Loading...
01-21-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21,2014 INDEX Site Plan No.42-2012 Daniel&Ellen Nichols 1. 6 MONTH EXTENSION Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19 Site Plan No.4-2013 Hayes &Hayes (Luzerne Road) 5. ONE YEAR EXTENSION Site Plan No. 3-2014 1 Main Street Queensbury, LLC 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.11-2-17 Site Plan No.4-2014 Garner Lake Properties, LLC 8. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.7-1-14 Site Plan No. 5-2014 Paul&Terri Schuerlein 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.9-1-1, 3 Site Plan No. 8-2014 William&Pamela Roberts 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64 Site Plan No. 1-2014 Brandon Vanderwerker 15. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-67 Site Plan No. 2-2014 Rita Hawkins 21. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-3 Site Plan No. 7-2014 Leonard Romeo 25. Sub. No. 1-2013 MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.21, 302.18-2-76 Site Plan No. 6-2014 Great Escape Theme Park 30. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, January 21, 2014. I'd like to welcome everyone who's in the audience. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Later on when we get into the public hearings I'll go into more detail when we open the first public hearing. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from November 19th and November 21St, 2013. Would anyone like to move those? APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 19, 2013 November 21, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19TH AND NOVEMBER 21sT, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 21St day of January, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have two Administrative Items this evening. The first one is Site Plan 42-2012 Daniel&Ellen Nichols. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 42-2 012 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS-TABLED TO JANUARY 21,2014 MR. HUNSINGER-And that was tabled to this evening. I see we have a representative of the applicant. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Good evening, a representative and the applicant, Jon Lapper and Dan Nichols. This application's been on your agenda for a while and we have asked for a six month extension and I'd just like to quickly explain. This is a site that badly needs re-development. Dan wasn't responsible for it. He bought it this way,has an ambitious plan to upgrade it but his focus was taken by having to sell the Blue Water Manor on the lake, which he was able to accomplish, and now his goal is to spend his time, attention and funds to get this thing designed. So part of the reason for asking to keep this as a live application is that we have to deal with the sewer department and merge the parcel in the back with the front so that they're both in the sewer district,but I think it's a,there's a Town wide interest to get this this property cleaned up because it's prominent and it doesn't look great the way it is. So we would ask for, it's unusual, but we'd ask for a six month extension so we can come back and be ready to go. We've got it pretty far along in terms of the Area Variance and the site plan,that that's all pending,so, Dan, anything you want to add at this point? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) DAN NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-I just want to reassure you that my wife and I are committed to this. Just, going through what we just came through was quite a fete, and to say the least we're excited about the property and the people and coming back down here to civilization and getting this done. So it's, and everybody seems to be welcoming it to us, and just, I need some time to get some funds and everything in line here so we can get this going. MR. FORD-How realistic is the six month extension? MR. NICHOLS-It's very real. It's absolutely real. I just need that timeline to get everything in line to get it going. So that's where I'm at, and quite frankly a little exhausted from going through the last process and we have some other finances coming in from the sale, and I don't want to borrow any more money than I have to. How's that? I apologize,but I'm trying to go the other way. MR. HUNSINGER-It is pretty unusual to keep a Site Plan open that long, and Staff had recommended that we deny without prejudice. What's the disadvantage or advantage to either tabling or denying? MRS. MOORE-The advantage of denying it without prejudice is that it cleans it up for this upcoming year. It's a 2014 project, and having a project from 2012 extends all that timeframe of there's been no activity on that project, and this, extending it to having a 2014 date, cleans up, to me, cleans up this project and moves forward with a clean slate. MR. KREBS-But the negative of that is that he has to re-submit all the information. MRS.MOORE-He still has to re-submit all the information. MR. NICHOLS-Getting to this point,financially,it's,not as easy as it seems. MRS. MOORE-There's still additional information. Looking through the files, the information that you've requested is the same information. It's still going to cost the same amount of money as,he's already, all that information has been asked for in the past, it's still getting engineering comments resolved. MR. NICHOLS-We'd have to resubmit everything we've done until now, too, and every month we come is more financial burden, and I apologize. It doesn't seem like to you, but the engineer is not here for (lost word). MRS. MOORE-Okay, but this is a clean slate. You're submitting the information as one package. That's,you're going to, no matter whether you extend it or renew this or start over, it's still,you're still submitting the same amount of information all over again. MR. TRAVER-So if I could just clarify. Is it the position, then, of the Planning Office that there's no impact on the type and amount of information they would have to submit, and there's no financial impact? It would be a matter of clearing the record of the application? MRS. MOORE-The only other item would be the fee. And that's something that the applicant can discuss with Craig, and maybe that's the issue at hand,but the information that's being resubmitted to you as a Board for the Year 2014 is going to be no different than, you're getting a new package. you're not reevaluating information that was done in 2012 and 2014. You're getting a single package. MR. FORD-But it might be the same package,it might be the same reports,just different. MRS. MOORE-In the past you've asked them to update all that information. So you've been waiting for updated information since 2012. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But won't he have to pay the fee again? MRS. MOORE-That's what I'm suggesting he communicate with our, the Zoning Administrator and determine what that fee is. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any way that we could influence that? MRS.MOORE-I don't know. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. LAPPER-The other issue, of course, is the sewer district. It would be easier to deal with the sewer department if we've got a pending application. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,that's right. MR.TRAVER-Well,wouldn't it still be a pending application if it was on the agenda? MR. LAPPER-If it's denied without prejudice it's not. MR. KREBS-It's no longer an application. MR. MAGOWAN-It's not an application anymore. MR. LAPPER-This isn't something we ask often,to have a six month extension. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other approvals that would be overturned if we were to deny? MR. LAPPER-Well,we're in the process with DOT because that's really the next step. You'd asked us to have them look at the movements. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And so we've made an initial submission and we have to make a follow up submission to DOT. So,you know,we'd like to keep it alive for that,too,that everything's pending. MR. MAGOWAN-So by not denying it,you're able to move on with DOT and with the sewer district, which would help keep things moving. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-At the same time you're getting the rest of your package together. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And not pay a second fee. MR. MAGOWAN-And not pay a,you know, a separate fee. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I tend to feel that he's made,you know, an initial effort to come tonight and plead, grovel, as they may say, but, you know, knowing the circumstances and everything that he's gone through, and with it being such a difficult property, I mean, I would like to extend it,you know, the six months and one day over,that's it,give him the axe. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. MAGOWAN-Scratch that one, Maria,all right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I could buy that. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Could I ask a follow up question of Staff? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead. MR. TRAVER-Is there, if we were to grant a six months extension, is there a condition we could put on that extension that would at least partially satisfy your desire to clean up, as you put it, the record on this application? MRS. MOORE-Just following through with the engineering comments and any other information that was requested in the past. I think if you condition or add within the resolution that the submission date for June is May 15th, then that information is submitted at that time, and any 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) subsequent information that can be submitted prior to May 15th in support of the application materials that are still pending, then we can forward that information to the engineer. So that may be information you can add within your resolution. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-(lost word)we ask for July,so it should be a June submission. MRS.MOORE-June 15th? Okay. MR. LAPPER-June 15th, and that's absolutely acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it's actually the 16th of June,because the 15th is a Sunday. MR. DEEB-And you feel that's workable? MR. NICHOLS-Yes,sir. MR. FORD-We might add the word final to the extension. MR. MAGOWAN-What was wrong,Tom,axe was a little too much? MR. FORD-Just trying to refine it a bit. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thanks for looking out for me,buddy. MR. FORD-You bet. MR. HUNSINGER-You ready? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION EXTENDING FOR SIX MONTHS SP#42-2012 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS Resolutions: The following resolutions have been made by the Planning Board: 8-21-2012 Tabled to 9-18-12 citing need for map plan and report for sewer district extension; (needed for SEQR review) and long EAF 9-18-2012 Seek Lead Agency Status 10-16-2012 Acknowledge Lead Agency Status 10-16-2012 Tabled to 11-27-2012 pending receipt of DEC and OPRHP sign-off 11-27-2012 Tabled to 1-15-2013 pending receipt of DEC and OPRHP sign-off 1-15-2013 Tabled to 3-19-2013 with a 2-15-2013 deadline for receipt of revised information 3-19-2013 Tabled to 7-16-2013 7-16-2013 Tabled to 9-24-2013, Planning Board requesting update 9-24-2013 Tabled to 11-19-2013 11-19-2013 Tabled to 1-21-2014 Engineerin. 8-10-2012 1St engineering review On 12-16-2013 Planning Staff received a request for an extension to July 2014 (attached); 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MOTION FOR A SIX (6) MONTH EXTENSION FOR REVIEW ON SITE PLAN NO. 42-2 012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: With the following requirements: that the complete information be provided by June 16, 2014 and that all of the required questions be answered by that time. Extension will be until the July meeting of 2014. Duly adopted this 21st day of January 2014 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-We didn't specify the date that we were tabling it to. MRS.MOORE-You would handle it in July's meetings. I would add that. MR. KREBS-Okay. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in July. MR. KREBS-And good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good luck. The next Administrative Item is a Site Plan 4-2013 for Hayes and Hayes. SP 4-2013 HAYES & HAYES (LUZERNE ROAD) - REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF APPROVED PLAN MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested a one year extension of their approved plan. Is there anything else you feel you need to add, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There's nothing else. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? Would anyone like to move the resolution,then,and we're,the extension is to January 27th of 2015. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF SP 4-2013 HAYES&HAYES (LUZERNE ROAD) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings and construct 13 new duplex apartments totaling 15,483 sq. ft. along with associates site work on a 3.47 acre property. Apartment Houses in an Office zone require Planning Board review and approval. The application was approved on 1-22-2013; The applicant's agent has submitted a letter requesting a one year extension of approval; MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN 4-2013 HAYES & HAYES (LUZERNE ROAD), Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Extension to January 27, 2015 . Duly adopted this 21St day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have four items on the agenda for Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 3-2014 SEQR TYPE II 1 MAIN STREET QUEENSBURY, LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MS- MAIN STREET LOCATION 1 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FOR SPECIFIC USES - FOOD SERVICE, GALLERY, HEALTH RELATED FACILITY, OFFICE-SMALL, PERSONAL SERVICE. RENOVATION INCLUDES 41 SQ. FT. PORCH ENTRY FOR TOTAL 78 SQ. FT. PORCH; 784 SQ. FT. NEW HARD SURFACE FOR A TOTAL OF 3,140 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACE TO INCLUDE ACCESS ONTO WESTERN AVENUE WITH FIVE (5) PARKING SPACES. SITE PLAN: SPECIFIED USES IN THE MS ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT & SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF AND TWO STORY RELIEF FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE MAIN STREET ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-14 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-17 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-7-060 JON LAPPER&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to renovate an existing 768 square foot single family dwelling for specific uses, food service, gallery, health related facility, office, small, personal service, as well as renovate an existing 41 square foot porch and to add additional hard surfacing of 784 square feet. This requires a variance in reference to adding, to maintaining it as a one story building and setback variances. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with the architect Curt Dybas. This property was purchased by our client at the time that he developed the CVS plaza next door, and when we did a zero lot line subdivision and CVS owns their footprint and the chiropractor bought his practice in the back. He had purchased this with the intention,at that point,of merging this with the plaza, but neither the CVS developer or the purchaser of the practice was interested. So what he's left with is really a very undersized piece of property with a heavy traffic volume. There's not a lot that can be done. So I'm hoping to, not so much tonight but tomorrow at the Zoning Board, to take this out of the political context, because the discussion about what is or isn't appropriate for the Exit 18 Main Street corridor, I think, is inapplicable here, just because the parcel is not big enough to have a two story building with parking, green space, and to be worrying about access with the two traffic lights on either side. So what we did is, the building is horrible, and Curt has designed a complete renovation of the outside, but we certainly can't justify knocking it down, putting on a second story and putting an elevator in to have, to comply, just because it's a pre- existing building, and more than that, a pre-existing undersized lot. So we think that what's proposed is a major upgrade to what's there. I've submitted the architectural drawings. It will appear as two stories by adding the dormers. That's not enough to comply with that section of the Code, but it certainly will look better. We're improving the parking area, having dedicated parking spaces, putting in stormwater management that's not there now, and it's just, the reason for the area variances, besides the height issue, of course, is to put a handicap lift on the front, within that front setback, and then, what Curt designed, so that it'll be balanced, so you wouldn't just have the handicap lift on one side, is to extend the front porch so it's symmetric with the lift on the south side, and then extend the porch on the north side. So, I mean, I think for what you've got with the stone and the new siding, the cupola, the dormers, it's a nice upgrade for a parcel that doesn't have a lot of options,and,you know,certainly unique in that corridor. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, of course we've had a number of discussions about the one versus two story issue in the area, and,you know, we're not an adjudicative body so we can't really set a precedent, but I know that that, I suspect that among those who are strongly in favor of maintaining the two story rule,that that's going to be the concern,that is this property goes forward with one story,that it's going to be perceived as a (lost word). That being said, I think that this has been a, I think a few years ago there was an attempt to do something with this particular parcel. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR.TRAVER-So what you've designed, I think, is pretty impressive for this situation. So I think the design is fine. I think the issue is, really, for tomorrow night, is going to be the one story versus two story issue. That aside, I think it's well designed and a nice rescue of a piece of property. MR. FORD-I concur with what Steve has said, and, but I think from previous experiences it's been made pretty clear that it's out of the purview of this group to be changing that Main Street corridor. MR. KREBS-But at the same time I'd like to make the comment in the fact that on the Western Avenue area, all of them are one stories, and this really is in conjunction with, almost more so with Western Avenue than it is with Main Street. MR. LAPPER-That's a good point. This looks like Cool Beans,really. MR. KREBS-Exactly. That whole strip is. MR. MAGOWAN-And you have the CVS plaza that kind of breaks it up, but like I said, still being in the Main Street zone. I really like the design you came up with. That would look,you know, I keep driving past that house, and I always say,you know, and what you've done to, it would look great on that corner,and the lot is,you know,relatively small without making something look odd. MR. KREBS-Well, and it's also a nice transition from single story, as you come around, you've got like one and a half stories now, and then you go into two story. So it will look appropriate for the area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don't have a problem divorcing our thoughts from what's been going on and it's going to go on at the Town Board versus one versus two story. That's a fight all of its own, and I have my own opinion on that,but I think this is something different, and this falls into the line of what we tried to do anyhow, is we try to make things in this Town look right, look good, and we try to correct a lot of things, and if you listened to the last Town Board meeting and they talked about studies they were doing on septic systems up on the side of the lake, you'll find out that where this Board got into it and the areas they got into it, they've corrected an awful lot of problems, and this falls under that purview. This is a great find, and if they can do it the way they say they can, I think it's great. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just add my own two cents on the topic, I think,you know,this Board has gone on record in terms of what we felt was appropriate for Main Street,but having said that,that's not really where the direction that the Ordinance is going, but I do think that there is a clear difference between new construction versus an existing building,and I mean,clearly, it's an existing building. What do you do with it? I don't think anyone's going to say,well,you have to tear it down or you have to add a second story where there isn't one. So I think,you know, if the Zoning Board needs that so that it's not precedent setting, they can say, hey, this is really grandfathered, it certainly pre-dates the Main Street ordinance and, you know, you can't make something that's not there. MR. FORD-Excellent point, Chris. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We ought to put that in our motion. MR. MAGOWAN-Because, really, you're not changing any of the footprint of anything. You're just really adding a handicap on the porch. MR.TRAVER-And the dormers. MR. MAGOWAN-And the dormers. I mean, that's really not the footprint. That's just going up a little,making it look larger,right. MR. KREBS-It helps the transition. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. So,and I will say, Chris,that was,you're spot on there. I believe you're right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? Are you ready to make a recommendation? MR. KREBS-I am. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR A V# 5-2014 1 MAIN ST. QUEENSBURY, LLC 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 768 sq. ft. single family dwelling for specific uses -Food Service, Gallery, Health Related facility, Office-small, Personal Service. Renovation includes 41 sq. ft. porch entry for total 78 sq. ft. porch; 784 sq. ft. new hard surface for total of 3,140 sq. ft. of hard surface to include access onto Western Avenue with five (5) parking spaces. Site Plan: Specified uses in the MS zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from front & side setback requirements and two story relief from the design guidelines of the Main Street zone. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2014, 1 MAIN STREET OUEENSBURY, LLC: Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated with current project proposal. I would like to add to this that the design of the building will make a nice transition between single-story and two- story units. Duly adopted this 21st day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2014 SEQR TYPE II GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES,LLC AGENT(S) GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC OWNER(S) GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING WR- WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALTER A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED HOME. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE A PORTION OF ROOFLINE FROM PEAKED TO A HIP ROOF AND 556 SQ. FT. FAR (BASEMENT). THE EXISTING HOME EXCEEDS BOTH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THE WR ZONE. SITE PLAN: CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MINIMUM FAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 3-14, NOA 4-09, SP 53-07, NOA 11-07, BP 13-251, BP 06-271 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA,APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-14 SECTION 179-3- 040 ANDY BRICK&MICHAEL CHRYS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Site Plan 4-2014 for Garner Lake Properties, LLC. Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to alter a previously constructed home. Alterations include a portion of the roofline from a peaked to a lower roof, and a 556 square foot addition to the basement area. The existing home exceeds both the maximum height and the minimum floor area of the Waterfront Residential zone. Variance relief requested from the maximum height and the minimum FAR requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BRICK-Good evening. My name is Andy Brick, B-R-I-C-K. I'm an attorney with Donald Zee, P.C. out of Albany, New York on behalf of Garner Lake Properties, LLC. With me tonight is Mike Chrys, who is a principal of Garner Lake Properties. We're here tonight seeking your favorable recommendation of two variances that we have pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) tomorrow evening. These two variance requests are the result of a long effort by Mr. Chrys, since he acquired the property in 2012,to bring it into compliance. It does have a troubled history,which I'm sure you may be familiar with. Mr. Chrys acquired the property in 2012 and immediately began working with the neighbors and design engineers to see if he can come to some type of agreement with the neighbors to address their concerns while at the same time bring the property into compliance as much as possible, and keep it as an effective and useful living area, and we believe that we have done that. There are two variances that are being requested with the design that we have submitted. The first is a two foot height variance. Your Code requires a 28 foot height. The existing structure which is in place and exists is currently 36 feet. We have submitted a plan that will change the type of roof and reduce the roof height down to 30 feet in the middle of the property. If you go across the entire roof that's being demoed and brought down, most of it is within the 28 feet, except from design principles and for drainage purposes the one portion in the center would remain at 30 feet, which is the two foot variance that's being requested, and again, that's just a small in the center of the structure. In addition, we're requesting a three percent variance on the Floor Area Ratio to be able to keep and maintain an existing mechanical facilities room. If that had to have been, be filled in or concreted in to meet the Floor Area Ratio, it would drastically impact the interior design, make a couple of stairways, for example, no longer workable. So what we proposed is a request to allow that additional three percent variance to keep the structure as workable as possible, but at the same time recognize that we have reduced the non- conformity,the existing building as it stands now is 31%. It's nine percent above the required Floor Area Ratio. We're proposing to reduce it to 25%, which would only be a three percent variance. We think these variances are minimal. We think it's an excellent way to resolve the tortured history of this property, and I am pleased to say that we have the support of both neighbors who have been actively involved in this process throughout the years with this property, and if I may, I'll read into the record and give you a copy of an e-mail I received today from Tom West, who is an attorney who represents Mr. Glandon on one side and Mr. Rosenberg on the other, who have been actively opposed to this property in the past. This is to my office. This will serve to confirm that we have reviewed the plans that are the subject of the pending applications and will not be interposing any objections. You should feel free to represent to the Boards that the neighbors have signed off on this version of the plans. Good luck with the process. Thomas West, West Law Firm, Albany, New York. Mr. Chrys has worked since Day One when he owned the property. He went immediately to the neighbors and said what can I do to address your concern but still be able to move into this house, and through that process they are now on board and supportive. They review all the plans that you have, that the ZBA has. They support what we're doing. They have no concerns, and we are here this evening to ask for your support as well. We're here to answer any questions you may have as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. I think most everyone here remembers the history of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it's very extensive. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think the first attorney had two children during the time that this thing was reviewed over a period of years. That's true, and that was a very difficult time. The property was under stress. The owners were not here. The neighbors were upset. Fortunately Mr. Chrys came along and came back to us and we reviewed the plans for that property and told him what we wanted. We wanted the raised ranch and we had to get rid of the driveway, and I don't know how the hell he did it,but he did. He put a U in, at great expense, I'm sure,and now it's a rescued project. Don't see many of those, and I know some of the neighbors up there and they're thrilled, and they'd just like to get on with it, because it will rescue an area that, well, it wasn't the best, I mean, but it's getting better,and this is the far end of it. So, I think it's a good tenant. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I'm a little confused because I thought at one point we had resolved the issues, and there was an agreement where the second floor was going to be removed, and that was going to make it compliant. MRS. MOORE-Correct. That is now being proposed to be abandoned in favor of this project, where it's only a reduction of the height in a certain area. So, yes, you are correct, there was a previous approval. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There was a water problem,wasn't there? MICHAEL CHRYS 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. CHRYS-Yes, let me tell you what we're doing, just so you can kind of get a little color on this. The roof is currently a gabled roof. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CHRYS-We're making it a gambrel. Because of certain slope requirements,we can only bring it down so far. Just to put that in perspective, the way the land slopes there, and if you know the neighborhood, it slopes down from south to north,which is kind of counterintuitive. So what we've done is we've met the 28 foot requirement on the south side,and we've met it by over 11 feet on the north side because we took the whole top floor off of one half of the house, but because of the way the land slopes, there's a little triangular sliver in the middle that's over that 28 foot mark, and it doesn't actually go to 30. The calculations are like a foot and a half, but for a 15 foot span or whatever the number is. There was, as I understand, a plan that was approved, but it required subterranean living, and one of the things I did there was take the neighbors in, and they walked through the cellar and there's no windows there. It's very high moisture content and no place I'd like to sleep, but the plan that was, I think, rapidly and poorly put together that just solved the problem involved taking the whole top floor off and living in the cellar and having a couple of bedrooms on what would be a main floor normally. So what we did was we reconfigured it professionally with engineers. I spent a year and a half, spent an inordinate amount of time with the neighbors to make sure they were extremely happy, and they are. They've got a lot of relief with respect to the dockage. Instead of the normal 20 foot setbacks, they have 35, and they're very content, and I'd like to finish this. It's been sitting there like that as an eyesore for seven years. Unfortunately it'll probably increase my taxes over there, but it really is just an enhancement of what should have really been done to cure the problem in the first place. I mean, these guys were gross negligence of the zoning in that area, thinking they could get away with this. Ridiculous. So, does that clear any of it up? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think so. MR. CHRYS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments,questions from the Board? MR. DEEB-It's nice to see neighborly cooperation. I wish we had a lot more of that. I'll tell you, it makes it a lot easier. MR. CHRYS-I love it there. That's the only reason I live in New York,by the way. MR. KREBS-No more comments. MR. FORD-Thumbs up. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 3-2014 GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to alter a previously constructed home. Alterations include a portion of roofline from peaked to a hip roof and 556 sq. ft. FAR (basement). The existing home exceeds both the maximum height and minimum Floor Area Ratio of the WR zone. Site Plan: Change from the previously approved site plan and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from maximum height and minimum FAR requirements of the WR zone The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2014 GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES. LLC: Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) Duly adopted this 21St day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. BRICK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. BRICK-Mr. Chairman, if I may, on behalf of another very important client, my eight year old daughter has asked me to let you know that she supports and hopes you approve the Extreme Super Nova at Great Escape which is on for Site Plan Review. So,thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2014 SEQR TYPE PAUL & TERRI SCHUERLEIN UNLISTED AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 310 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING 2,421 +/- SQ. FT. PLUMBING OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE TO A MEDICAL OFFICE AND AN APARTMENT. AN ADDITION TO GARAGE OF 483 SQ. FT. FOR A TOTAL OF 900 SQ. FT. GARAGE. OFFICE AREA 1,657 SQ. FT. (ONE FLOOR); RESIDENTIAL AREA 1,274 +/- SQ. FT. (BOTH FLOORS). SITE PLAN: OFFICE IN A NR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. USE VARIANCE: OFFICE IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE IN THE NR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE UV 1-14, UV 77-97 LOT SIZE 0.54, 0.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-1, 3 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TERRI &BRIAN SCHUERLEIN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to convert an existing 2,401 square foot building that was currently a plumbing office and warehouse, converted to a medical office and apartment, in addition to an additional garage,to a total of 900 square feet. The office area would be 1,657 for the first floor. There's a residential area of 1,274. That's the apartment. Site plan review is required for offices in an NR zone and requires Planning Board review and approval. The Use Variance is the subject of the variance for tomorrow evening. Office is not an allowed use in the NR zone, and Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening Board. I'm Tom Hutchins from Hutchins Engineering, and with me is property owner Terri Schuerlein and Brian Schuerlein who would like to open his chiropractic office in this facility. The Schuerlein's have owned the building since 1996. It has always been a commercial use. It goes back before their ownership. It goes back to a commercial use. They were granted a use, a similar Use Variance in 1998 to change a commercial use to Mr. Schuerlein, Paul Schuerlein's, plumbing and heating business, and it's been operating as a commercial use for its entire life. At this point they propose to install the medical office with a one bedroom attached apartment, and this will allow the property to be cleaned up,the building to be cleaned up, and suit one of their needs in both utilizing the building and solving Brian's issue for some space. So we are requesting a Use Variance tomorrow night and we're here to answer any questions and ask for your support. Did you folks want to add anything to that? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,questions,comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Brian,you're going to live in the apartment? MR. SCHUERLEIN-That's right. MR. DEEB-Okay. So you're not going to rent it. You're going to rent it to yourself. MR. KREBS-I was just going to say, I was going to be funny and say that it would be the perfect location for a chiropractor. With all those condos in the area, all those senior citizens are going to 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) need a chiropractor. It's pretty open and shut. It's been a commercial business. It's going to continue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,there's not a lot of questions here. MR. MAGOWAN-It's been commercial since I remember. MRS. SCHUERLEIN-Mr. Clark owned that property, and we bought it from his estate when he passed. So he built it for a carpet business and that huge tower in the back, he used to have the oriental rugs and the carpet. MR. MAGOWAN-He was a cleaner,or didn't he clean the Orientals in that. MRS. SCHUERLEIN-He cleaned oriental carpets there, yes. He had a nice little business, and we bought it from his estate back in the 90's. MR. MAGOWAN-Across the street you've got Dick Sears and then you've got the garage down at the bottom of the hill,which bought my'58 Ford pickup which I never should have got rid of. MRS. SCHUERLEIN-But we no longer, my husband and I live in Brandt Lake now. We no longer live in Queensbury. My son graduated, our son graduated from Queensbury High School and he wants to come back to this area and start a family here. So we have this property. I think being able to work with a local contractor to clean it all up and make it look more residential, to be honest, than what it is right now, you know, taking away the big overhead doors and I just think it would fit in more nicely with the neighborhood. MR. MAGOWAN-Paul still plumbing up north? MRS. SCHUERLEIN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. DEEB-Are you going to be working by yourself? MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes. MR. DEEB-So you don't expect to have too many people in there at one time. MR. SCHUERLEIN-No. Actually with our site plan we figured it out as far as parking. MR. DEEB-I saw the parking. MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes, ample parking for myself as well around back. I really couldn't see too much more of an increase in traffic. MR. DEEB-Okay. Plus we're going to tear down, our idea is there's an old garage that's right there. We want to tear that down and put something in the back so you wouldn't see a garage, and we (lost word) go in the back and obviously clean that all up and make more green space and just make it more presentable. MR. HUTCHINS-Site wise the primary changes will be in terms of traffic. Move that one garage that's in the way for traffic flow and get some parking there and then some parking around the back for the apartment. The building footprint itself,the main building,won't change. MR. FORD-Remove it,not move it. Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Remove it. MR. KREBS-Remove it,yes. MR. HUTCHINS-You know what I meant. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to put forward a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR UV# 1-14 PAUL&TERRI SCHUERLEIN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to convert existing 2,421 +/- sq. ft. plumbing office and warehouse to a medical office and an apartment. An addition to garage of 483 sq. ft. for a total of 900 sq. ft. garage. Office area 1,657 sq. ft. (one floor); Residential area 1,274 +/- sq. ft. (both floors). Site Plan: Office in a NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Use Variance: Office is not an allowed use in the NR zone. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2014 PAUL & TERRI SCHUERLEIN: Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 21st day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. Good luck. MR. KREBS-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-And the last item on the agenda for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is Site Plan 8-2014 for William and Pamela Roberts. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2014 SEQR TYPE II WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 4 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD IN APPROVED FOOTPRINTS. SITE PLAN: HARDSURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK (MAIN COTTAGE), FRONT SETBACK (GUEST COTTAGE) AND 2 ACRE PER DWELLING DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 2-14, AV 36-13, SP 33-13 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-64 SECTION 179-3-040, 179- 4-010 JON LAPPER&DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes to tear down and rebuild an approved footprint. The site plan is for hard surfacing within 50 feet. Variance relief requested from shoreline setback for the main cottage, front setback for the guest cottage, and two acre per dwelling density requirements of the WR zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Dennis MacElroy and Pam Roberts. Very simply, they have the approvals to do exactly this from the Planning Board and Zoning Board, and when they went out to get contracts, Dennis put this in the application, because it was a 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) retrofitting to maintain the grandfather, it was very expensive, and this just didn't make sense in terms of the cost. So they're asking for,to modify the variance to be able to do it as a new build but on the exact same footprint that's approved, and to look at this from a variance standpoint and say what are the alternatives,you know,yes,the building could be moved back, could be made into one building,but this site could accommodate a much, much larger building. So we think that these two structures that are existing,to renovate them as they have approved, is just a much less intense use of this site than to build one big home which is what most people would do on the lake in this day and age. So if you drove by, from what we're asking for, it wouldn't be any different than what was approved. It would just be better constructed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments? MR. KREBS-Certainly from a standpoint of the construction, you're going to end up with new plumbing,new electrical. All of this is a benefit. It's much better than reconstructing an existing old building, and I know from having torn down buildings before, it's more expensive to fix an old building than it is actually to tear it down and start a new building. MR. HUNSINGER-So will you use the existing foundations,or will you be putting new? MR. MAC ELROY-No, in fact, that's part of the problem is that the first job was to build better foundations for the structure anyway,which meant jacking up the existing. It comes into safety and quality of construction and what not. So, as Don said, it makes more sense, now that the contractors have looked at it and offered their more detailed opinions to the owners. That's the way they'd like to proceed. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I agree with you. Renovating usually costs twice as much as building new. So if you're not so passionate to keep the home, it would be better to,you know, start over. Jacking up and digging out underneath and footings and foundations, I did that once to say that I could do it, and I'd never do it again. So,you're not really changing the footprint at all, and I don't have really a problem of recommending a variance on this one. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to weigh in? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 2-14 WILLIAM &PAMELA ROBERTS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes tear down and rebuild in approved footprints. Site Plan: Hardsurfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from shoreline setback (main cottage), front setback (guest cottage) and 2 acre per dwelling density requirements of the WR zone. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2014 WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS: Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal- Duly adopted this 21st day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-2014 BRANDON VANDERWERKER AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) JEFFREY SCHWARTZ ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 980 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 3,452 SQ. FT. BUILDING (FOOTPRINT) TO OPERATE TWO RETAIL BUSINESSES - THE PHONE GUY & PRESS START. PHONE GUY TO OCCUPY 1sT FLOOR, PRESS START (GAMING STORE) TO OCCUPY BASEMENT AREA (800 SQ. FT). NEW USES IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 13-352, SP 18-95, AV 17-95, SP 44-88 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 0.86 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-67 SECTION 179-3-040 BRANDON VANDERWERKER, PRESENT; SEAN CANALE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the reuse of an existing building. The main floor of the building will be utilized for the phone guy sales and service; the basement area is to be utilized for the video game store. The applicant has proposed no exterior changes to the site or building -parking is to remain the same. The proposed sign is subject to review by the Zoning Board if it is determined it exceeds the square footage allowed, if the sign does not meet the required setback distance and if the height is greater than 20 ft. The Planning Board may request additional information about lighting as lighting was not addressed in the application. The Planning Board may consider the waivers requested J -stormwater; K -two foot contours, L -landscape plan, M -land use district labels, N -traffic flow data, P -floor plans. The floor plans have been provided. So you can scratch that one. The Board should also consider the parking needs for the site as proposed where 21 is required and 19 is provided. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. VANDERWERKER-Good evening. My name is Brandon Vanderwerker, the applicant. On my right is Sean Canale, my business partner, and on my left is Jeffrey Schwartz who is actually the property owner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VANDERWERKER-And essentially what we are proposing is the building currently now is zoned for personal service, being that it used to be a hair salon, and what we would like to do is what we are merging our businesses together, cell phones, computers and video games, buy, sell, and we're going to be hosting video game tournaments also, and so what we are proposing is to change, try to get the zoning changed from a personal service to a retail. So we would be able to, you know, have a retail setting at that building. What we are also doing is with the merger of our businesses, Sean owns Press Start, which is the video game business, which is a new business. I own the Phone Guy, which I've been operating for almost three years now, and fairly successful. With the merger, we would like to name the property and building the E Spot, E as in Electronics. So what we would like is that our building to be the go to place for any buying, selling or repairing of all electronic devices,which, as I'm sure you all know, is very important nowadays. We have not changed the footprint of the building at all, nor do we plan to. It's just the cosmetic work that we're doing,just to make the building pop,and the building there has been vacant for about a year, maybe a little bit over I would say, and with the brewery going down the road, we think, on Route 9 there right, you know, up the road from the Walmart, I think it's a beautiful location. It's a fantastic building. It has a nice parking lot,has a really great view, and I think we're going to do very well up there,upon approval,of course. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you talk a little bit about lighting,since you didn't address it? MR.VANDERWERKER-The lighting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,and this would be exterior lighting. MR.VANDERWERKER-We have, I believe on the right side of the building we have three lights that would illuminate the parking lot because you can pull in and pull around, and we have lights on either side of the building that would illuminate, and we do have lights in the back. We have one 1s (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) light in the back that would,you know, illuminate enough so you could drive around. It's not going to be like a dark alley or anything like that, no, and the front of the building is beautifully illuminated. I believe there's 12 or 13 large windows in the front which we're planning on lining with neons on both sides to really make it pop. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. FORD-So the front lighting would all be interior,then? MR. CANALE-We can, you know, put exterior lighting on (lost words), but with the lights that are there now,the lights are pretty well outside. MR. MAGOWAN-There's parking on the side and in the back? MR.VANDERWERKER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Well,the lighting will have to be Code compliant. I mean,that's a given. MR.VANDERWERKER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Jeff, I was going to ask you, how do you like being on that side and not in the hot seat? Okay. I do have a question,you're going to merge your two businesses. MR.VANDERWERKER-Yes,sir. MR. DEEB-So essentially it's going to be one business. MR.VANDERWERKER-It will be,yes. MR. DEEB-Because in the drawings it said downstairs was going to be the video game? MR.VANDERWERKER-Downstairs we're going to be hosting video game. MR. DEEB-Video games,and upstairs it's going to be a cell phone shop. MR. VANDERWERKER-Well, in the front of the store, the right hand side of the store, of the business,will be the cell phones, and the left side will be the video games. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR.VANDERWERKER-Whereas the basement is only for hosting tournaments. MR. DEEB-I wasn't sure when I was reading the plans. I thought, I was under the impression it was going to be two separate businesses with one entrance, and I was a little concerned about that, but since it's going to be one business, I don't have a problem with it,then. MR. VANDERWERKER-Yes. It's only because we have, we own two separate businesses and so that's why, you know, we're planning on merging them together, and that's how we came up with the name the E Spot, as I've said electronic spot,the spot for electronics, which I thought was fairly clever. MR. MAGOWAN-Have you met with the Fire Marshal? MR.VANDERWERKER-We have,yes. We've been in direct contact with Mr. Palmer and Mr. Hatin,of course. They actually, they did come in to do a final inspection. So everything, this was the last step,from what they had told us. MR. MAGOWAN-So what you're saying is that you did everything before you came to us? MR.VANDERWERKER-No,well,going with what the Fire Marshal and Mr. Hatin had requested, and we went down, you know, bullet points down the list of exactly what we needed before we could come, obviously,in front of you today. MR. MAGOWAN-I think it would be nice to see some activity back in that building. It was LaMirage there for many, many years,not that I've been there that many times,but. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. DEEB-Do you have cell phones? MR.VANDERWERKER-Correct,yes,buy and sell,yes,and repair. MR. DEEB-Okay. Any companies you represent? MR.VANDERWERKER-I'm sorry? MR. DEEB-What companies do you represent? MR.VANDERWERKER-Only myself for now. As far as prepaid cell phone service?We do offer H2O, Net 10 and Page Plus, which, from the research and information I've gathered are the three best prepaid services. So we will be offering that. I know AT&T and Verizon,their contracts,like Sprint, but we'll be offering prepaid, kind of like a buy here, pay here kind of thing. No credit needed, no credit check,anything like that. So we make it very easy. MR. CANALE-No contracts,more or less. MR. DEEB-No contracts,well, I think all companies are going to tend to go to that pretty soon. MR. VANDERWERKER- So it's fortune that we're able to let people know that, their towers and all that, so people get excited when they hear it's only $50 or $55 a month, and you get unlimited talk and text,and then two gigs or whatever the gigs are for data. MR. DEEB-I thought Net10 was Sprint? MR.VANDERWERKER-Net 10 is the AT&T network. Well, it's owned by Tracfone,which,how much time do you have? But the whole point is to offer two of the best networks under prepaid so you don't have to come in to sign a two year agreement and there's no credit checks or anything like that,and it's a paid month to month. So if you don't pay,then you just simply don't have service. MR. MAGOWAN-Just a flick of a switch? MR.VANDERWERKER-That's it. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, now what about people that hand in their cell phones? You always see that like handing in your own cell phones and that. MR.VANDERWERKER-Yes, we have the system to check. We check all the lost reports, stolen lists. Sometimes we call the companies directly,just to be 100%sure. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just thinking of my phones, you know, it's like how do I know that they're 100%erased? MR. VANDERWERKER-We can do them all right in front of you. We actually go step by step when we do purchase a device. We make sure that all the information is deleted. We can never retrieve any of that back.We can do it in real time right in front of you. It makes it very secure. MR. MAGOWAN-That's like donating to the soldiers and stuff like that that I,you know. MR.VANDERWERKER-Yes,we actually,we do take in,we call them recycle phones, phones that are broken or they don't work. I actually, in 2012, in April, I donate over 300 phones to domestic violence. There was a get together and the Unos restaurant up here in Queensbury. So that was a nice little function, and it was nice to be able to give back. Theresa, I know her name's Theresa. She runs the domestic violence. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Assuming approvals are granted,when will this new venture be operational? MR. CANALE-We'd like to be open the 24th, Friday, if everything's approved. If not, we'll have to push it back. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,you're pretty much ready to go,aren't you? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. VANDERWERKER-We've been ready to go for a while on this. I'm more excited than anything to get in there. Just trying to make it look nice. MR. HUNSINGER-So when you have tournaments,how many people do you anticipate being there? MR. CANALE-It really varies. Sometimes there could be 20 people playing in tournaments. Sometimes there'd be 50 people playing in tournaments. It's up in the air right now, because this will be the first time we've hosted a tournament. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm just trying to think of, if you have 50 people there, where are they all going to park? MR. CANALE-Well, it would be time scheduled. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CANALE-So they would have to come in at a certain time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that's how you control it? MR. CANALE-Yes. JEFFREY SCHWARTZ MR. SCHWARTZ-There's actually more parking in the back. There's a big area which isn't blacktopped but people can park there. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Temporarily,yes. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, it's good land to park on. Probably park 15, 20 cars if you needed it. There's plenty of property there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project this evening. The purpose of the public hearing is for people of the audience to make comments to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to make a comment that they state their name for the record. We do tape the meeting, and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website for anyone to listen to at any time. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? I don't see any hands going up. Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There was no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will then open the public hearing and will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. Are there any other questions that the Board has? Anything that hasn't been addressed that you feel is needed? MR. FORD-Just that everyone concur with the Staff's having us consider the waiver requests, stormwater,two foot contours,landscape plan,etc. MR. KREBS-It's a pre-existing facility. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, like he said it's pretty much pre-existing. They've done really everything inside. All they're doing is really changing the name. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And maybe recommend if they do add any more exterior lighting it will meet the Code. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. FORD-Code compliant. MR. MAGOWAN-Code compliant. MR. FORD-I'm happy with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Was this a Type II SEQR? MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KREBS-No further review is required. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes it says Unlisted. That's why I'm asking. MRS.MOORE-You can complete the SEQR draft reso if you'd like to. I did put Unlisted. I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it is a Type II. I just wanted to make sure. MRS.MOORE-It is an Unlisted action. MR. HUNSINGER-It is Unlisted. MRS.MOORE-It is Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-You've got Type II on the agenda. MRS.MOORE-I know,but in my Staff Notes, I have Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,and they did submit the Short Form. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Just a typo. MR. HUNSINGER-So they did submit a Short Form for SEQR, and we do need to consider the Short Form. There was no SEQR draft resolution provided. Are there any actions that the Board feels may result in a moderate to large impact? MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MRS.MOORE-I do have a draft,if someone wants to use a draft. I do have a blank one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you want to give that to Don, maybe. Thanks. You can just plug in the project number. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you're ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP# 1-2014 VANDERWERKER The applicant proposes: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 3,452 sq. ft. building (footprint) to operate two retail businesses -The Phone Guy & Press Start. Phone Guy to occupy 1St floor; Press Start (Gaming store) to occupy basement area (800 sq. ft.). New Uses in a Cl zone 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; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) 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 has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Short has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, 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 APPROVE SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 1-2014 BRANDON VANDERWERKER, Introduced by Donald Krebs, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 21St day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And we do have a, I think we just need to correct the draft resolution to say that it was an Unlisted action. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 1-2014 BRANDON VANDERWERKER A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 3,452 sq. ft. building (footprint) to operate two retail businesses -The Phone Guy&Press Start. Phone Guy to occupy 1St floor; Press Start(Gaming store) to occupy basement area (800 sq. ft.). New Uses in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/21/2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 1-2014 BRANDON VANDERWERKER, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration. 3) Waiver requests granted: Items J, K, L, M, N, P from checklist (J-stormwater; K-two foot contours, L-landscape plan, M-land use district labels, N-traffic flow data, 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) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7) Any additional lighting to the exterior of the building will be Code Compliant. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) Duly adopted this 21St day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR.VANDERWERKER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Jeff,quick question. Who's the engineer you used for your project there skied up at Hickory? MR. SCHWARTZ-Peter Brown. MR. MAGOWAN-Peter Brown. That was it. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2014 SEQR TYPE II RITA HAWKINS AGENT(S) BILL WHITE OWNER(S) WASP, LLC ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION 9 HUNTER BROOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE A 1600 +/- SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING TO OPERATE AN INSURANCE AGENCY. CHANGE OF USE IN AN OFFICE ZONE AND LACK OF SITE PLAN WITHIN THE PAST 7 YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 25-11, 11- 11;AV 36-03,SP 24-94M,SP 24-94; BP'S 10-584, 04-787, 04-618, 03-732,96-529,94-449,94- 1682; CROSSROADS PARK, PH. II WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 0.60 TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-3 SECTION 179-3-040 RITA HAWKINS, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to reuse an existing 1,600 square foot existing building to operate an insurance agency. Change of use in the Office zone and lack of site plan within the past seven years requires Planning Board review and approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. HAWKINS-Good evening. How are you? MR. HUNSINGER-Good. If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. HAWKINS-I am Rita Hawkins,and I'm the applicant representing myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you tell us a little bit about your project? MS. HAWKINS-I'm looking to purchase the old TCT building,9 Hunterbrook Lane,for my State Farm Insurance agency. I've been in practice since 1999 up on Route 9. So I'm looking to purchase my own building for my own business that's been here in Queensbury. I'm looking to not make any changes whatsoever to the building. Everything that was there previously is going to remain the same. Interior just some updates as far as carpet, painting, removal of the teller box and things like that, but soft walls, you know, interior stuff. I've worked with Dave Hatin and right now we have nothing that is going to need to be done there as well. So I'm here just to get approval on,you know, just change of business basically. Same office type professional business going into a location that's already been in existence. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MS. HAWKINS-No,not unless you have questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? So are you going to keep the drive in lane? MS. HAWKINS-I'm not,like I said, I'm not changing anything. We won't be utilizing that for any kind of, you know, drive in service. They're going to be actually removing the interior tubes that they have, but the window, again, nothing,we're not going to make any changes to that. It will stay as it is. It just won't be anything that will, we won't have a drive in. No payments will be accepted or anything like that through the window. We like to sit down and talk to them about other things. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-You're one of those kind of salespeople. MR. DEEB-You're an insurance woman, aren't you. MS. HAWKINS-We don't want them to wave through the window. We want to have a conversation. It's a great building. I'm really excited. MR. MAGOWAN-Backup generator. You'll have everything you need. MR. HUNSINGER-Huge backup generator. Wow. MS. HAWKINS-Looking for a market for that. If anyone knows anybody that would like to buy that. MR. MAGOWAN-Come on,you'll never have to shut down. MS. HAWKINS-I think it's more than I need,but. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that powered by gas,do you know,natural gas? I thought so. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a nice one. Like I say, I don't think you'll have a problem selling that if you want to get rid of it. MS. HAWKINS-Yes, I'll seriously not going to use it. I could put a much smaller one in there. I think it's like $1500 just to get it serviced. So I don't want to be spending that. I don't have that kind of systems that need to stay up. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? It's really just a change in use. MS. HAWKINS-Yes,that's all it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS.MOORE-I do have two written comments. I'll read those into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-This is dated January 17th, and it's from Robert E. Sharp Dental Implant Center. This is addressed to Don. "As I cannot attend the Planning Board scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, 2014, I am writing to express my feelings regarding the property at 9 Hunter Brook Lane. Last fall the owners of the property failed to make any attempt to remove the leaves from their property. As a result,their leaves were blown across Hunter Brook Lane onto my lawn and that of Cury's next door to me. I called Bob Sears at Prudential Real Estate regarding the problem and he said he would contact the owner with our concern. Long story short, nothing was done. In addition, there has been a pot hole approximately 12-18 inches in diameter that has been a nuisance dating back to when the property was owned by the TCT Credit Union. The pavement continues to break up and pieces work their way across the street into my driveway. I requested the Town Highway Department repair the pothole on two occasions last summer to no avail. I welcome the new business to the neighborhood. I only ask them politely to do their part in maintaining the appearance of the neighborhood and maintain their lot so as not to burden others with their leaves in the fall. While I realize the Town has no jurisdiction over leaf removal, I thought it might be nice to let the new owners know that we are concerned with the appearance of the neighborhood and do not wish to maintain their lot. Thank you for taking time with this matter. Sincerely, Robert E. Sharp DDS, MSD" MR. HUNSINGER-Is the pothole in the road or on? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's in the road,isn't it? MS. HAWKINS-Yes, I don't think it's the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's the Town's problem. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-I wish we could fix that. I wish we had the authority to fix that. MR. FORD-That and a few others. MS. HAWKINS-I do,too. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't mean to make light of it. MS. HAWKINS-I do have a landscaping contractor that I will have on site. So, working on landscaping. So I will address that issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-The next item I have is for January 18, 2014. This is Currie Associates, John Currie. This is addressed to the Planning Board. "Please read into the record and take consideration of these comments at the Public Meeting on Tuesday, January 21, 2014, in regard to applicant Rita Hawkins, Zoning Classification, for 9 Hunter Brook Lane. These comments submitted on behalf of Currie Associates, Inc., 10 Hunter Brook Lane, Queensbury, NY 12804, located directly across the street from the site at issue. We feel that the proposed use of this existing building is in compliance with the zoning for the office use and would fully support approval by the Planning Board at this time. Operation of an insurance agency would complement neighboring business use and we would welcome the agency as a neighbor. Although we are not able to be in attendance at this meeting we thank you for your consideration of these written comments. Best Regards, John V. Currie, Currie Associates, Inc." MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're one for two. MS. HAWKINS-That's lovely. I wish Denise would have written one for me,too. I should have asked her. MR. MAGOWAN-You might want to talk to Denise on that generator. Maybe you could hook up together and split the costs there. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say,you could probably serve the whole neighborhood with that. MS. HAWKINS-I probably could.TCT must have something in the new location, I would assume. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. MOORE-I will note that, in the Staff Notes, the applicant has requested waivers from stormwater,contours,landscape plan,land use districts,the traffic flow and soil logs. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And this one is a. MRS. MOORE-This is also an Unlisted. So if you have additional questions, or you can utilize the same draft resolution as previous. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have none. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. SEQR review. MR. KREBS-SEQR review. Per the draft provided by Staff. RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP# 2-2014 RITA HAWKINS The applicant proposes: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to reuse a 1,600 +/- sq. ft. existing building to operate an 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) insurance agency. Change of use in an 0 zone and lack of site plan review within the past 7 years requires 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 has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, 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 APPROVE SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 2-2014, RITA HAWKINS Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 21St day of January 2014 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Before we take the vote, quick discussion. I thought on the new form we need to ask specifically if there are any items that members have that may have a moderate to large impact, or are we not required to do that? MRS. MOORE-You could do it at, I would identify that you've reviewed the information as presented, in accordance with the SEQR requirements, using a small to large impact that addresses that question as a whole, and you could continue to do it that way. MR. HUNSINGER-So we can just do the resolution, is what you're saying. We don't need to specifically ask if there are any items that the Board needs to discuss? MRS. MOORE-I like that, that you've asked that. So I would include it. You don't have to, but if someone were to go back through the file, that would answer that question if someone said did you even talk about it. You did. You actually evaluated the information in the file. MR. KREBS-So the draft that she's provided me says upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted and considered both the magnitude and importance of each identified impact, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, as Lead Agency, that this project will result in no significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore an environmental statement need not be prepared. According to the Negative Declaration issued. MR. HUNSINGER-But that is still different, though, than saying there are no items, I mean, there could be items that we have that have a small impact that may require discussion, that wouldn't be covered by that resolution. Understand the difference? It's a procedural thing. It really has nothing to do with your project. MR. KREBS-See,we're working with new SEQR. So that's the problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,and it's really only our second meeting with it. MRS.MOORE-Can I look into it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Call the vote please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) NOES: NONE RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 2-2014 RITA HAWKINS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to reuse a 1,600 +/- sq. ft. existing building to operate an insurance agency. Change of use in an 0 zone and lack of site plan review within the past 7 years requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/21/2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 2-2014 RITA HAWKINS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration. 3) Waiver requests granted: Items J through N&Q from checklist. 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) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MS. HAWKINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We're going to go out of order a little bit. One of the team members from The Great Escape is not here yet. So we're going to jump to Site Plan 7-2014 and Subdivision 1-2013 Modification for Leonard Romeo. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2014 SUBDIVISION 1-2013 MODIFICATION LEONARD ROMEO AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) HAYES & HAYES ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION DEPALO LANE, OFF SOUTH SIDE OF DIXON ROAD; 2 GRIFFING PLACE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE OF OWNER'S PARCEL BY 0.44 ACRES AND ADDITION OF 0.44 ACRES TO APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. SUBDIVISION: DUE TO SITE PLAN REVIEW A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PROPERTIES IS ALSO REQUIRED. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN & SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 80-2010; SB 1-2013 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 7.44 ACRES, 0.40 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.21, 302.18-2-76 SECTION 179-3-040,CHAPTER 183 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Laura. MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application and a subdivision modification request for the reduction of a 7.44 acre parcel by 0.44 acres. The 0.44 acre parcel will be combined 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) with the applicant's parcel for a 0.84 acre parcel. The applicant has not requested waivers as the previously approved plans are provided with detail of the parcel area to be reduced. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the applicant, Leonard Romeo on this application for both a subdivision modification and a site plan application, modification. The subject property is one you'll probably remember and are familiar with along Dixon Road. It's a 7.44 acre parcel that houses seven duplex units, 14 units in total, and Mr. Romeo lives contiguous to that property on Griffing Place, and he was interested in acquiring a portion of that property that may be available, but yet still be compliant with the zoning requirements for that neighborhood, that NR zone. Hayes and Hayes, LLC are the owners of that property. They've authorized Len to proceed with the applications that would be necessary to gain that approval, so that, ultimately, a boundary line adjustment can be accomplished. So, we're here to work our way through that process so that, again,boundary line adjustment could be done. That was the recommendation, the requirement of the Zoning Administrator to proceed along those lines,because that property,the history of that property, I think Craig just wanted to make sure that everything was open and apparent and whatever to any changes to that property. Reducing the size of the lot from 7.44 acres to 7 acres, we're still compliant. They are still compliant with the density requirements, 14 units at a half an acre per unit, and regarding site plan development, permeability isn't, there's a little less area, but the permeability standards are still addressed and compliant on that. Those would be the two areas of concern, plus if there was anything particular to that section of the property that was important to the site development,which it isn't. If you see on the plans, the site plan in particular, that was an area that was just unused or vacant area of the developed piece. So that's the situation on that. It's a modification of two previous approvals in order to be able to do just a boundary line adjustment. MR. KREBS-Is there any particular use that you have for this, Len? LEONARD ROMEO MR. ROMEO-No, I didn't, I wasn't, I guess he could still build another unit on that property. He can't? MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No,actually I believe,from my understanding,it was forever wild. It was. MR. ROMEO-That's what I thought originally,but. MR. MAC ELROY-No, the density that's required, at a half an acre per unit, you're maxed out at 14 units with,whether it was 7.0 or 7.44. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought we had something in there that he couldn't go any further back with that? MR. MAC ELROY-There's a note on the site plan that was part of previous approvals just indicating that there wasn't. MR. HUNSINGER-No further development,or there was something I thought. MR. DEEB-Len,you sure you don't want to put a pool in? MR. MAC ELROY-On the grading, drainage and buffer plan prepared by Nace Engineering, part of the original approvals, there is a note on that section of the lot, which indicates no further development disturbance or motorized vehicles within the hatched boundary. So that there is some,because I asked this question myself,and my understanding I think from Staff,probably Craig because, Laura, you weren't here at that time when this (lost words) as related to that project. That project wasn't deemed (lost words) because of such sensitivity with the neighborhood... MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-So you have no intentions but to expand your land. MR. ROMEO-Right now,yes. Yes,our backyard's fairly small. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,they are kind of small lots back there. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. ROMEO-Yes,and I would about double the size of my lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have no other. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM ROUND MR. ROUND-Jim Round, 34 Pershing Road, and apparently have some familiarity with the projects that went on on the property, and I'm just here to go on the record to say, you know, the property has gone through a number of contentious meetings here, okay. Was the front of the property subdivided already? Is there two lots on the front of this property? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ROUND-So there's two front lots that are still available that they came before the Board, said, yes,they could build two more homes on the front of that property. MR. DEEB-Single family homes. MR. ROUND-That is not part of the seven acre lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,that's correct,yes. MR. ROUND-So that'll reduce that property so there will be no more building on that seven acres, they're built out? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROUND-Okay. That's done. