ready to answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF- 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-We asked them all last week. MR. KREBS-Yes, I think it's pretty straightforward. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I do,as well. MR. O'CONNOR-I got paid not to speak tonight by Jon Lapper. MR. FORD-All right,Jon. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not that bad. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no further 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 OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. It's a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required. And unless there's any other comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman,did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Close the public hearing,yes. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 54-2013 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes replacement of a 740 sq. ft. dock with a 700 sq. ft. dock and 629 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 10/15/13; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 10/16/13; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/22/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2013 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: 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) 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. 3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) 4) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 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. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. Can I collect your prints,if I can? MR. DEEB-Certainly. MR. KREBS-You can. That's just what I was about to offer. MR. HUNSINGER-We have four items scheduled under New Business this evening. NEW BUSINESS: PUD SP 57-2013 MODIFICATION TO PUD SP 1-1988 SEQR TYPE II OVERLOOK HOA AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) M. & C. POTVIN, D. & C. PROVOST, J. &A. DUNCAN ZONING PUD LOCATION 25, 28 & 49 OVERLOOK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD FOR 3 LOTS TO APPROVE DECKS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD'S REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP'S LOT SIZE ALL - 0.06, 0.06, 0.06 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.62-1-7,290.62-1-12,290.54-1-7 SECTION 179-3-060 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant materials are for a site plan modification of an approved PUD. The lots involved are 25 Overlook. The existing footprint is 2613.96 square feet, and its constructed footprint is 2795.12 square feet, and then 28 Overlook, and the existing is 2614.40 sq. ft. and proposed is 2835.10 sq. ft.; and 49 Overlook -existing footprint 2512.97 sq. ft. and proposed is 2980.37 sq. ft. The board may consider the waiver request for lighting, stormwater, topography, landscaping,land use districts,traffic flow,and floor plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper, and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm also a patient of Dr. Hughes. We were here on this back in 2008, and all this is about is that it's the line between the Homeowners Association common property and the individual unit owners. Three new people bought units and they wanted to change either an existing small deck or a patio into a new deck, and it's just modifying the line a very small amount, so that they own their property. It's partly for liability, so that everything they're on is their property and not the Association property and partly just for ownership so that it goes with their deed, and that's really all there is. You wouldn't notice anything different. It's really just an ownership line switching a few feet. Pretty simple. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is why now? I mean, it kind of seems like you would do one at a time,as the changes were made. MR. LAPPER-In 2008,we came in and did a big change where everybody,the decks and patios used to be on Association property,and it was transferred to go with the home. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And so now this is just a modification of these three new homeowners that wanted to upgrade their decks. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-They wanted to enlarge the decks. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,no, I understood that. MR. FORD-Some of them had patios and wanted decks. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Two of them have already been constructed and one's under construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I saw that. MR. FORD-And to disclose, full disclosure, I'm a member of that HOA. So I can confirm the historical perspective of what Jon is saying. It's pretty straightforward and simple. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't want a bigger deck? MR. FORD-No,thank you. It's plenty large enough as it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We also have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? Okay. I will open the public hearing and will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that no comments were received. Is there an easier way to do this? MRS. MOORE-We discussed whether it should be done differently in case there's additional applicants that need larger decks. There wasn't a simple way, a method to come in with an application in advance,covering all of them,because the square footage could change. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, it's a lot of paperwork and time and money just for, surveyors,just to modify a deck. MRS. MOORE-We discussed it. We, neither could come up with a method that would make this a simpler process at the moment. So we'll keep looking at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. KREBS-It does seem foolish, but at the same time, when you do a PUD it's very exacting as to what's included in the PUD. MR. HUNSINGER-That's true. That is true. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you're ready. It's a Type II SEQR. RESOLUTION APPROVING PUD SP# 57-2013 OVERLOOK HOA A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to previously approved PUD for 3 lots to approve decks already constructed. Modification to previously approved PUD's requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/22/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 57-2013 OVERLOOK HOA, 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; 2) Reaffirm previous SEQR approval; 3) Waiver requests granted: G -lighting, J -stormwater, K -topography, L -landscaping, M - land use districts, N-traffic flow,and P-floor plans. 4) 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. 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 22nd day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. You're all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 58-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID KENNY AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) 1468 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 62,697 SQ. FT. OUTLET RETAIL STORES WHERE BUILDING #1 IS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE MODIFICATION INVOLVES RELOCATION OF THE REMAINING BUILDINGS, RELOCATION OF PARKING WITH A MAJORITY TO THE REAR AND A NEW ACCESS DRIVE CONFIGURATION. SITE IMPROVEMENTS/BUILDING MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 13-11, BP 13- 088 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2013 LOT SIZE 3.49, 7.90 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-19,20 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER&TOM MACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID KENNY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the proposed construction of 62,968 sq. ft. of building space with an arrangement of Pod 1-3 connected retail spaces and three separate retail space buildings with an interior courtyard. The site work involves creating a predominately rear parking area with a drive access road directing traffic to the rear of the buildings with some parking in the front. The plans will need to be revised to show the stormwater device that was addressing a DOT stormwater line from Route 9 -previous plans showed this device. The applicant has submitted a long environmental assessment form for review and completing by the Planning Board. Clarification should address phasing as the assessment form indicates a single phase and the stormwater report indicates a 3-phase project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Dave Kenny and Tom Nace, project engineer. Very simply, this project was fully approved by this Board in 2011, and as Dave was getting started with construction, because of some stuff that he's see in terms of how the industry has changed, he thought that this would just be a better design to put the parking in the back to have buildings up front. In terms of the square footage, it's about, it's less than 8,000 square foot difference from the 55,000 that was approved. So we view this, really, as a minor tweaking in terms of the site plan. The stormwater was all approved previously, and really just a small modification. What we were surprised about was that we got this letter, you know, of course just 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) this week from the Town Engineer, where they said, gee, we're looking at this fresh and we don't have a copy of the approval from last time, and I would have thought they would have just called Laura or Craig to get it, and instead they sent a letter that said, well, you know, we didn't have it. It's right in their letter to you. Because, again, it's only an 8,000 square foot difference. So we looked at this as no big deal. They made some technical comments and Tom's addressed them and we'll talk about that tonight,but it was just kind of surprising that they didn't pick up the phone and ask the Planning Department to send them what they wanted to see, and instead put it in a letter to you guys, because it's really, any impacts, putting the parking in the back is just a good thing, the way this all lays out, and everything else was pretty much the same. So let's start out by having Tom walk you through the site plan,and then we can talk about the issues. MR. MACE-Okay. Basically what we're doing is taking buildings that are strung back toward the back of the site, moving up toward the front, taking parking that was all along the south side of the site, moving most of that to the back, providing a little bit of parking up front, and then creating a courtyard atmosphere within the complex where people can park, come in and walk around from building to building. The courtyard will have, if you look at the landscape plan, the courtyard will have some amenities, some (lost words) with the directories,benches,trash containers, etc. One of the things we did with the drainage, we kept the drainage concept for the parking area exactly as it was. We go into large catch basins that are oversized to provide silt storage,and then into drywells for both parking areas. For the courtyard, however, it's a fairly large area. We're proposing permeable pavers for all of that courtyard area. They have to look nice, be easy to maintain, and it's putting the rain right back into the ground exactly where it falls. So we think that's a win/win situation for stormwater. I don't know if there are any other questions about site layout that I can answer,but that's it in a nutshell. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Unless you want to get into any details on the stormwater plan,we're hoping that this could just get approved conditioned upon a signoff from the Town Engineer once they see the rest of the last file,but we see this as pretty straightforward for stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-My only comment is that this is exactly why, a couple of years ago, I thought we should change the procedure and allow the applicant and the engineer to get together before they came before the Board,because I'm convinced that looking at these 17 questions that 99% of them would have been resolved and we would know the answers to them. I'm not an engineer, so therefore I can't read this engineering report and completely, you know, understand whether it meets the requirements. MR. KREBS-What I suggested is, a couple of years ago, is that we extend the period of time, such that when the engineer's report was available, they could get together with the applicant prior to coming to the Planning Board,resolve these questions. MR. MACE-I think a sit down meeting between the engineers would go a long ways. MR. KREBS-Exactly,yes. MR. MACE-A lot of these are just regulatory stuff and a lot of it doesn't apply. MR. KREBS-But the problem is you get that information on Friday, and you have to be here on Tuesday. What I'd like to see is extend the application time by a week or two, such that you then would have had an opportunity, after the engineer came out with this report, to sit down,work out the details, and the only things that we would have to look at would be those that you couldn't resolve together. MR. LAPPER-And in this case Tom did respond, today, to the, and submitted it to Craig. So even though it's a bunch of issues,they're really technical and pretty straightforward. MR. KREBS-But I'm just saying it would be nice if we could resolve all of these beforehand. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any comments that they made that you feel that you can't resolve? MR. MACE-No,we responded to all of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR.TRAVER-We basically handled that issue in two different ways. Some projects where we knew there was going to be a lot of engineering, we have tabled with the idea of them not coming back until the engineering issues were resolved. We've done that quite successfully with a number of the more complex projects, and then the other option that we have also frequently exercised is when the comments are of a primarily technical nature and the applicant's engineer doesn't anticipate any problems,just a signoff as part of the (lost word) anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the only time we would have a problem is if you came here tonight and said, you know, I disagree with him on this topic, we're going to not agree, and then we need to intervene,you know,that's the only time it's really a problem. MR. MACE-I think Don has a point, though, that if we could sit down with the engineer, a lot of the comments would be taken care of, hopefully without having to put in writing a comment and response and another comment. MR. LAPPER-With Staff. MR. MACE-Correct. MR. KREBS-Which then when we make our decision, we wouldn't have all these things to consider, and not only that,but when I sit down and do my homework before this meeting, I wouldn't have to read all of this. MR. LAPPER-It makes your head hurt. MR. LAPPER-We had stormwater fully approved last time and it's not a big change. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-You said you're going to have some amenities. What kind of amenities are you going to have? Are you going to have dancing bears and some. MR. HUNSINGER-Chainsaw art. MR. DEEB-Chainsaw,maybe some bands. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Benches. MR. MACE-If you look at the landscape plan,there, actually Jim did this so I've got to go,here we go. There's sign kiosks with lighted canopies at various locations. There's benches to sit on. Removable planters. MR. DEEB-I read that. I was just wondering if you're going to have anything extra? MR. MACE-The removable planters for some greenery and trash receptacles. Also if you look at the lighting, the lighting is very attractive architectural lighting mounted on the buildings with overhanging arms and these walkways. MR. KENNY-(Lost words) the little kiddy ride in spots, or they have, could be a, by the way, I'm David Kenny. I don't have to be recorded. Possibly that's all. I mean,just,you know, something to make the shopping experience. I mean, the whole purpose of this whole thing is to give it a better shopping experience and encourage the customers to park and walk everywhere and not get back in their car and just drive. That's the whole real purpose of it. MR. FORD-Will there be any increase in the intensity of lighting? MR. KENNY-Of the? MR. FORD-Lighting. MR. MACE-I don't think so. There may be inside the courtyard areas because you're trying to provide better lighting, you know, in the enclosed courtyard areas, but the spillover is nil. If you look at the lighting around the parking lot, by the time you get to the edge of the property, or even the edge of the developed area, we're down to less than a foot candle. We are, like I said, in the 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) courtyards we're maintaining more like five to ten foot candles in these courtyard areas, but it's confined,and it's necessary for the use of the courtyards. MR. FORD-With minimal spillover. MR. KREBS-But we would want that,because we want the safety factor. MR. FORD-Right,exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-I did notice that there were some, you really just answered the question, though. There are some hot spots on the lighting where you can see 10. All of them are within the courtyard. Yes. MR. MACE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-The proposed color scheme, and forgive me for not remembering what was previously proposed. MR. KENNY-This area we're trying to tie it in to the existing plaza, the Adirondack, make it look similar to the hotels between. MR. LAPPER-The existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the color a fair, is that a fair representation? MR. LAPPER-Yes,that's really what Dave's other mall already looks like,the color scheme. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. KENNY-We're going to have to remodel that north side of that. The south side has been done, of the existing wall. We have to do the north side to make it match,so the whole section matches. MR. DEEB-Are the rest of them all going to do this now? MR. LAPPER-Only the ones Dave owns. MR. KENNY-This is an exciting time. I mean,this will connect to the Lake George,to the Logjam. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENNY-It allows the sidewalk in the back and parking in the back. (lost words) and the parking's there, so now he can connect to our back parking lot. If you look at his building, he can connect right to our parking lot now with very little problem, because his driveway goes around. He can connect right into our parking lot, because the building doesn't go back that far now. So it connects us to the Log Jam,which will be a major improvement to the shopping,again,the shopping experience,being able to park and walk all those sites without going back on the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You don't show that on the plan,though. MR. LAPPER-Because that's something that the neighbor has to. MR. KENNY-He has to do. MR. LAPPER-But Dave's saying that,in talking with Ed Moore,he expects that Ed Moore will do that. MR. KENNY-It makes commonsense. I can't put something on his property. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree. It's a good thing,yes. MR. KENNY-But before I went way past his building. His building went back another 250 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-This plan looks nice. MR. KENNY-It's more of what's going on,like the racetrack effect. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Right,that's what you were saying the last time you were here. Yes. MR. LAPPER-And the courtyard is really nice. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENNY-I mean, we're a destination shopping, and I talked to the tenants, how can we give a better consumer experience. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. KENNY-That's their goal. Get more people return shopping. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don't see any hands. Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments, but you do have in your packet a comment from Chris Harrington, the Wastewater Department, about merging the parcels, the reference the sewer district. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And we'll do that as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I did have a question for you, Laura,on the SEQR review. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Since this is a previously approved site plan, is it necessary to do the Long Form? Can we just affirm the findings from the last SEQR review? MRS. MOORE-Because it's a new site plan number,yes,you could potentially do it as a reaffirmation of the previous site plan, or you can go through this process. I guess,because it's been submitted, I guess I would go through the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Well, when you've done this in the past, I know what you've done is that you don't identify any SEQR issues that are materially different from what you already approved when you did the Neg Dec, and you could do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable with that? MR. FORD-Yes, I am. MR. KREBS-Because we've basically already approved it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR.TRAVER-And we know, even though we don't have signoff, it's the same property and we know we will have signoff,and we've already eliminated,you know,archeological. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I guess within your motion I would reference the Site Plan 13-2011 because that's where that SEQR was originally from. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you get that, Don? The previous Site Plan was 13-2011, and that was the SEQR Neg Dec. All right. Unless there's any other questions or comments from the Board. I will close the public hearing. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And we'll handle SEQR as part of the approval. MR. KREBS-Or we can do a motion. RESOLUTION DECLARING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION FOR SP# 58-2013 DAVID KENNY The applicant proposes Applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan for the construction of 62,967 sq. ft. outlet retail stores where building #1 is already under construction. The modification involves relocation of the remaining buildings, relocation of parking with a majority to the rear and a new access drive configuration. Site improvements / building modifications require Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF (Questions 1-20) has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO DECLARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 58-2013 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: This is pursuant to our previous SEQR approval of 13-2011. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to make that a special condition, the comment from the water superintendent? MR. LAPPER-That's acceptable,absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-The comment from the water superintendent about merging the parcels. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or just make it a condition of approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. What do you want to say? MR. HUNSINGER-Just that the approval is conditioned upon compliance with the request from the Director of Wastewater and the request was dated September 30, 2013. Really, the only other special condition is compliance with the engineering signoff, which is a standard approval requirement. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 58-2013 DAVID KENNY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan for the construction of 62,967 sq. ft. outlet retail stores where building #1 is already under construction. The modification involves relocation of the remaining buildings, relocation of parking with a majority to the rear and a new access drive configuration. Site improvements / building modifications require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10-22-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2013 DAVID KENNY, 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) 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, 3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 4) 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; 5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 6) We are adding a condition to the draft that says the applicant will comply with the Director of Wastewater's letter of September 30th. 7) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 8) 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; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 9) 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. 10) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 11) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution 12) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. So I've been curious. I drive by there several times a day, back and forth to work. I've been watching the construction, and it kind of seemed like they had kind of stopped. MR. KENNY-Steel is coming tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. I didn't know if it was because of the Site Plan revisions or not. Because you want to get the shell up before the snow flies,right? MR. KENNY-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the biggest store that's going to be in there? MR. KENNY-We're talking to tenants now. The largest tenant we're talking to now is 12,000 square feet,and a couple of them are 10. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you're not going to tell me who it is. MR. KENNY-I can't. I will say there's open dividers here by the retail. They're very interested in Lake George. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's good. MR. HUNSINGER-That's great. MR. KENNY-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CONCORD POOLS AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 74 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR SWIMMING POOL SALES AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK - PARKING AREA, DRIVEWAY, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER. NEW USES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 3-03, SP 43-98 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2013 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM MACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL GIOVANONE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the construction of a single story 6,362 sq. ft. building and an attached 3,532 sq. ft. covered storage for a Pool Sales retail business. The applicant has completed a short environmental assessment form for the Planning Board to review and complete. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering. Mike Giovanone of Concord Pools. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to tell us about the project? MR. MACE-What we're proposing is a single story building. I'll let Mike describe, in a second, his intended use of the facilities, but this is down off of, I always get them mixed up, Big Boom and Big Bay. This is Big Boom. It's the western most lot of a three lot subdivision that we did four, five years ago, and what's proposed is about a 6,000 square foot building and then another 30,000 square foot canopy or roof open area for storage and display. The access will be by a common shared driveway which will serve both of the remaining two lots in the subdivision. We're proposing customer parking. Based on the size of the building and the zoning, requires more parking than we feel we really need. So we're leaving about half the parking in reserve, green 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) reserve, for future use, which we think will probably never occur. Drainage, it's very sandy, open soils. Any rainwater that hits the surface disappears before you can shake a stick at it. So what we're doing is along the shared driveway we're putting ditch lines that are level. The site, whole site, is predominantly level. Level ditch lines that will allow water to collect and infiltrate and we're putting the same type of a swale behind the parking area. It will take all the water off the parking area. The building, we're proposing eaves trenches along the building to take the roof drainage. Water service will come in off of Big Boom back to a hydrant on the site. Septic will be handled with an onsite subsurface disposal system, simply for a small bathroom and the office, and I think we've submitted elevations to you that show the design,the building. I'll let Mike talk to the use a little bit. MR. GIOVANONE-What we're planning on doing on Exit 18 is much like in our Latham facility. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me,sir,could you identify yourself. MR. DEEB-Could you identify yourself for the record,please. MR. GIOVANONE-I'm sorry. My name is Michael Giovanone and I own Concord Pools located in Latham, NY. Pardon me. We'd like to come to Exit 18, much like we have in Latham. We've been doing in excess of 50 pools a year, up in the North Country here, north of our South Broadway store in Saratoga Springs. Our stores, we've been in business 41 years, and we're fortunate enough to have grown to be one of the top 3 pool companies in the United States. We're very, we take great pride in our stores, with numerous, Chamber of Commerce, beautification awards, both in Latham and in Saratoga. We'd like to come up here with a composite pool center, and by that I mean, one piece fiberglass pools, composite wall vinyl liner, and build a facility, create some jobs, and do a good job. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you have a lot of pool chemicals stored in that building? MR. GIOVANONE-Not, just buffering agents, primarily. Nothing more than you would see in a typical pool outlet. You have sodium hypochlorite. You have a Ph ups, Ph downs. With the advent of chlorine generators which transform salt to chlorine, the average pool store, on our level, is stocking probably 75 to 80% less caustic chemicals in today's market than it did 10 years ago. It's primarily a pool, spa, and backyard center. We will be offering outdoor kitchens, outdoor gazebos, high end grilling stations,pools,saunas,spas,anything to do with a luxury backyard. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just wondered how much of that chemical you were going to have stored there, and you might want to consider a placard, I mean,the area where you have it. A placard,you know,for the chemicals. MR. GIOVANONE-All of our storage for any chemicals are all, you know, all legal. We have a chemical room in all of our stores,fire suppression. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The building is sprinkled? MR. GIOVANONE-Sprinklered? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. GIOVANONE-No. They're not required to be sprinklered. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you said fire suppression, I thought that's what you meant. MR. GIOVANONE-You know, quite frankly, if you go into Lowes or Home Depot, either direction here, you'd be surprised that there's sodium hypochlorite and trichlor stored next to each other. That'll move them into the next county,but when you're a professional store,which there are many out there, we all take pride in knowing the rules of the road, you know, you don't mix chemicals, and the, probably the most technically dangerous, quote, chemical we have would be liquid chlorine, and they're all in DOT approved containers. So we,knock on wood,in 41 years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-My question is how much of that do you have stored there? You would have more than you would just have in a store. MR. GIOVANONE-A three day's supply. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. GIOVANONE-Any of our satellite stores are restocked, via satellite, on Tuesdays and Fridays. So we don't stock a year's supply,if that would answer the question. MR.TRAVER-Isn't the trend more toward ultraviolet anyway? MR. MACE-The use of ultraviolet? MR. GIOVANONE-Yes, ultraviolet and ozone, and again, in today's marketplace,you're going to find, and it's good for the environment. Our buildings are green. Our buildings are solar, solar powered, for the most part, panels on the roof. Chemicals that, the pool industry has become very diligent in not only the use of chemicals,but the evaporative measures of chemicals,the evaporative suppression of pool water, thus the chemicals, and more of a salt based, but to answer your question in more depth, UV and ultraviolet are the next frontier. They're becoming very, very popular,and they will replace salt. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. GIOVANONE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Are you going to have a display pool in your,in that building? MR. GIOVANONE-We're going to have, we'd like to have, with your approval, one indoor display pool. In our Latham store we have one, and several shells on stock. You see the beauty of one piece fiberglass, and it might help to say that we are affiliated with Latham International. They're the Number Eight private sector employee in Albany County. Everything that we sell is made locally. We not only manufacture locally. We sell locally. We employ locally. We're homegrown, and 41 years,and Latham International's 62 years,locally, in Latham. So we'll be bringing up shells produced under their Viking line that the beauty of it is you can show a client their finished pool before it's built. That's pretty neat in today's market. So that takes the guesswork out of the purchase. We have an A plus Better Business, A One A Dunham Bradstreet. We're bonded, and we're going to, I think the store that we've designed, Munter Enterprises,they're a building firm out of Saratoga. They do all of our stores and our boat and RV storage facilities. Very good firm. The building is being designed in country colors, and it's going to have the profile of a country barn,two level, and the reason we, I've been chasing Don, sitting behind me here, for years, was it's just a great location, and in our business you need sort of a neck jerk exposure with your products, and like I said prior, our market is expanding north of Saratoga rapidly. Rapidly, and we service all the way to the border. MR. FORD-When you're fully operational, how many full time and how many part time employees do you anticipate adding to this thing? MR. GIOVANONE-In addition to the manager that we will be promoting to come up to run this store, we will have two assistant managers and four PT employees, part time employees, up in the Exit 18 facility to start. That's to start. We hire locally, and I will not be bringing, I'll bring the manager up from down in Malta,but any of the, I call them,you know, our kids,will be locally hired, and we run a pretty strict ship with the way we hire. Let me say that. MR. FORD-Part time would mean how many hours, typically, per week? Well, up until the new health reform,we won't go there, about 25 to 35 hours,but it looks like we're going to have a lot of 29 hour employees, if things don't change. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You and everybody else. MR. GIOVANONE-Much to my dismay. MR. FORD-I'll bet. MR. DEEB-Is that your color scheme? That's going to be the color scheme? MR. GIOVANONE-Yes,greens and,greens and like a, I think the color of the actual sample was called Forest Green and the red was a Country Cinnamon or something on that line, but it looks like a red barn you'd see out in a field somewhere, and cobbles, split cobble, knee wall, masonry application, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) and again, you know, talk is cheap, but if you were to go to our website and look at any of our facilities, you'll see that the way we do keep our stores, the way that they're modeled, and I could give you a list of landscapers I've fired for crooked lines on the lawn, but we're very proud of the way we keep our stores. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think it's a very attractive building that you've proposed. Yes. MR. GIOVANONE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it's really nice. MR. FORD-Solar panels will be located where? MR. GIOVANONE-All right. The Latham store we have 22,000 feet of panels that you can actually see from, if you go on Google earth, it's on Sparrow Bush Road. They're on the roof, you can't see them. MR. FORD-What about Exit 18? MR. GIOVANONE-And on Saratoga they're on the roof. Our Clifton Park building they were put on the roof, and we have a, what would you call that, an overhang without walls, just the knee wall. New York Light who is our solar company that we use,would be putting them on the east elevation, if you will, or exposure. So they would be on the, they would be facing Big Boom Road. You wouldn't see them from the Northway, but they'd be about six, seven hundred feet off Big Boom Road, and they're not, I mean, they're the real deal. These are not unattractive. They're about as attractive as you can get for a solar panel. They come with color trim. MR. FORD-Are they placed on the roof? MR. MACE-Are they placed on the roof? They're on the roof on the east side. Right? MR. GIOVANONE-Yes. They're permanent on the east side. MR. MAGOWAN-Permanent east side,but are they on the roof,or on the ground? MR. GIOVANONE-On the roof. Yes, oh, no, no, no. Yes, I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, yes,on the roof. MR. MAGOWAN-You were confusing him. MR. GIOVANONE-Other than the fact, on the way here, I called Tom. I hit a 400 pound doe on the way here tonight. So I was a little late. It's amazing. I don't know if you've ever hit a deer,but this was a first for me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Be careful leaving here because they're all around here. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any comments,Tom, on the engineering letter? MR. MACE-No, as the last project, I've gone through and addressed all of them. My only comment is some of them are getting awfully ridiculous. MR. HUNSINGER-But you don't think you'll have a problem complying with any of the suggestions? MR. MACE-I definitely won't. I mean,this is about as simple a site for drainage as you can have. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MACE-Excellent soils. It's a flat site. The water's not going anywhere. Give it a place to infiltrate,and it will infiltrate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. FORD-I have none. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Quiet crew tonight. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing. If you could state your name for the record. DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Good evening. I'm Don Kruger, and I used to own the property. I'm 100% in favor of what he's trying to build there. I think it's a great improvement to the area. The buildings around us are simple metal cans. He's trying to improve upon that. I owned that property for about 15 years, and no matter how hard it rained I never saw any water there, and I know I went 33 feet deep and was still beach sand at that depth. There's plenty of electric, water, gas there. It'll certainly be an improvement to the area and it'll certainly bring in a good tax base to our Town. So I'm in favor of it, and the only reason he got that property is because of my age, otherwise I would have built a metal tin can and rented it out like everybody else did. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR. The applicant submitted a Short Form. I think all we have to do is, unless there's an item in one through seven that anyone has an issue with,we can just deal with that on the SEQR resolution. Do any Board members have any concerns with any of the items on the SEQR form one through seven? MR. FORD-I do not,no. MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you're ready. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION FOR SP# 58-2013 CONCORD POOLS Applicant proposes commercial building for swimming pool sales and associated site work-parking area, driveway, landscaping, and stormwater. New uses require Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Short EAF (Questions C1 through C7) has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 59-2013 CONCORD POOLS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 59-2013 CONCORD POOLS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes commercial building for swimming pool sales and associated site work-parking area, driveway, landscaping, and stormwater. New uses require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10-22-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2013 CONCORD POOLS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: 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) 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, 4) 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; 5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 6) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 7) 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; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) 8) 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. 9) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 11) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 60-2013 SEQR TYPE II CARROLS, LLC AGENT(S) TOM BROGAN, MATT STEVES OWNER(S) DOUBLE H HOLE IN THE WOODS RANCH INC. ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 620 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT RECENTLY RECEIVED APPROVAL TO REMOVE APPROXIMATELY 750 SQ. FT. OF THE STRUCTURE. APPLICANT NOW PROPOSES TO MODIFY THAT BY CONVERTING FRONT GREENHOUSE AREA OF 276 SQ. FT. BACK TO BUILDING AREA. SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 43-13, SP 55-05, SV 52-89, BP 05- 428 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2013 LOT SIZE 1.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1- 30 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM BROGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed site plan application for the modification and included the renovations to the existing Burger King restaurant; that includes the removal of two existing greenhouse eating areas -with the construction of building space in the front greenhouse area, redesign drive thru, relocation of the trash to be included in the footprint, new signage, new plantings, and additional sidewalk area replacing the building areas that are removed. The applicant has proposed no changes to the area outside of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BROGAN-Good evening. My name is Tom Brogan. I'm hereon behalf of Carrols, LLC, the owners/operators of the Burger King on Aviation Road. I was with you in August, I think on the 27th, and they proposed a remodel/renovation of the existing facility to include interior/exterior renovations. Part of that application included, you know, part of that scope included removal of what is the western greenhouse structure, as well as the northern greenhouse structure. We've re- evaluated that situation and we're requesting a modification or a new approval whereby we would maintain that front greenhouse area. It would be converted to a typical storefront. Characteristically,the building won't look much different. If you can squint and look at the thing in front of you, you can see it looks pretty similar to what was there before. There's actually more natural light getting into the building with the new plan, and I'll answer any questions. The net effect is we were removing 750 square feet, previously,we're removing, I think, approximately 450 square feet now. Someone asked the question last time about why we were taking so much building off,and I think they asked the proper question. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I thought you said it got too hot,and then plus,you know,water issues. MR. BROGAN-Yes,no,the greenhouse atrium will not be there. It'll look like the storefront. So will put fixed wall up with the typical storefront to match the entire building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? So the color scheme remains the same. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. BROGAN-Everything is exactly the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BROGAN-Yes. If you look at the schemes in front of you, and what's kind of portrayed there on your left is at the top is the existing elevation. The existing, the proposed demolition plan, which shows kind of a great area on the bottom part of the building, that's the western elevation greenhouse. The next one just, it shows pretty much the same thing, it's just labeled differently. It's the new floor plan, and then the proposed elevation, on the right is what was approved in August. MR. FORD-Did Staff reach out to the Aviation Mall people,the owners there,relative to a tie in? MRS. MOORE-I know it's been under discussion. I don't know if we've actually prepared that notice to them yet or not,but I know we've talked about it at Staff level. MR. FORD-I thought at our last meeting we requested that that outreach be made. MRS. MOORE-We're working on it. I knew this was coming in, so we waited until we resolved this issue,and then we can move forward with contacting Aviation Mall. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening on this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-No takers. Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is a Type II SEQR. So unless there's any further questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 60-2013 CARROLS, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant recently received approval to remove approximately 750 sq. ft. of the structure. Applicant now proposes to modify that by converting front greenhouse area of 276 sq. ft. back to building area. Site & Building improvements in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10-22-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2013 CARROLS, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: 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; 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) 2) 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. 3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 4) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BROGAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-On Item Four we have a discussion item for a proposed Dollar General store. DISCUSSION ITEM: PROPOSED DOLLAR GENERAL STORE TIM O'BRIEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, I don't know if you had any comments before we begin the discussion? MRS. MOORE-I did include in your packet a discussion item and some notes in reference to the Main Street design standards, and the applicant is before you presenting the building design that they're proposing, and I've referenced to the Board sections of the Code in reference to the Main Street guidelines, and specifically to two story buildings, and the applicant has provided you with a sketch of what they're proposing now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is,what,two story or one story? MRS.MOORE-This current propose is a false. MR. KREBS-One story with the look of a two story. MRS.MOORE-Only a portion of the building. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Twenty-five feet or something like that. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-As you will recall, we were here a couple of months ago. I'm showing you a different elevation. We have since prepared our site plans and met with the Planning Department and more of a two story look than the previous plan. So what we did was we went back to the developer and we met with them, and we also talked with the Dollar General and this elevation was created by the architect. Basically from a front view from Main Street the building will look like a two story building. It's just the facade, and on either side of the building it will go back about 27 feet, so as you approach from either direction it will look like a two story building, rather than kind of just a parapet wall. So this kind of gives you the impression that it's a full two story building when in fact it's not. So from the back of the building, if you look at the elevations I just handed you, the north elevation, you'll just see the front parapet if you're looking straight from the back of the building. We do have the same boards that I gave, showed the last time of the site location, 61 Main Street. Everybody seems to know where that is right now. Here's the elevation that I just showed you, or handed out. This elevation, as you know, to us it's a little more expensive. It's going to be, some architectural requirements are going to have to go into that to support those (lost words) parapets so that it looks like a real building, two story building, and this was the elevation that we had previously shown you, where we still match the 20 foot tall height, and it kind of looked like the Cumberland Farms down the road. However, if you look from either side, if you're looking into the driveway,you would see it's just that, and if you were looking from Main Street, coming down Main Street from say the interstate,you'd just see this width instead of what we're proposing right now is a building that, you know, in any direction (lost words) it will really look like a two story building. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) Most retailers, they're going to rent the whole building. They don't want somebody above them. They'd rather have their own building. So what we're proposing right now is a building that I think the planner will like, I hope, and I hope the Board does as well. We have prepared a full set of site plans. They're currently under review by the Planning Department. We hope that this is acceptable to the Board and (lost words) our permitting a zoning variances that we require. There will be some waivers that we'll be requesting from the Board with regard to landscaping. I think there's a side yard setback and front yard setback. The site does have some issues with regard to, there's a utility easement that crosses the front of the site. So we really can't bring the building up to your required setback, and we have, it's 21 feet from the curb line. We do have quite a wide easement area right here, plus there's some (lost word), I believe it's telephone and cable out there. So we will get back far enough so we don't have any problems with our foundations. We're about 25 feet from the curb line, and it's minimal compared to where we could actually push the building back further. We tried bringing it as close as possible. Then there's the side yard. Your requirement is zero or twenty feet. We're at about five, just over five feet. So we'll put a fence along here as well as landscaping and try to dress up the site as well. We did provide landscaping between the sidewalk and the parking lot, with breaks for pedestrians or customers to get into the sidewalk along the building. So I think, you know, infiltration is going to be for the drainage. So the whole site is coming together. We'd like to move on with the planning and get your comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don't know if we got your name for the record. MR. O'BRIEN-Tim O'Brien. I'm sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. That's okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I've got a question relative to two stories as called for in the Main Street plan. This clearly is a one story building with only 27 feet 4 inches of frontage which presents as a two story building. Is that accurate? MR. O'BRIEN-That's correct, 27 feet from either side we'll go back with the tall parapet as well to give you that look of a two story building. MR. FORD-So it basically is a facade,two story facade. MR. O'BRIEN-Yes. Two story facade,correct. MR. KREBS-My question would be, having been in the retail business, you must have some inventory that's not necessarily on the floor. MR. O'BRIEN-Dollar General is one, right now they have over 10,000 stores. They're building 600 new stores a year. The way they're looking at their, the way things are delivered to the site everything comes in on truck once a week, and from the time that it gets on site, it's almost on the shelf immediately. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-Most retailers today, everything, as soon as you ring it up, because of the codes, they know what's being sold almost immediately and they're able to restock that within a week to keep the shelves full. MR. KREBS-Okay. I was just thinking maybe a second floor storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was thinking office space. MR. O'BRIEN-They have one manager's office on the ground floor, on the main floor or on the first floor. There's two bathrooms, and the building's roughly 9100 square feet. Of that 91 square feet, 7200 plus or minus is actually retail sales area. So there's not much, you know, they've done enough of them where they've kind of mastered the design. It's like walking into a Lowes. You can always find,you know, where the screws. These retailers today, it's become a science in how they have their stores and operate. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think your application brings something to the forefront more than your application. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. O'BRIEN-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The two story requirement on that road is a political solution to a planning problem, then they usually don't work, and if you go back and look at the history of that road, and I know you weren't here, but we were, when that road came through there, and they had to improve the road, I mean, because of the hospital being at the end of the street, the traffic was horrendous, and I think the Town did a good job,they put the utilities underground,etc.,etc.,but then,look what happened. You had a lot of single homes there, a middle class neighborhood, maybe, but it was a neighborhood, and it was all single family homes. What has happened is some of those homes have just been torn down and you've got empty lots. Other homes are for sale, and there's a few people hanging in there, but you know inevitably they won't be hanging in there long. What that neighborhood needs is exactly what you're proposing is they need businesses where people can come and go,and it's not a high lined item,but,you know,it's a common popular,middle class is the wrong word, but you know what I mean. It's that type of item. Because that street has a lot of traffic, and people like yourself that bring things in there that people want to come in and pick up, it's a good market for you because people don't want to drive down to Downtown and then take a half an hour to find a place to park unless they're going to buy a fur coat or a diamond ring or something. So I see this problem coming up time and time again. You're the first one in here with it,but,you know,two story buildings today are not very popular. Retail on the first floor and living on the second floor doesn't cut it, and the market is almost nil for that, you know, whether somebody thinks it looks nice or not, and I think what the Town is going to have to do is settle and focus on bringing in businesses like yours. There's already too many empty lots up there, and I drove by there today, and there's another eight for sale. So it's an area that's going downhill and we need to regenerate it,but we're not going to regenerate it if we have a rule that you have to have a two story building,because that isn't going to happen. MR. O'BRIEN-You know when the architects developed the first elevation, and looking at the aerial and knowing the street, I was like,wow,that's a great building as a transitional building. When you get closer to the interstate, you have more commercial. We're down a couple of blocks where it's kind of half and half, and I kind of looked at that building as the perfect elevation for more or less a transition between the residential and the commercial, but we are trying to meet the Code's, or the Town's requirement of a two story look, and that's how the latest elevation was developed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and, see, that's how I interpret the Code as well, and, I mean, you might be aware that the Town Board has a workshop. Actually we're going to talk, after this, about any recommendations that we might want to provide to the Town Board, but the Code reads, buildings shall be a minimum height of two stories. MR. O'BRIEN-That's the way I read it. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn't say there has to be two functioning floors. It says it has to be a minimum height of two stories. So to me, that means what you've proposed is okay, which is why when you were here before I said, you know, I think this meets the intent, and then since our last discussion item it was made known to me that when we approved the Cumberland Farms,that was before the Main Street ordinance was actually adopted. So that's how they were able to do it with the two story look without it actually being two real stories. MR. O'BRIEN-Every time I read the Code, I'm like. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-The way I'm reading it it's exactly the way you're reading it is it's the height of a two story building, and then they give you a minimum height, really, of 25 feet, and then a maximum, I think,about 60 feet. So that's the way I'm reading the Code as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, I think you have a very attractive looking building. I think it would a good asset to Main Street,but that's just my opinion. MR. KREBS-Yes, but not only that, by having the two story facade that they're putting up, if somebody wants to put a two story building next to them, it's going to fit,which is exactly when we were way back on the PORC Committee that's what we were looking to have happen. So I think this is a great way to start it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,so do, I. MR. KREBS-Because who's going to put a two story building next to a dilapidated old house? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the problem, and there are a couple of two story buildings there, but they're office buildings. Different look, different,you know, different requirements for parking, etc. Retail,what that area needs is what you're proposing. MR. O'BRIEN-You know what's also nice about that area is you can also get a lot of pedestrians walking to the store. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's exactly right. MR. O'BRIEN-It's just off Main Street. You have the residential uses and they can walk there or ride a bicycle. MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-I guess I'm going to interject. Just as stressed to me as stressed within the Code that it should be a two story building, and the reason why Main Street was designed with this in mind was that you wanted to increase the density. If you don't have that two story, you're not going to get that density that you want on Main Street, and you will not have that look. It takes time. You've adopted the Ordinance. It's going to take time to create that two story look and that two story feel and increase that density, but that's the potential of Main Street, and I'm going to stress that this building should be a two story building as per the Code. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you talking about building density or people density? MRS. MOORE-It's a, you'll increase your people density if you increase your density of what is on that strip. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,of course,but what is people density by what you need is building density, and you don't need two stories to force that. MRS.MOORE-That's the intent of a main street is to have those two stories. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe so,but good luck. MR. KREBS-Personally I like this because I don't see any people going to school from this facility. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right,because they're too old. MR. KREBS-So they're going to pay their school taxes and they're going to pay their Town and County taxes and they're going to be a very minimum burden to the community. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the cash registers in Queensbury. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. O'BRIEN-I've had stores where they're in half and half. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's not fun. MR. O'BRIEN-The rest of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to ask if there were any other? MR. MAGOWAN-I like the design. I mean, if you've got to have a two story look from when the Code, you know, but like I said, I mean, just the engineering of putting a, you know, a livable area above that that your store doesn't want, I mean, but the engineering, the separation and the security of it,it becomes who's going to want to build on Main Street,you know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. MAGOWAN-So if you give the look, then it's there, and if someone wants to, if it works in their application next door, at least you have a facade that looks like it's going to flow. So I'm happy about this. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. O'BRIEN-Well, as the gentleman pointed out, offices usually can go second floor, medical offices, real estate offices, anything, retail that's a tough sell. If you want businesses coming in on Main Street, retail businesses, it's going to be very hard for them. So businesses will come in with a false facade or the two story look, but that also encourages those other developments as well, the offices and those other developments,that might build a two or three story building. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And restaurants are impossible. If the restaurant's on the first floor,forget it. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and to me, I mean, regardless of what the original intent was, the way this reads is height of two stories,not(lost words) and Mr. Chairman said,not(lost words). MR. O'BRIEN-And also, the other way we're looking at this building is as you go back on the lot, the uses behind us are residential, so we don't want to have that tall building all the way back. It kind gives you what you're looking for, I think, the two story look along Main Street, but it also shortens the building on the back. So it doesn't have the effect of something big behind you. MR. KREBS-The problem is, Laura, if we had the finances to do an urban renewal project, and if we could have gone in and bought all the homes along both sides of Main Street, torn them down, and then started again,yes, total two story might have been a possibility, but you cannot do it with the way that we had set up. MRS. MOORE-I mean,when I talked with the Zoning Administrator today,he was going to develop a memo to address to the Board explaining that the two story requirement is a functioning two stories, and that the idea is that the density needs to be maintained, and that was the design of the Main Street. That's why you have the that Code. I mean, your Code says, he's your Zoning Administrator. He interprets the Code. So that's why two story. MR. FORD-I want to weigh in on this because I like the design, and I don't think that it meets the Main Street requirement. It's either two story or it isn't, and that is not a two story building is it? So, but I still like the design, but I don't think that it meets the requirement of the Main Street corridor. MRS. MOORE-This type of business may be better in a plaza situation, which we've seen them go into a plaza situation versus our Main Street. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There are no plazas in that area, except a supermarket and (lost words). MRS.MOORE-But we do have plazas in Queensbury. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,we do,but that doesn't help that area. MR. KREBS-But there's no lots that are there that are big enough to put a plaza in. MR.TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-I'm not suggesting install a plaza. I'm suggesting maybe that the businesses located somewhere else in our Town, not saying that we would get rid of this type of business, but encourage it to be located in a place where it's more suitable,such as a plaza. MR. DEEB-I think that's going to send a negative image to a lot of people that want to come in and do business, and that could be a real problem. I think we've got a real dilemma here, because if we're going to bat heads with the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Zoning Administrator at least, yes. Are you with the applicant, Mr. Sears? MR. O'BRIEN-He's technically with us,yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Then he can come up. That's your call, not mine. I mean, we will take, well, it's a discussion item,so,yes. MR. KREBS-Just use the microphone,and we like to have you announce who you are. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name's Bob Sears. I've been a commercial broker in this area for almost 38 years now. All I do is commercial real estate in this area. I've been involved in this project since the inception. Also I'm involved with a committee right now working with the Town Board on redefining the Main Street corridor. The Town Board has been very responsive and a lot of your Ordinances that are involved in the Main Street corridor. We do have a difference of opinion, with respect to the 25 foot two story requirement. We met twice now and we're still, not at loggerheads,but we're still in the discussion stage with that requirement. Their concern about the Main Street corridor has been there's been a lack of commercial activity on that corridor. The reason why there's been a lack of commercial activity is because of the vision of the Town Board and the people who made up the corridor codes for Main Street. Their vision is not in conjunction, or, this is my opinion, not in conjunction with what can be done on that corridor to move that corridor into a situation where it will attract development, and that's been the reason for the discussions we've had up until this point,because everyone's concerned about that. So the Code is, we're in the process of reevaluating the Code, and the same discussions you're having right now are the same discussions that we're having, and with the same viewpoints. The bottom line is this. You want commercial activity along that corridor. You need good commercial activity along that corridor. Retail sectors do not want two story buildings. They just don't want it. They're willing to move their parking in back. They're willing to upgrade the windows to make it look like a more downtown effect, but let's face it, you have a downtown in Glens Falls, and there are many empty spots in the second and third stories of those buildings, and the cost to make a second story on a retail building is prohibitive to most retailers. So that is the opinions that have been weighed back and forth,the vision versus the reality. So if the Board feels that they are of the opinion of trying to at least change somewhat the policy of the vision, maybe they should weigh in on this and make appropriate opinions known to your Town Board members, and also weigh in on this when you make decisions on a project like this. Paul, what you said, I've got your first name, I don't know how to pronounce your last name,but what you said is exactly right. People look at Dollar General and say, well, that store is kind of a, you know, it's not the Cadillac store for Queensbury, but it's a store that's needed along that corridor. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. SEARS-You've got Hannaford Market. That's the only store over there that supplies convenient groceries. That store would supply convenient groceries at a lower price. Also, Dollar General is one of the best stocks out there to purchase. It also has a history of being a prime successful prototype for a retail grocery store or,let's say a retail center for durable goods. I'm sorry to go on. I'm done,and thank you for your audience. MR. KREBS-How many employees would there be in this? MR. O'BRIEN-There's usually seven to fifteen employees. MR. KREBS-Seven to fifteen. MR. O'BRIEN-It's not a big traffic generator, so traffic on the roadways seem to be impacted. ITE traffic guidance, basically there's a couple of different categories you can look at that with that. One is discount stores (lost words). Traffic engineers, another category this more or less falls into, is really a pharmacy without a drive thru. Because when you walk in a pharmacy, basically it's the same (lost words) if it's a Rite Aid or a Walgreens, and that traffic probably morning peak hours, probably 16 in, 17 out, something like that, during the peak hour. So it's not a big traffic generator. So it's not going to create problems on Main Street. Most of that traffic is probably going to be on the way to work or the way home from work when they stock the shelf there, and like I said earlier, they expect, just because of the location, they expect a lot of foot traffic here as well. Being up at the front of the sidewalk is a plus to them at this particular site. It's not really a, most retailers don't want to be on the sidewalk,but this particular site (lost words). We're less parking than they normally require, and, you know, Dollar General would like to move forward with this. The developer wants to make it the best looking property. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to comment on a couple of the comments that Mr. Sears made. I think some of the recommendations that have come out of the discussion certainly make a lot of sense, and some of them are just,you know,you kind of question what people were thinking when the Code was created, like the Floor Area Ratio. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense at all, you know, because every project has to come in with a variance request. It just doesn't make sense. So, I mean,we certainly fleshed out some easy ones to correct,you know, I hope,but,you know, and I said this before, well, last week we talked about the Main Street zone sort of in general, and we 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) said that we would talk about it again this evening after Board members had an opportunity to review what's being suggested by the Town Board, and then, you know, weigh in on that, but hopefully we can at least get some positive direction going, so that we don't have to see these for sale signs for the next 20 years again on the same old beat up houses that need to be reused. MR. SEARS-The interesting thing here is this is a kind of a,you know, this is the first project that's, basically, I think,been put forth toward the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,we have had some others,but they didn't involve rebuilding. They involved existing buildings where they were just going to reuse them. MR. SEARS-So, you know, what goes on here is going to be, points to what will go on in the future because the developer's got an eye on how this is going to be perceived. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SEARS-And just one other thing. People ask me, I've got 3,000 square feet of office space. I'd like you to market it for lease. I almost run the other way right now. There is so much office space out there, prime office space that is not leased up. I can name, I can, on ten fingers I can count how many new blood office users have come into this area in the last 15 years. What we're doing with office people in this area right now is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The office user's looking,well, my lease is coming up. I like the area. Is there something else out there that I can move, somewhere I can move into that will give me a lower rent than where I am right now. That's what's moving office space in this area. Developers are basically competing with each other for the same office user time and time and time again. We don't have an influx of office users at all. We do have an increase in the retail sector right now,which is always the case, and so second story office users on the Main Street corridor when the traffic's going 35 to 40 miles an hour, that's not conducive for pedestrian flow, and that's what's going on over on Main Street. Glens Falls the traffic goes at five to ten miles an hour. You don't have a crossing lane every 25 feet on Main Street. If you did, you wouldn't be able to get to Glens Falls. Downtown Glens Falls has a crossing lane every 25 feet for pedestrians. So,you know, Downtown. I'm sorry, I've got to stop. MR. KREBS-But not only that, I just happened to have, last week I had some friends from California here and we took them for a walk through Downtown Glens Falls, and the amount of commercial property,both first,second and third floor,that is vacant right now is unbelievable. MR. SEARS-It's better than most downtowns,though. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SEARS-There's a lot of opportunity there. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. O'BRIEN-The developer has deadlines, and, you know, we have to hit those deadlines for contracts,to pay the seller, Dollar General,we have to try meet those deadlines. So we'd really like to get this back on track, so to speak, and try to get the Board's input so we can go on to planning approval with the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I don't know if there's any other comments from the Board. I mean, it sounds to me like most members of this Board are. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But if the Zoning Administrator says you can't do it,then. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I think we're still at this, it's still in discussion with Staff and the applicant and we can move from there, whether it's being placed on an upcoming agenda for the Board for review. You've heard the comments from the Board. I'll share that with the Zoning Administrator and the Staff tomorrow, and I know at this time that the Town Board is still doing their discussions and you're going to talk about that afterwards. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MRS. MOORE-About the Main Street, and Dick is still doing discussions with the Town Board. So I think we're all moving in a direction. I just don't know if this timeframe that they're asking us to meet, I don't know if we can meet that. MR. O'BRIEN-Can the Board make a recommendation to accept the application? MR.TRAVER-Well, if it's determined that it requires a variance,then the Zoning Board would ask us to conduct a formal review and make a recommendation to the ZBA. MR. O'BRIEN-And to do that,we've got to get past them to go to Planning and Zoning. MR. TRAVER-It's the other way around. You come back to us and we make a recommendation. You take that recommendation and appear before them with our comments. MR. O'BRIEN-But they have to officially accept our application. MR.TRAVER-That's correct. MR. O'BRIEN-And that's where we're kind of stuck. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,that was going to be my question of Laura. If the Zoning Administrator says that it has to be a,you know,two usable floors rather than a minimum height of two stories. MR.TRAVER-Which is what it says,it says height. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Is that something that the Zoning Board can relieve? MRS. MOORE-I can ask the Zoning Administrator that question. I don't know, without asking him and getting his interpretation of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure,okay. MR. KREBS-I would think that if the Zoning Board approved this as a variance, that it would be approved,because they have every dimensional requirement they can give a variance for. So this is the same thing,the variance of a second floor. So I don't see why they couldn't. So if they were put on the agenda and we recommended to the Zoning Board that they approve it, and then the Zoning Board approves it, then it comes back to us and we can approve the site plan and we can approve the site plan. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I think, you know, the relative thing to me is the language of this Part A, buildings shall be a minimum height of two stories. I mean, an example is the regulation we have with boathouses. They can't be more than 16 feet, and that means any part of it, 16 feet. So that means any part of this, if you use the same logic, in our own Code, when that language was written and this language was written the same, essentially the same way, that means any part of this building has to be, some part of this building has to be a minimum of 25 feet,just like no part of the building on a boathouse can be above 16 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But there are some. MR. TRAVER-So they could change the language, if they want to clarify this, and say, oh, no, no, no. The entire building has to be usable, you know, two habitable stories or something, but that's not what this says. MRS.MOORE-And I think that's that discussion that's occurring now. MR.TRAVER-Right. MRS.MOORE-And Mr. Sears has alluded to. MR.TRAVER-But I think the applicant is going by the language in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Which I think any attorney could probably make the case that if they have a component of their building that's a minimum height of two stories,they're in compliance. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MRS. MOORE-But there's other Main Street guidelines in there. Don't take it out of context, I guess, but at this moment in time, you've heard the discussion and the applicant will be discussing with Staff and our Zoning Administrator those items that you've identified. MR. KREBS-Well, I think maybe the Planning Board should ask you to have our Town Attorney take a look at that verbiage and determine what he thinks,legally,is the requirement. MRS.MOORE-Well, I mean,your Zoning Administrator makes that interpretation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's what the Zoning Administrator does. MR.TRAVER-Yes,for example,another example is what,we have a 40 foot height limit? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Does that mean the entire building or does that mean any part of the building,right? MRS.MOORE-That's a good question. MR. KREBS-Well, it's certainly in the (lost word) square, part of the building, but not all of the building. MR. TRAVER-That's right. So, to me, it's not, the intent may be very different, but the language as it's written says something I interpret in a very specific way. So it could be that this language has to be reinforced to, but the actual intent, and that could be argued differently, but the way this is written,minimum height of two stories. MR. O'BRIEN-It doesn't say occupied. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.TRAVER-It doesn't say what percentage. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.TRAVER-I mean,what's the height of this building? Is it the average of the entire building or is it the highest point? I mean, I would say the height of this building is the highest point, not necessarily the highest habitable point. MR. O'BRIEN-Can the Planning Board make a recommendation back to the Zoning Administrator to accept the application? MR. TRAVER-Well, I suspect that this discussion will be, the audio of this, will be made available to Staff, and they'll be talking about, certainly, our comments, but the process remains the same, regardless of what this says, in that if there's a determination made that your application does not comply with this,then you need a variance,and then we have already established process for that. MR. O'BRIEN-Right,and we'll have to go for a variance. MR.TRAVER-Correct. MR. KREBS-But I think you found, also, that the feeling, in general, of this Board is that (lost word) came to us because we need to recommend to the Zoning Board that I think you have a pretty affirmative recommendation here that we would recommend that a variance be given. MR.TRAVER-Well, and I would even argue, and again,this is just my, I'm not an attorney,this is just my opinion, but I would argue that they don't need a variance on this, that they are in compliance. They have a building with a minimum height of two stories and twenty-five feet. MR. KREBS-Right, and I agree with you, Steve, but what Laura is saying is that if the Zoning Administrator says no,it doesn't fit,then they will have to go get a variance. MR.TRAVER-That's right. MR. O'BRIEN-Well, and that's how we actually developed the first elevation, the one that we showed you the last time we were here,the 25 feet, and that's how that was developed. