The URL can be used to link to this page

01-28-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28,2014 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2013 Dodge Watkins &Larry Clute 1. MOD TO SB 13-1972 Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54, 55 Subdivision No. 8-2012 Cerrone Builders, Inc. 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.14-1-21, 22, 25 Site Plan No. 3-2014 1 Main Street Queensbury, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-17 Site Plan No.4-2014 Garner Lake Properties, LLC 21. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 Site Plan No. 5-2014 Paul&Terri Schuerlein 26. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-1, 3 Site Plan No. 8-2014 William&Pamela Roberts 30. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64 DISCUSSION ITEM Northway Plaza- RCG Ventures 32. 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 01/28/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB THOMAS FORD GEORGE FERONE,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Many of the items have public hearings scheduled tonight,and with that,we'll jump right into Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2013 MODIFICATION TO SB 13-1972 SEQR TYPE II DODGE WATKINS & LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S) MATT STEVES ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE, 5 TWICWOOD LANE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE & 5 TWICWOOD LANE. ACCESS WILL BE BY TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS - ONE EXISTING AND ONE PROPOSED. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE A V 64 & 65-13, BP 12-201, BP 08- 438 LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRES AND 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-54, 55 SECTION CHAPTER A 183 MRS. MOORE-This application was tabled at the Zoning Board, and I would suggest the Planning Board do the same. Tabling it to the March meetings with a February deadline of submission for information. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here for the public hearing for that project? The public hearing was held open until this evening and we will hold it open again to the tabled meeting date. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Probably would make sense to table it to the second March meeting,the 25th. MRS.MOORE-That's fine. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So if anyone would like to make that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING MOD TO SUB # 6-2013 DODGE WATKINS&LARRY CLUTE A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes relocation of the common property line between 3 Maplewood Drive & 5 Twicwood Lane. Access will be by two separate driveways - one existing and one proposed. Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 12-19-2013; the ZBA TABLED the variance requests on 1-22-2014; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1-28-2014 and left open; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2013 DODGE WATKINS & LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: To the March 25, 2014 meeting with a February deadline for submission. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE TABLED ITEMS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE TYPE I CERRONE BUILDERS AGENT(S) LITTLE & O'CONNOR, VISION ENGINEERING ZONING MDR LOCATION SWEET ROAD - NORTH SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 29 LOT CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION FOR 29 THREE BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED UTILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE, COMMON HOA LAND AND PASSIVE RECREATION. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW. PROJECT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO TOWN BOARD REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SEWER EXTENSION. CROSS REFERENCE TB RESOLUTION 210-2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NYSHPO LOT SIZE 29.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-21, 22, 25 SECTION CHAPTER A- 183 MICHAEL O'CONNOR&DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 29 lot conservation subdivision for 29 three bedroom single family dwellings. This is in reference to, at last month's meeting it was tabled for additional information and clarification. That includes dimensions to the property line for the buffer area, passive recreation description, plan details and traffic information about the intersections at Country Club Road and Route 9, and the engineering also provided a copy back to us of their comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant. With me at the table is Steven Cerrone, one of the principles of the applicant, and Anthony Cerrone is here and Johnny Cerrone, all principles in the applicant are here, and also Dan Ryan who's the engineer for the project. I think since we were last here, we did get the signoff from SHPO on the New York State Parks and Recreation. We did submit engineering amendments to the Town. They've been reviewed by VISION Engineering, or they've been reviewed by Chazen, and Dan will address those. I think we did amend the plan so that the area that was in question, which is on the northeast side of the Niagara Mohawk ownership is going to be used for passive recreation only. It's going to be a walking path. We had shown an area that would be cleared, and some of the owners to the north had concerns about that and the proximity of the cleared area to their property. So we will have a walking path, and that will be the activity that will be on there. That area still will be owned by the homeowners association, as will the area in the center and on the edge of the subdivision. They will all be owned by the homeowners association, maintained by the homeowners association. When we do the initial infrastructure, we will put in a walking path. It probably will be a gravel path with maybe wood chips on it, and then the association will maintain it on an annual basis. I've done this once before down in, I believe, in Wilton and it did seem to work. So, that's my part of response and movement on where we were last month to this month. I did notice that we didn't seem to have a name for the subdivision, and we are going to call the subdivision Sweet Briar Village, and we will have a sign near the entrance something similar to this,and I will submit that as part of the next submission to you. The street will be called Devon Court, and we've submitted those or are