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROUND-Okay. So the contention was there would be no building on that property all together. I don't have a problem with Len purchasing that property, you know, and the subdivision going through,but I was just here to,you know, reinforce the fact and remind the Board of the contention and the issues that the neighborhood had with this property and how things went through, okay. Do you remember, okay? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ROUND-And how the zoning laws were changed after building permits were issued. So just here to bring that back up, and concerned with Len saying I don't plan on building now. Okay, and the purpose was to leave this property wild at that point. So the only contention I would have is not to have another home built back there on that half acre lot. MR. DEEB-It would be too small anyway, .44 acres. MR. ROUND-.44 acres,but,you know,you could always subdivide it some way to figure it out,right? We could put duplexes on properties, you know, seven duplexes on property that shouldn't have had it. So,you know,just. MR. DEEB-I don't think you have to be concerned about that. MR. ROUND-I know. Just wanted to voice my concern,though. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Okay. We will, then, close the public hearing if there's no further comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it is the intent that your,this would be merged to your existing parcel. So it would only be one lot. So if you wanted to even do something else with it, you'd have to come back. MR. ROMEO-Yes, I have no plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No,thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So if there are no further questions or comments, then I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO SUB# 1-2013 LEONARD ROMEO A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes reduction in lot size of owner's parcel by 0.44 acres and addition of 0.44 acres to applicant's property. Subdivision: Due to site plan review a boundary line adjustment between two properties is also required. Modification to an approved Site Plan & Subdivision require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1-21-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION 1-2013 LEONARD ROMEO, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. 2. The proposed modification[s] does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts,and,therefore,no further SEQRA review is necessary. 3. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 21st day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. MAC ELROY-That was the subdivision modification. You have the site plan modification also, then. MRS.MOORE-No,it's all included in that one resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my understanding. MR. MAC ELROY-I don't think he said the word site plan modification in there. MR. DEEB-Because it's not on there. MR. KREBS-No, I read motion to approve site plan 7-2014 for Leonard Romeo. MRS.MOORE-And then there's a second page. I apologize. MR. DEEB-There's two pages. MR. KREBS-There's a second resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry. Sorry about that. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. DEEB-You did, I think you did subdivision. MR. KREBS-I think I did subdivision,you're right. MR. DEEB-Yes,you've got to do site plan. MR. KREBS-Now we'll do site plan. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. You've got to change the subdivision before you do site plan. MR. DEEB-Otherwise he'd be back here in another month. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 7-2014 LEONARD ROMEO A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes reduction in lot size of owner's parcel by 0.44 acres and addition of 0.44 acres to applicant's property. Subdivision: Due to site plan review a boundary line adjustment between two properties is also required. Modification to an approved Site Plan & Subdivision require Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/21/2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 7-2014 LEONARD ROMEO, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: 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. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) 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 21st day of January 2014 by the following vote: MR. KREBS-Waivers granted. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Now you're all set. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 6-2014 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RC-RECREATION COMMERCIAL LOCATION 1127 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW RIDE "EXTREME SUPER NOVA". PROJECT TO BE LOCATED NEAR COMET ROLLER COASTER. SITE DEVELOPMENT WILL DISTURB 0.15 ACRES AND INCLUDE LANDSCAPING, PERMEABLE PAVERS AND RIDE INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATION. NEW RIDES IN THE RC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE MANY WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS, DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 237.6 ACRES (PROJECT AREA 0.15 ACRES) TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040 CHARLES DUMAS, RAY SCHRODER&TOM MACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes a new ride the Extreme Super Nova. Project is to be located near the Comet Roller Coaster. Site development will disturb 0.15 acres and includes landscaping,permeable pavers and ride infrastructure installation. MR. DEEB-Laura, I love your parcel history. MRS. MOORE-And I'll just add to the bottom, the applicant has detailed compliance with the Final GEIS in reference to the proposed new ride, and the Board may consider the waiver requests for lighting and stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DUMAS-Good evening. Thank you. I guess we're last tonight, right? Yes. The proposal is for a new ride called the Extreme Super Nova. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record,please. MR. DUMAS-I'm Charles Dumas with Lemery Greisler. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DUMAS-I'm an attorney for The Great Escape. I have with me Ray Schroder of The Great Escape and Tom Nace of Nace Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DUMAS-The application is for a new ride called The Extreme Super Nova. It is essentially a replacement of an existing ride that was installed in 1982, the pirate ship ride. That's going to be removed. The Extreme Super Nova will go in a slightly different location. The affected area is .15 acres I believe. It complies with the 2001 GEIS and the subsequent update in terms of traffic, noise, stormwater and soils and ecology. It's not expected to generate any additional traffic, but sort of freshen and maintain the attractiveness of the rides of the Park. In terms of noise, there's really no noise generation by the equipment itself. It's minimal, and an update to the existing equipment, 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) which is 1982 vintage. So it's likely to be substantially quieter than the current operation. In terms of stormwater, there's permeable pavers that are going to be used. So there should be no impact with respect to that, and in terms of the soils and ecology,there'll be a landscaping package and the area that's disturbed will have the plantings transplanted elsewhere within the Park. Any questions? That's essentially the proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So that's going to be right in front of the Comet and won't be able to make more noise than the Comet. MR. DUMAS-No,not at all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why don't you put that (lost word) sign back on the Comet so people like me can (lost words). MR. DUMAS-There is a lighting package that comes with this. It's down lighting, and lighting really for the convenience of the patrons. MR. KREBS-When you're at the end of the arch,how high are you off the ground? MR. SCHRODER-The ride itself, the static structure, stands about 30 feet high. The ride will swing to 110 degrees of basically when the pendulum in its vertical position, breaks to a maximum of about 51 feet. So in comparison the Comet lift hill is about 100. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say,it's,yes. MR. KREBS-Okay,are they belted in,the people belted in? MR. SCHRODER-Yes, it actually uses an over the shoulder style restraint, similar to what you would see on the Steamin' Demon or the Boomerang. So for a ride that's designed to go completed inverted. Actually, I did bring along a couple of visual aids this evening, if I could bother Laura, if she would be so kind. Photo Number Three I think is actually a PDF, or actually we can start wherever you like here. Phone Number One, we can take a look at the ride. It's actually coming to us used out of Coney Island. Zamperla is the ride manufacturer, and they actually own the majority of,or at least operate the majority of Coney Island. So they use it somewhat as a showcase for their rides. We had the opportunity to actually view this ride and experience it back in July. Let's see what we've got here. MR. DUMAS-And, Ray, it is adjustable so that it doesn't have to go the full swing. It doesn't have to be operated to the full measure of the (lost word). MR. SCHRODER-Correct. Yes. When we viewed and actually experienced the ride back in July,they had a program so it was only swinging to 90 degrees of its, basically its loading position. I don't know if we made an operational decision as of yet in terms of how high we will operate this ride, but in terms of its physical limitation, it takes it to about 51 feet. So basically on the upper left you have basically a front view of the ride, one where it would be in its loading position and two where it would be all the way at its maximum tilt. In the bottom right corner, actually more in the middle of the document, at the lower end here, it's a top view, and that shows basically the platter of 16 seats where the riders would sit, and that does rotate at a low speed. I vaguely remember seeing in the manual 9 rpms,but please don't me to it, and that does allow basically all of the riders to get the same view,the same experience,as it swings over the course of its cycle. MR. MAGOWAN-So what does it seat eight on either side? MR. SCHRODER-Yes, it's circular in its shape. So it basically actually is disassembled in our shop right now. So disassembled in half it's eight to each side,total of 16. MR. MAGOWAN-So it's circular. I see what you're saying. MR. SCHRODER-Correct. Yes. MR. DEEB-How much does each swinging seat hold,two people? MR. SCHRODER-Each seat is rated for one individual. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. DEEB-One. MR. SCHRODER-So basically the way it's established, being a circular platter, everyone basically gets a front row seat to the ride. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So that also rotates. MR. SCHRODER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So that rotates. MR. SCHRODER-And the whole thing swings. MR. MAGOWAN-So it's basically a Noah's Arc that's round. MR. SCHRODER-You could call it that. In its operation it is actually very similar in ride experience to the pirate ship. So this just adds a rotating element to it. MR. HUNSINGER-So do they face in or face out? MR. SCHRODER-They are outward facing. If you ever visit the Washington County Fair, there are a few similar rides out there to this, if you have inward facing seats. Actually, thank you, Laura. There are a couple of other pictures on here. That's a close up showing, and I'll let Tom chime in on this in a few moments here in terms of stormwater and how we intend to deal with that on the site. This basically shows crushed stone underneath the ride, following are, or basically our intentions for the ride as well, the loading platform as well as the seats or where I'm referencing this the gondola. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How long does it take? How long are you on it? MR. SCHRODER-The cycle time is approximately two minutes, and it's basically the happy medium for most flat rides for getting that ride experience while maintaining the through put. MR. DUMAS-I think this gives you sort of a perspective about the height. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. Do you want to chime in on the stormwater or the site? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I have to say I was quite impressed with the pave drain there,the mats. MR. MACE-That's a product we're just starting to use, and it's the same thing we've proposed up on Kenny's shopping center,where the large courtyard area is, and it goes down as a mat. It interlocks nicely and it's just a quality product. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,that was, I mean,to carry the weight that it does,and,you know,like I said,if it clogs,you pick it back up, and,you know, place the stone. I mean, I was impressed with that when I actually found that good reading. MR. MACE-Good, but with that and the crushed stone underneath the ride, we're really maintaining what's there now in the way of infiltration capacity. So we felt that there was absolutely no storm impact or stormwater impact on that. MR. KREBS-And below the six inches of gravel,is that just leach into the earth? MR. MACE-Yes, I mean,the native soils that's there. MR. KREBS-Yes. Okay. MR. FORD-Again,what's the maximum capacity for riders? MR. SCHRODER-Sixteen riders per cycle. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-You'll still have long lines. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. SCHRODER-You know, that's the thing. With every new ride you go through a bit of a honeymoon phase. So of course it'll be very popular in the beginning, but it's definitely new and exciting to keep folks coming back to the Park. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do people still ride the Comet? MR. SCHRODER-Absolutely. That is one of the big premier star rides of the Park. I think partially because of ride time, partially because of its uniqueness. Going back to, oh, boy, this is a detriment to my history in rollercoasters, but I think it was '05 or '06 it was highlighted as one of the best rollercoasters in the country. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I rode it in the 50's. MR. SCHRODER-Over at Crystal Beach? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Crystal Beach. MR. SCHRODER-I certainly wish I could have experienced it there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It was great. MR. SCHRODER-I'm sure,and it still is a wonderful ride. People love it to death. You run into guests all the time that,you know,try to set their own records for riding it 11, 12 times on a cold rainy day of some sort or whatever. So if that's what floats their boat, then by all means whatever makes them happy. MR. MAGOWAN-You did a lot of extensive repair on it this spring,too. MR. SCHRODER-Yes, I'm trying to remember if it was this spring or last spring that we did some substantial track repair on it. It's kind of the nature of the beast for all wooden coasters that in time wood,regardless of how well it's made or pressure treated or whatever,it does need to be replaced. Those road wheels that ride on the steel it definitely beats up the track pretty well. So it is walked every morning by our maintenance staff. Every last inch of track gets inspected. So if you hear the horn going on, I know you're actually, if I'm not mistaken, a neighbor right next door, you hear the lift starting up late. Unfortunately we have identified a track issue that we want to address before we opened it,but it's the nature of the beast with a wooden coaster. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said,it's a happy noise to me. MR. KREBS-Somebody's got to wake him up. MR. MAGOWAN-I do appreciate you changing that music. That's the only complaint I have. MR. SCHRODER-Didn't actually make it out to the Park this year to verify it myself that we had changed the playlist,but our IT people promised me that they would. MR. MAGOWAN-But it's every third day now, all right. So that's not bad. So maybe we can get a seven day routine. MR. SCHRODER-Well, that's good. It used to be, what, every third hour we'd play, what is it Beyonce Halo or whichever it was. I can assure you our Park President at the time, he would have arguments in his office how we need to stop playing that song because when he did a round in the Park,he would become irritated by it. MR. MAGOWAN-It was awful. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Just that you had, one of our previous hearings we had one of the lawyers from Albany come in and say his granddaughter really wants to approve this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-So you've already got one vote coming up. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. DEEB-So if that's part of the public hearing,that's okay. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. If there's no other questions or comments from the Board,we do have a public hearing. Did anyone in the audience,did you want to address the Board? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-Hi, how are you. Lorraine Stein. I live on 86 Ash Drive. I don't really have a problem with the ride per se. I just have some questions. As you are aware, I believe most of the Town Board,or the Planning Board is aware that our neighborhood's had some noise issues,and of course they're ongoing and, you know, I do believe the sound studies also have shown that the noise is increasing. So one of my questions is they did address the fact that the, I think they said that the equipment itself was not going to generate any additional noise, though there was nothing substantive in their submission to verify that or not,but my question is are they going to be adding any speakers, you know, any other types of music or announcements or, you know, anything attached to the ride,you know, megaphones, etc. Because those also contribute to the noise that we hear. So I was just curious about that,because they didn't seem to address anything that was going to be necessarily on the ride itself or around the line, you know, what they were going to do with the people while they're walking into the ride itself,and then I was a little unclear about the lighting waiver. Could you explain that to me, because I didn't understand what they were asking about that? Because it said that they had down lighting, but the pictures don't look like they're down lighting. So I wasn't sure what the waiver was for. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they have requested a lighting waiver, but the cut sheets provided, they are down lit. MS. STEIN-They're the down lighting that is on,within Town Code or what not,within the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So you understand on that,actually the light is up inside the dome. MS. STEIN-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So it reflects the light down that way. That's how they,but they're giving the effect as a regular lamppost where it looks like, you know, but like I said, with the light being up in the dome,it does shine down. MS. STEIN-Okay. I just wasn't clear because I wasn't that familiar with those types of lights that they had listed there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they can put cut offs on almost any style of light now, I mean, as more and more communities adopt similar kind of lighting plans. MS. STEIN-Well, I just wanted to make sure just because I didn't want something to be,you know, I didn't want a precedent being started here where you're not going to be allowing, or where you were going to require the down lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. STEIN-So as long as that's fine, then I don't have a problem with that either. So anyway, those are the comments that I wanted to make, and I just would like those other, those questions addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we'll ask them about the noise. Yes. Thank you. MS. STEIN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have comments to make? You're a reporter,though,right? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) AUDIENCE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,she'll have them,but they'll be in tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could comment on the noise questions. MR. DUMAS-Yes. The new ride is an updated, really, of the old ride. It's designed to operate quieter in terms of the gears and the motors. The older ride had some hydraulics and some outdated equipment that would generate more noise. So this is intended to be neutral or a diminution in operational noise. In terms of PA announcements for safety purposes, there has to be a PA system in the event something were to happen during the ride, but it's not intended to have music or anything of that nature that goes with it. Correct? MR. SCHRODER-Correct. MR. DUMAS-Okay. In terms of operational noise of the Park,based upon comments from neighbors, particularly from the Ash Drive neighborhood, the Park made a concerted, concerted effort to be proactive about their operational noise this year, and I'm pleased to say that,you know,based upon those efforts that were made, and due in no small part to Ray, there were no reported complaints from operational noise. There were a couple of complaints that were received in relation to the fireworks display around the 4th of July and into August, but nothing by way of operational noise, which is good. So,that's what we have to say about the noise issue. MR. FORD-Do we have a decibel level comparison between the previous ride and this proposed ride? MR. DUMAS-No. There's no empirical data to offer, but the sound studies that are conducted on an annual basis indicate that operationally the Park is within the thresholds established by the GEIS from 2001, as amended and updated. MR. DEEB-Do you feel the Comet's noise is going to override this anyway. MR. DUMAS-It probably would,just by its very nature. This is interior, and it's,you know, it's not at the edge of the Park. It's really,if anything,a diminution. MR. MAGOWAN-But it is run by hydraulics,isn't it? MR. SCHRODER-This actual new ride is not. It relies on DC motors,which directly drive gear boxes that then cause the rotation and the swinging of the ride. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a DC motor. So that's even quieter than the hydraulics. MR. DUMAS-Just by its very nature. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. DUMAS-It's really sort of a self-mitigating project. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean, like I said, I saw it, and I was actually thinking I'd have more banging on my door from the neighborhood, but after reading it and seeing the ride, you know, I figured it was kind of like the Noah's Arc, or what was the other, Noah's Arc was one and then it went to a pirate ship. MR. SCHRODER-We had the pirate ship which of course is still there now currently standing, and then there was a Noah's Arc that we had. You might recall it from, boy, we pulled that out two, three years ago, very small little ride, same style swing that it had, but it was really intended for small children. As a matter of fact, I actually believe, if I'm not mistaken, it had a maximum height restriction on it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I want to say I worked there I think in '78 or '79. I was a ride operator so I was all over the place. MR. SCHRODER-It's likely we had something then. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-I always got stuck on Danny the Dragon,though. Danny the Dragon there that used to be out on Route 9. MR. SCHRODER-We still have that thing. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you really? MR. SCHRODER-Believe it or not we do. MR. HUNSINGER-You can come back and run it if you want. Any other questions or comments? And I do remember we reviewed the annual report in the fall,when was that. MRS.MOORE-I don't know. I just received one recently. MR. HUNSINGER-Or maybe I'm thinking of the last ride that we reviewed, we reviewed the annual Findings statement. Any final questions or comments? Are people satisfied with the noise discussion? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a Type II SEQR, or, I'm sorry, it's under the previous EIS, and the applicant has demonstrated and even the Staff comments that the proposal is within the Final GEIS. So we'll reference that in the resolution. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-If not, I will again. Thank you. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 6-2014 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a new ride "Extreme Super Nova". Project to be located near Comet Roller Coaster. Site development will disturb 0.15 acres and include landscaping, permeable pavers and ride infrastructure installation. New rides in the RC zone require Planning Board review and approval. Previous EIS; Public hearing was advertised and held on 1-21-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 6-2014 GREAT ESCAPE - EXTREME SUPER NOVA, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: 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) Waiver requests granted: stormwater management,&lighting plans. 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) 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) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7) 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. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/21/2014) Duly adopted this 21st day of January 2014 by the following vote: MR. MACE-There was no engineering review of this one. MRS.MOORE-Correct.Under discussion I was going to mention that you should strike that. MR. KREBS-Okay. It was in the draft. We have eliminated the engineering signoff requirement. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. SCHRODER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business that needs to be brought before the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-See you next Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to make a motion? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2014, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 21St day of January, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. See you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 37