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. TRAVER-Well, then you get into, I think the issue there was a little bit different, in that that becomes more of a planning issue. When you have a facade that's 25 feet, I think now, the way we're going to look at it, is the intent and the planning and the use, and I think the way you have re- designed it and your explanation of the fact that as you're driving by you see what the effect with two story building comes much closer, I think to what's intended here versus the original design you had with just literally the facade, that as soon as you were coming down the road you and can see it from the side you can see that it's just. MR. KREBS-Just a facade. MR.TRAVER-That's not the, I don't believe the spirit of what was intended in this language. I think that they were looking for the, at least the appearance of what you've provided, in a much more suitable design by your updated design. MR. O'BRIEN-(Lost words) submissions to the Town here for Planning Board, as well as our Zoning Board application,you know,we'd like to get that set forth. MR. TRAVER-Sure, I think that's happened as of tonight. It's undoubtedly number one on the runway I think for consideration. MR. O'BRIEN-When is the next meeting that we could come back to you to address that? MR. TRAVER-Well, that's going to depend on the series of events that will start with the Staff doing an interpretation of your application,visa vie of this current Main Street zoning. MRS. MOORE-Right. Currently, with the information that's been submitted, the Zoning Administrator and Staff will review that information and provide, assist in the determination whether it meets this Code requirement. That's where that, you know, it sort of stops right there, before it can be placed on an agenda. At this time it is not on an agenda. MR.TRAVER-But we don't know what agenda it needs to be on until we have that,because that will drive the process. MR. O'BRIEN-We have to come back here to get a recommendation for the Zoning Board. We do have other variances, so we have to do that process anyhow. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-So we do have to. MR.TRAVER-Then you can certainly do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Salvador wanted to make a comment. I figured I'd wait until after you guys left the table. MR. O'BRIEN-Again, we're looking forward to coming here. The developer is looking forward, Dollar General is looking forward. We just want to get everything rolling so we can get those variances approved and come back to you for site plan approval. I think we covered the site plan last time and the Board was pretty happy with where we were at. So we've just got to take the next step. MR. FORD-There's got to be a further enlightenment on interpretation. MR. O'BRIEN-The problem there is I've got to go back to the developer and Dollar General and (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,understood. MR.TRAVER-I mean,have you gotten a legal opinion on this? MR. O'BRIEN-We've talked to legal and they interpret the Code the same way. We have, I think the next step is. MR.TRAVER-Which is,that building is in compliance? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. O'BRIEN-That building is in compliance. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-Word for word,if you read that,we meet that requirement. It's not. MR.TRAVER-That was my interpretation. I was just curious. I have it in front of me, so I have read it. MR. O'BRIEN-Just to read it into the record, buildings shall be a minimum height of two stories and 25 feet with a maximum height of 60 feet on Main Street. That's the sentence right there. Buildings within 150 feet of West Main Street and adjacent to the plaza shall have the same building height requirement. That's the whole paragraph right there. MR.TRAVER-That's right. MR. O'BRIEN-We meet that. MR.TRAVER-I think the difficulty is that the intent, I mean, I certainly, I interpret the language that your application will be in compliance with this language. The problem is this language may not be the intent, and so this could be subject to change, which would then make your application not in compliance. So that's the gray area. MR. HUNSINGER-But they've already filed an application, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There's an application in our office,yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm just thinking if the Town Board decides to move forward with some of the changes that have been suggested or proposed. MRS.MOORE-I don't know how that will affect us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's why I'm asking if they already. MR.TRAVER-Do they have an protective filing date or something? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, typically you do, you know, I mean, you file it today, and the Code changes tomorrow,you know,you're with the Code that was the day of the filing. MR. O'BRIEN-That's one reason we pushed to have that application submitted. MR.TRAVER-Well,thank you very much for the information. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. I know, I saw you,John. I said when they vacate the table you're up next. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Don't box yourself in. MR. O'BRIEN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. MR. SALVADOR-I have advice for you. My name is John Salvador, for the record. If I understand Mrs. Moore correctly, the Zoning Administrator has made an interpretation and a determination, and administratively that can be appealed by these people,and they've got 60 days to do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SALVADOR-And that's the order of business, not recommendations, nothing else. The first thing they should do is appeal that determination if they don't like it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,but it's only been verbal to Staff,right? MRS.MOORE-Right. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have a comment or question,sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I was just wondering if I could get my paper for (lost word) signed. MR. HUNSINGER-Wait a minute, we're not done yet, though. We did want to discuss the Main Street zone. I think members of the Board had the information. I don't know if there's anything else that we want to add? MR. KREBS-Well, I think we've pretty much discussed it. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-We can't get anything done until you guys are quiet, so quick,quick,quick,come on up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The discussion of the Main Street zone, I think everyone saw the e-mails. We saw the recommendations that Stu Baker felt the Town Board was moving towards, as well as my comments. I already, you know, made a couple of comments during the last discussion, how I felt about some of them, either that or last week. I don't know if there's anything else that anyone on the Board wanted to add to the discussion other than what we just had. MR. FORD-I just wanted to say I thought you were right on, Chris,in your. MR.TRAVER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. MR. FORD-I'm with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know, at this point, Laura, I mean, I know Stu's been involved with the discussions with the Town Board more than yourself,but some of the use table discussion,has that really been fleshed out? MRS.MOORE-I think there's obviously been some additions to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-I don't know if it's been completely fleshed out as you're asking. So I think there's still opportunity to add,if you have additional suggestions. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. I mean, really the only question, I think, for this Board is whether or not we want to make any kind of a formal recommendation to the Town Board for their workshop on Monday of next week. MRS. MOORE-Just to let you know that that workshop was cancelled. It's being rescheduled at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,but you don't know for when? MR. FORD-You don't have a new date? MRS. MOORE-I don't have a new date,but Stu did mention to definitely encourage you to make your recommendation or your comments,so that that can be forwarded to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the main thing I would say, and I agree with the changes that appear to be recommended by Stu,but the other thing that I would say is that on the issue, specifically on the issue of two stories, I think if that they're intent is literally to enforce that occupied,you know,is the discussion that we just had,they should change that language. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. MR.TRAVER-Because they have some serious exposure the way that's currently written. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. I agree. MR. KREBS-And I don't think there's a reason for us to say a lot more because if Craig reads the minutes,we pretty much have said what we think in the discussion of it MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,read the minutes and there it is. MR. KREBS-Yes,exactly. MR. TRAVER-I imagine Craig will be listening to the audio first thing tomorrow morning, and I would be. MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand what they were trying to achieve when they designed the Main Street plan, but, you know, as Bob stated, I mean, if there's no market for that, what's going to happen to Main Street,you know, is it going to, I mean, I was just in downtown Detroit, and let me tell you, I was driving in, and it is scary. It is what you see in Time magazine in the week, and I was just amazed, and, you know, if nothing wants to come in, then what's going to happen to Main Street? So we've got to start somewhere. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's going to look like Detroit if we're not careful. It's headed that way now. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-That's a good precedent situation here. You're right,we've got to start somewhere. MR. MAGOWAN-And so we've got a two story that looks like there's something habitable upside, you know, just because we don't have people up there, does that mean that, you know, we can't head that way? But it's something that Dollar General or the next applicant might,you know, I can see, and if we do have someone that wants to have people upstairs,then that's the option,too,but if not,they want that look so everything looks tall and neat. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean,the one thing I can say,you know, and this really kind of relates back to the last project discussion. When we approved the Stewarts shop, or, I'm sorry, when we approved the Cumberland Farms shop, that was actually before the Main Street zone was adopted. At that point it had been proposed but it wasn't yet adopted, and when the Planning Board reviewed that project,everyone on the Board,and I mean,you can look up the record,but the Board really felt that that project met the spirit and intent of Main Street, and that it was a good first project. So now I'm a little surprised to hear that, at least the Zoning Administrator, believes that the two story was literal,not just in height,but in,you know,but it was literal. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know that it's all his fault. The Town Board is the one that's driving it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,the discussion's being driven by the development community. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And, you know, then there's comments by guys on the Town Board that that's what it's going to be and that's what it should be. MR. DEEB-Give it time. Give it time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Give it time,but you give it time,all you're going to have is bare lots. MRS. MOORE-I guess I could add that it's nice that a business can find us, but we also have to have the ability to promote ourselves. So the Main Street,you can't, it doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It's great that there's people that are willing to find an empty spot to place their business there, but we,as a community,also need to promote that we have this space available. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's true. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MRS.MOORE-I mean,it's just as much their responsibility as ours to promote that opportunity. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,no, I agree. MR. KREBS-But it'll also, to give you an example, if you know down on Warren Street, the second building in from the circle has a facade that's,just to make it look like it's a two story building. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. KREBS-And it accomplishes that. Most people don't even realize that there's not two stories there. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it's pretty obvious to me. MR. MAGOWAN-You can see right through. MR. FORD-For the record, I encourage those who will listen to this or read it,who are in the process of interpreting the intent of the original Main Street promotion, and I remind them, as they look at the intent,that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's true. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or discussion about the Main Street zone? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. I move we adjourn,if you'll take it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,John wanted five minutes. MR. SALVADOR-I put your desk at the beginning of the meeting a few documents that I think, there's been a lot of new members on the Board and since I made the distribution of that material years ago I thought a reminder would help. The first one is the revised statutes which define the Town boundaries,and this is still an open issue. The County is telling us where the Town boundary is and no one pays attention to it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We do,we hear it all the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-And of course that's wound up with the jurisdiction, which I'll get to later. The second document there is an article out of the Lake George Mirror dealing with salting of highways. I don't know if you folks get copies of that newspaper, but that's an interesting article, and then I attached there the Memorandum of Understanding that the Lake George Park Commission entered into with the New York State DOT with regard to maintenance of roads and construction of roads. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you gave us this last week. MR. SALVADOR-Did I? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's why I don't have it tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I do have it,and I'm pretty sure it was. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right,well. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right. The second item I have here is I did take your advice and check with the Town Board, Mr. Traver, on the subject of the San Souci schedule, and I learned that now it's scheduled for the end of this month to begin work. They're going to close they promise. MR. TRAVER-Were we incorrect on the last day, or the day that you had commented that they had reached their (lost word) period? MR. SALVADOR-My understanding was the 15th. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we have no more approvals on that. It goes back to the former approval law. MR.TRAVER-So they gave them an extension for? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. SALVADOR-Dave Hatin agreed. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Dave Hatin has made this determination, I understand from the Town Board, that they intend to close the end of the month and start this work. We're almost there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,good. Wow. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I'd like to speak to this issue of jurisdiction. This Board will recall the State Supreme Court's decision in the case of the Hart Family, LLC v. the Town of Lake George. The Court upheld the plaintiff's claim that the Town lacked jurisdiction over the placing of boat docks and boathouses on the navigable waters of Lake George. The Town of Lake George, immediately thereafter, filed a Notice of Appeal, which it decided not to prefect after hearing the third department's decision in the Lake Placid case, and I've given you folks this information and all. More than two weeks ago at the Queensbury Town Board meeting on the 7th of October, at the behest of Supervisor to be Mr. John Strough, and with the concurrence of the rest of the Board, resolved to request the State legislature to amend Section 46-A(2) of the State Navigation Law. Said amendment is intended to,quote,add the Towns of Lake George and Queensbury in the County of Warren to that list of municipalities which are authorized to regulate docks, boathouses and moorings on border waters to a distance of 1500 feet from the shoreline. I have a copy of the resolution here. It's very short. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You read it last week. MR. SALVADOR-It's very short and sweet. Whereas the New York State Navigation Law lists municipalities which are authorized to regulate docks, boathouses and moorings on bordering waters to a distance of 1500 feet from the shoreline, and Whereas the Town of Queensbury Town Board wishes to request that the New York State legislature amend such provision to add the phrase, quote,the Towns of Lake George and Queensbury in the County of Warren. Now,Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby requests and supports adoption of State legislation amending the New York State Navigation Law Section 46-A(2) to add the phrase the Towns of Lake George and Queensbury in the County of Warren, and Be It Further Resolved, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town the Town Supervisor' s Office to forward copies of this Resolution to the State Governor,the President of the New York State Senate,the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Senator Elizabeth Little and Assemblyman Daniel Stec. That was duly adopted on the 7th of October. The resolution begs several question. Why only the Towns of Lake George and Queensbury in Warren County? Bolton, the Town that has our boat docks and boathouses in it, why not the Town of Bolton? Why Section 46-A(2) of the Navigation Law? Why not Section 130 Paragraph 17 of Town Law? Anyway, at last the Town Attorney has finally designated that section of the New York State statutes which he has concluded requires amending in order for Lake George and Queensbury to have legal jurisdiction over the permitting of boat docks and boathouses on border waters. Prior to this Queensbury Town Board resolution two weeks ago, it has remained a mystery as to which sections of the State statutes the amendment of which would be sufficient to authorize only those two towns to regulate boat docks and boathouses on the bordering waters of Lake George. Before we get into this choice of statutes, you should recall that the Appellate Division's ruling in the Lake Placid case, which was reversed to a town's claim of jurisdiction, which was adverse to a town's claim of jurisdiction, declared in part that towns lacked jurisdiction declared in part that towns lack jurisdiction because they were regulating boat docks and boathouses within their jurisdiction. That's the mistake. There's nothing in Article 16 of Town Law that addresses,permits the towns to regulate on the navigable waters of the State. MR. SCHONEWOLF-John,why would the State legislature take away the power from a State agency, the Park Commission,and give it to the towns? Think about that. They're not going to do that. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I understand. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not going to happen. It's just like fertilizer, okay, I mean,that's not going to happen either. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The other part had to do with the State having the preemptive jurisdiction over boat docks and boathouses, even if the town's regulated by local law separate from its Zoning Ordinance. Back to the Town of Queensbury Resolution 396.2013, which is the one I read. I have never heard of a unit of local government involved in regulating and placing moorings on Lake George. Why start all of a sudden? Why are there two towns requested to allow by regulation boat docks and boathouses to a distance of 1500 feet from the shore when there is currently in place a 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) State regulation, this is a Park Commission regulation, restricting the placing of boat docks and consequently boathouses no further than 40 feet from the mean low water mark of Lake George? It just doesn't make any sense. From a legal construction point of view, Section 46 of the State Navigation Law speaks to a city or a village having that authority to establish a vessel regulation zone, and then, not inconsistent with the laws of this State and the United States. So they're very careful, in this Navigation Law, to say whatever you do, it can't be inconsistent with the State laws and the federal laws dealing with navigation on waters. There's nothing in this Section 42 having jurisdiction over boat docks and boathouses. It's a vessel regulation zone, and it applies to cities and to villages. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you know who drafted this resolution? I mean, it must have been drafted by counsel. MR. SALVADOR-I attended the meeting and it was there. I don't know who. This does not mean that the legislature has completely forgotten towns with the respect to having the authority to establish vessel regulation zones. The town's authority to establish vessel regulation zones is embodied in Article 9, section 130 Paragraph 17, and that's the authority under which this Town has authorized those speed zones, okay. That's the first item, a regulation of the speed and regulating and restricting the operation of vessels. That's why we have those five mile an hour zones out there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And who enforces them? The State. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they're the only ones that can. MR. SALVADOR-It's enforced by the Park Commission, the Sheriff, the State Police, the Parks and Rec. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've seen the Sheriff out there,too,but the State. MR. SALVADOR-They enforce it, and not only that, the Town has nothing to do with placing of the buoys. It's done by the DEC. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. SALVADOR-So, again, nothing within your zoning jurisdiction had anything to do with those five mile an hour buoys. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So why are you concerned about it? Because it's not. MR. SALVADOR-My concern is the waste of time, and I asked the question, what do we do in the meantime while they clown around with,in Albany? What do we do in the meantime? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Albany's not going to touch. It's been down there for two years. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I know,but you will continue to have before you boat docks and boathouses. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And we don't have to do anything with it if we don't want to. MR. SALVADOR-It's a waste of governmental resources. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sure it is. MR. SALVADOR-And that's what's wrong. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,you're right. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Anyway. I mentioned this in Lake George last night. They didn't know anything about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Really? MR. SALVADOR-No. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/22/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's where the decision came from,over there. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I know. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Bolton Landing knows about it. They write us letters all the time and complain about us going in their water. Okay. So they know about it. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I know. I guess there's a lot of embarrassment,but it has to be resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Or you're going to have all this conflict, and you'll hear from me every meeting. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks,John. MR. MAGOWAN-Every third and fourth Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else that needs to be brought up this evening? MRS. MOORE-I'll just mention we were going to talk about SEQR forms. I'll wait until after my Planning Federation meeting on Saturday, and talk to you about it in November, because I have a presentation,and it should be easy. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sounds good. MR. FORD-I'll look forward to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to do that before our meeting? MRS. MOORE-I don't anticipate our meeting, we have scheduled for November, you'll have two meetings,but there's only two items potentially scheduled for the second meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we'll do it then,the Thursday meeting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do we need a second meeting? MRS.MOORE-Unfortunately you have a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Darn Zoning Board. Mr. Ford has moved that we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2013, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,there was some puzzled faces. Next month we meet on Tuesday the 19th and then Thursday the 21St. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 41