submitting those to Mr. Hatin to make sure that there are no conflicts, and if there are conflicts, we will amend them so that there's not a conflict with something else that's already in existence within the Town. Dan,do you want to address engineering? MR. RYAN-Yes. We did, like Mike mentioned, revise that northeastern area to take out the large clearing and will attempt to put in some walking trails that'll provide minimal impact, minimum clearing and, you know, maximizing the ultimate buffer that results from that lesser extent of disturbance. We did also provide a cover letter in this most recent submission which addressed 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) some of the traffic concerns and questions which were brought up at the last meeting. It's as scientific as it can be without a full traffic study and without actual data from car counts. What I did attempt to do is provide with a summary of what would typically be done in terms of trip generations and calculations, and then trip distribution,which is essentially where are cars going to and coming from,as a result of the impacts of the development. To kind of summarize that quickly for you because I don't know if you had time to read through it, it's a couple of pages long, I think previously we had indicated that the calculated trips would be a total of 29 trips in the peak hour. The peak hour being typically in the evening which is the highest point in travel or trips, related to people coming and going from either the destination they were at or leaving the subdivision.. The calculations,in terms of the Institute of Transportation Engineers,the distribution would be that 19 of those 19 peak hour trips would be headed towards the development and 10 would be projected to be leaving the development, in that maximum peak hour in the evening. Distribution is basically if there were 10 trips headed exiting the development, which way do they go? Do they go east on Sweet Road or west? So that's where you would start to break up those 10 trips into five and five, or seven and three, whatever the distribution would be, based on the actual traffic patterns. Considering that this development is centrally located to a lot of different things in both directions, it probably would be reasonable to assume that 50% of the traffic exiting the development would go in either direction. Likewise people returning to the development during that peak hour, it's probably reasonable to assume 50% would be coming from both directions on Country Club Road as well as Route 9. So essentially if you have five trips per hour, from either direction, heading towards the development during that peak, or half of 19 or 10 trips in the opposite direction, you know, it equates to only about one trip for every eight to twelve minutes, depending on how you break out the percentages of distribution. So I think from an overall impact,if you were to stand on Sweet Road, there's a perception that there's a rather large amount or significant amount of traffic, but in terms of the impacts this development would have specifically, it would equate to about one car every eight minutes, which, if you were standing there, would not increase any kind of level of service or provide a negative impact to the point where you'd require a traffic light or something else. There already is mitigation on Route 9. There is a traffic light there. So unless that's already perceiving long waits and delays,this one car per eight minutes,is certainly not going to impact that either. So that's kind of a short summary of the couple of pages of description we provided. It's obviously more detailed and more perfected in here, but I'd be happy to re-visit that and answer any questions specific to traffic. The only other issue I want to discuss briefly is Chazen did provide a review of the stormwater design. They had a couple of pages of comments. We could either go through them. I didn't want to provide you a response memo this evening,but I certainly would be happy to answer any concerns you have related to those comments. Most of the comments are,you know, discrepancies between some of the numbers on, in the notice of intent or in the report, all minor issues. There's a couple of areas they want some maps clarified. Again, we'd be happy to make, address all of those concerns without any trouble, and certainly any of the comments that have been provided don't require any significant modification at all to the design as it's presented. So it wouldn't change the overall subdivision at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. RYAN-No,that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. O'Connor,anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I think that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready for questions? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.TRAVER-The letter,this three page letter that we've received tonight that's dated January 22nd when did the Town office get this, Planning Office? MR. RYAN-I don't know. MRS. MOORE-It was about the same time, and then I, shortly after that I e-mailed it to all the Board members. MR.TRAVER-Okay. I just missed the e-mail,then. MRS.MOORE-Okay. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR.TRAVER-Sorry. MR. RYAN-Yes, I believe I e-mailed it and then the next morning delivered it. MR. FORD-That's where I read it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The other question I had is where do we stand with the sewer district extension? MR. O'CONNOR-We are in the process of making the application to the Town. It's a little bit of the chicken and the egg, and I talked today, I talked,yesterday,to Laura. I talked today to Craig Brown. We would like to do this simultaneously. We are hopeful that tonight you will be able to go through SEQR, and if you are satisfied with SEQR, we're hopeful that you will then go through Preliminary approval and as part of the conditions of your Preliminary approval, condition it upon us obtaining Town Board approval for the sewer district extension, and then we will go to that, and we will, we believe that we probably can get that done by the end of March. We have to have two Board meetings. We did go to them on May 5, 2012,when they signed off on SEQR, and they consented to this Board being the SEQR agent, Lead Agent, and we did have a discussion at that point, and they seemed to be pleased with what we were presenting. They didn't have a problem with capacity. I don't anticipate any problems with getting their approval once they approve,well, I guess the sewer department has already approved the engineering of the map plan and report. I'm not 100% sure at this point whether or not the Town Attorney has approved all the format that we have submitted, but that's, we think it's going to be coming very shortly. So I don't anticipate any problems, and if you looked at the comments that were made by members of the Board, in that May meeting, they seemed to be satisfied with that. So we are working on that, and we want to work on it simultaneously. I say, it's not inconceivable, and I don't think Staff has a problem, Craig did not have a problem with you conditioning your approval. I'm not sure if he would have a problem here conditioning your Final approval in the same manner, if for some reason we don't get this by the time we get back to you with the Final application, but he seemed to be comfortable with the fact that we could do this as a condition of approval for your Preliminary. MR. TRAVER-Well, it's interesting, the reason I brought it up, and you mentioned that Staff didn't have a problem, but in the Staff comments, and I'm just reading here, it says applicant needs to complete the Town Board review process to address the sewer district extension before the Planning Board can approve Preliminary stage. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I read that, and that's when I started making my phone calls. I said, wait a minute, last time around we weren't doing that. Why did, all of a sudden, we switch mid-stream, and I spoke with Laura first and then I spoke with Craig. I don't mean to speak for other people but I don't know if Craig spoke to you after he spoke you. MRS. MOORE-He explained that one of the opportunities for the Board to review, if they chose to, was Preliminary with condition. So that is up to the Board. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Upon your SEQR,once you complete your SEQR review. MR.TRAVER-Right. Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-And the Town Board wouldn't go forward with the map plan and report for the sewer extension until we have your SEQR. MR.TRAVE R-Right,right. I understand that. Sure. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from Board members? MR. FORD-Yes. The vegetation to be left in this area where the walking paths will be, is that going to be kept intact except for the walking paths themselves? MR. RYAN-Yes. What I did on the most recent map was try to give some criteria on how that'll be accomplished. It is basically intended to leave all mature trees and meander through the woods without removing them. Obviously, depending on actual grades and how we traverse through the forest there, will dictate that to some degree, but the goal would be, and our objective would be, to minimize clearing,keep the trail as natural as possible, and basically only disturb and remove what 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) you have to. Obviously that reduces cost to construct as well. So there's a benefit to the builder to do that as well. MR. FORD-I have another question relative to the lack of a traffic study or the need for one,how do you come up with the 50/50 break for peak flow levels for traffic, that half are going to go toward Route 9 and the other toward Country Club Road? MR. RYAN-That is an assumption, in this particular instance. Normally during a traffic study the actual traffic patterns dictate where, predominantly, the traffic distributes, where it goes to and where it comes from. You would mimic those distribution patterns from the data you'd collect in the field and apply that to your actual trip generation from your project. MR. FORD-Have you done that? MR. RYAN-We have not done car counts or done a traffic study. MR. FORD-No, I understand you haven't done a traffic study, but you don't have any preliminary figures on traffic going east bound or west bound? MR. RYAN-On Sweet Road I do not. So, my analysis that I presented in the narrative here actually assumes a worser case scenario than we discussed here, which was 50/50. I assumed 75% of the traffic went one way, which is probably unlikely, but it would be extreme, if everybody leaving the development, 75% of them, went to Route 9 or 75% of them went to Country Club. I provided the data and analysis based on that. That's where the one car per eight minutes is derived from. So in actuality,if it was a lesser distribution and 75%of the vehicles or trips did not go in one direction,it would be more like one car every twelve minutes. So, I guess the traffic study could predict a different number. Is it likely that Route 9 receives 75% or more? Even if it received 100% of the cars, it would only be one car every five or six minutes. If we assumed 100% of the cars went both directions all the time, that's one car every five or six minutes. So, that's worst case scenario, obviously. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you're worried about the traffic,you ought to take a ride to New Jersey. MR. FORD-We're not in New Jersey. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments? I just, I had a couple, well, really I guess one follow up question on the traffic. You said that you didn't have any traffic counts for Sweet Road. Was there any available traffic counts for any of the other roads,like Country Club Road or? MR. RYAN-I checked the records at Warren County Highway Department. They had nothing for Country Club, or it's a County highway, and Route 9, I was under the assumption that that was studied for either Wal-Mart or maybe the steakhouse. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. MR. RYAN-But I wasn't able to obtain those records either, and I checked the Glens Falls Transportation Council and they didn't have any studies. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,and then I had a question on the,we've been calling it the recreation area all along, so I'm not sure what else to call it, other than the recreation area, but in the engineering comment letter, he referred to it as the conservation of natural areas, and basically goes on to say that you can't qualify as a conservation subdivision because you didn't have enough contiguous square footage of space that was going to be left. So is that part of the reason for the walking path versus some clearing? MR. RYAN-No, I mean, I think the specific comment, there's a couple of calculations within the stormwater design that account for a couple of the other smaller disconnected areas that are preserved, and that's specifically what he's related to in terms of contiguous, I think it was a 10,000 square feet or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So he was referring more to the. MR. RYAN-A couple of the segmented or fragmented areas. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-I've already done, expecting that that potentially could come to light, in terms of the comments, I already analyzed that originally. It's not really necessary,but it is preserved space. So I'll address the comment obviously and correct the numbers,if that's what they desire. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the audience to provide comment to the Board. We do tape the meeting. So I would ask anyone who addresses the Board to speak clearly into the microphone. I would ask, also,that you identify yourself for the record. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes, and the tape is also available on the Town website. So that's why it's so important that we get everything captured. Good evening. GERALDINE WELCHER MS.WELCHER-Geraldine Welcher,92 Sweet Road. What else do you need? MR. HUNSINGER-That's it,just your comments. MS. WELCHER-Okay. I am just hereto say I'm a little concerned. I don't know how he came up with these traffic numbers. Twenty-nine units, most people have two cars. So the way I look at it, maybe 50 cars will be coming and going. So I do question traffic, and also the buffer zone between Sweet Road and the property. I don't know too much about the whole development yet, but I am concerned, and I live right across the street, and I think the main entrance is going to be kind of near my house. So that is a big concern,going out of my driveway onto Sweet Road,which is, right now not very easy. I mean, I usually back and go out forward. I can't back out onto Sweet Road. I think I know you all go up and down it. You know it's a very fast road. It's no longer 35 miles an hour. Most people go 40, 55 miles an hour. We do have a lot of students going on with the buses going back and forth. So I would like you to take that into consideration. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS.WELCHER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No one else? Okay. Do you have any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I do have two written comments. I have one that's dated January 28, 2014, addressed to Mr. Krebs. "We are opposed to the Cerrone Builders, Inc. development on the north side of Sweet Road for the following reasons: • The increase in vehicle traffic will make it even more difficult than it is now to exit our driveway. The visibility of the vehicles coming up Sweet Road is poor due to the incline and to the slight curve in the road. The speed limit is posted at 35 but very few vehicles travel slower than 55 on this road. • We feel that the exit time from Sweet Road will dramatically increase due to this increase in traffic, not only at the top of the road, but also at the bottom. We feel the increase in traffic will also cause more accidents at the bottom on the road. • There will no doubt be a negative effect on the wildlife that live in and around Sweet Road. The animals that we see and enjoy are deer, rabbits, squirrels, and much more. • We are also concerned about the safety of people walking and biking on the road,as there are no sidewalks. We have seen an increase over the last few years of walkers and runners as well as families riding bikes to enter the bike trail at the end of the road. Sincerely, Joseph S. Congel Sandra K. Congel" Next later is dated December 29th. It's addressed to Brian Clements in Ward 2. "Dear Mr. Clements: During the hearing regarding Cerrone Builders' application for a subdivision of 29 units on the north side of Sweet Road at the planning meeting of December 19, much discussion ensued about the increased traffic on Sweet Road caused by the proposed subdivision. I understand you are the person I should address about having a sidewalk put in on the road if the subdivision is approved. In the nine years I have lived on Sweet Road, both the foot and bicycle traffic have increased significantly, as well as the motor traffic. I walk and bike on the road regularly and often meet other walkers, bikers, and runners; we are all at risk from the traffic on the road. The Cerrone Builders' contention is that their development will not result in much increased traffic, as they assert that mainly retirees will buy the houses, attracted by a "maintenance-free option". They also claim that retirees will not drive during morning and evening rush hours and thus will have little impact on traffic. They assume that even the four-bedroom homes will be bought by 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) retirees,who will keep two bedrooms vacant for visiting grown children. Cerrone Builders offered no concrete data for their assertion that mainly retirees will buy these homes. Most retirees I know who buy new homes are downsizing, not buying homes with rooms to keep vacant for an occasional visit (rooms that must also be maintained, as I expect the "maintenance-free option" applies only to the exterior of the property). Further, all retired couples I know have at least two automobiles, and none are bound by someone else's ideas of when they will or should drive. Contrary to the Cerrone Builders' assumption, traffic is not necessarily heaviest at rush hour on Sweet Road. On Tuesday, December 17, at 2 p.m. I walked about 4/10 of a mile from Montray Road to my home and counted 24 cars and a truck driving west toward me on the road. I also assume that, given the fine reputation of Queensbury schools, families with school-age children will be interested in these homes. Cerrone Builders assumes that this development will have little impact on Sweet road. However, in addition, to increased traffic, we will surely be subject to increased light pollution (as Cerrone is planning "interior lighting' on the plot), and given that many trees in the area are deciduous, it's not certain that the planned "buffer"will hide all these buildings. Many residents of the area also raised the issue of the environmental impact of 29 new homes. It does seem reasonable, in these circumstances, if the development is approved, to ask that a sidewalk be built on the north side of Sweet Road, and to ask that Cerrone Builders contribute substantially to the cost and upkeep of the sidewalk, as a small mitigation of the impact of the development. As other residents are also concerned, could you let us know what the next best steps would be. I appreciate your help. Sincerely,Jane Arnold" And it was cc'd to John Strough. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that it? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We talked about sidewalks. I'm a big fan of sidewalks,too,but if you look at the drawing, you'll see why they can't put a sidewalk in there because their property only occupies a small area on that road. It would be a sidewalk to nowhere on either side. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And it's just not practical to do that. Plus you'd lose some of your green covering. So it hides the development. MR. FORD-The only way to make it practical is to run it the full length of Sweet Road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,and you'd have to get somebody else to help you pay for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Either that or narrow the road and stripe off the sidewalk on one side. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What they really need up there, I go down that road almost every day. They need speed enforcement up there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're right. People go up and down that road at 50 miles an hour, and it's posted for 35. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,it's a straight run,you know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know. MR. HUNSINGER-And it's a wide road. MR. MAGOWAN-And it's a wide road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And it's downhill. MR. RYAN-I think the benefit of the project, though, is that it's not through traffic. It's people that are destined for somewhere in the middle. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. RYAN-If they're heading down Sweet Road towards the development, they're not going to get 55 miles an hour and then come to a screeching halt to turn into the subdivision. So, if anything, you do have the added benefit that people that live in the neighborhood tend to respect it a little bit more,but it certainly won't control what other people and existing traffic's doing. MR. MAGOWAN-I think a lot of people use it for a cut through. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-You know, they're cutting out that corner so they don't have to go up to Route 9, and then come across. Because I live off of Birdsall here off of,you know, Round Pond Road there, and I come up, home every, you know, and I see the cars. I'm always stopping for the people turning up Sweet Road. I'm saying to myself, boy, there can't be that many people that live up there, but then when I go to my folks, that's the way I go up that way. So I can see the concern on traffic. MR. FORD-And without further enforcement, people slowing to go into this complex or accelerating out of it provides an additional traffic dilemma and hazard beyond just driving up and down Sweet Road. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you create what you call in the traffic some gap scenarios,because as people are slowing, putting on directionals and what not,they force those that are going to be behind them to do the same. I mean, Country Club Road is no different. Country Club Road has very narrow lots. The speed on Country Club Road is probably faster than the speed on Sweet Road. MR. MAG OWAN-Forty-five. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it is 45. MR. O'CONNOR-And we're fortunate. Most people pay good attention to people that are turning off of that road. I go up and down that very often, but the traffic that's going to be in this subdivision or generated by this subdivision is very minor. I think your first analysis or first comment is probably enforcement of existing traffic is probably a good part of the solution and something that can be taken care of. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Were there any comments from Board members about the layout or any of the other aspects of the subdivision? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Other than what we've already commented on the last time it was in front of us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Members comfortable moving forward with the SEQR review? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I think this will be the,well,they submitted the old forms,right? MRS.MOORE-No,they have the long form new one. MR. HUNSINGER-This will be the first long form review, I think,with the new forms. MRS.MOORE-I have a copy,laminated,of the Long Form. Do you want that? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have it? I have it, well, it's inhere. It starts on Page 9. So is the expectation, Laura, that we would go through each question as we would with the old Long Form questions. MRS. MOORE-If it prompts you. You don't necessarily have to complete all of the questions. You complete the first portion of the question,and move on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. Okay, Mr.Acting Secretary. MR. MAGOWAN-That means we don't have to go through A through H if we get a no,right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And if you remember when we had the training, a lot of the questions aren't worded very well. MRS.MOORE-Correct. Treat it as a question. MR. HUNSINGER-Treat it as question. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Does the proposed action may involve construction on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site. Am I wrong? MRS. MOORE-It's Question Number One. It would say impact on land, and the question is, the proposed action may involve construction on or physical alteration of the land surface. MR. MAGOWAN-Did I read it right or? MRS.MOORE-You did. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think you can just ask,will there be an impact on land. How's that? Make it quick and easier. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Will it have an impact on the land? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,typically with this question we answer that it will be a small impact that's mitigated by the project review. So is that the kind of answer that we would still? MRS.MOORE-Yes,you can say that under"Other". MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,under"Other". MRS.MOORE-So your comment is it will be mitigated by the proposal as presented? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So we go to two. MR. HUNSINGER-Two. MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be an impact on the geological features? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-Wouldn't that be small? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you look at the type of examples they're looking for, you know, one of them is a specific land form. I think they're looking for an unusual land form, cliff, fossil, caves, etc., national natural landmarks. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think it's any of those. So I think we're okay with a no. MR. FORD-Good. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Will the impacts be on surface water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be any impacts on groundwater? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Impacts on any flooding? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Impacts on air. MR. FORD-Excuse me. This being the first time through this, on groundwater, I would think there would be a small to moderate impact,based upon the number of homes and the roadway, etc. MR.TRAVER-Well,to meet the engineering requirements,it has to be managed on the site. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you read into it, the proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand don supplies from existing water supply wells. MR. HUNSINGER-And this is Town water. So that wouldn't apply. MR. MAGOWAN-Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. MR. HUNSINGER-No,we have millions of excess gallons a day capacity. MR. MAGOWAN-Proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. MAGOWAN-The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is,or is suspected to be,contaminated. MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-And the proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Then I say impact on groundwater is a. MR. HUNSINGER-No. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. FORD-No. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-No worries. Okay. Impact on flooding? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Impact on air? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be any impact on plants and animals? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-There shouldn't be. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we did hear that there are some wildlife in there. Push the deer more up toward the golf course. MR.TRAVER-Right,but I don't think that's the intent of the (lost word). MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,if you look at these examples, none of them apply. MR. MAGOWAN-Is there any rare or threatened or endangered species? No. MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-So,no impact on plants and animals? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-Nothing that rise to the level of environmental concern. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Will there be any impact on archeological resources? MR. HUNSINGER-Agricultural. MR. MAGOWAN-Agricultural. All right. So we have a no on Number Eight? MR. DEEB-No on Number Eight. MR. HUNSINGER-There's no farming going on. MR. MAGOWAN-Any impact on aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Any impact on historic or,there it is,archeological resources? MR. DEEB-No. MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVE R-Paleontological. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Good, I don't have to say that one. Will there be any impact on open space and recreation? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Any impact on Critical Environmental Areas? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be any impact on transportation? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be any impact on energy? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be any impact on noise,odor or light? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be any impact on human health? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Will there be any consistency with any community plans? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. FORD-Is it consistent with community plans. MR. MAGOWAN-Is it consistent. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The answer is yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You're right. Will it be consistent with community character? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So now you can make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SUB # 8-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. The applicant proposes a 29 lot conservation subdivision for 29 three bedroom single family dwellings along with associated utilities & infrastructure, common HOA land and passive recreation. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency status and conduct SEQR review. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION B-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford; As per the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 2014 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any discussion? MRS.MOORE-Yes, I do have a discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-You had on, Question Number 13 was Impact on Transportation. I heard some of the Board members say we should go through it, but your consensus move to answer that question is no,and I just want to confirm that that's okay. That was Question 13, Impact on Transportation. MR. MAGOWAN-Would you like to go through it? MR. FORD-I see no reason not to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Let's go through it. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have it right there, Number 13? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Okay. Back to Number 13, will there be an impact on transportation. The projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Does the proposed action result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Does the proposed action degrade existing transit access? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Does the proposed action degrade existing pedestrian and bicycle accommodations? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Does the proposed action alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Is there any other impacts you can think of? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So Number 13 is a no. MRS.MOORE-And on the second item,prepared on the draft resolution as prepared by Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-For a Negative Declaration. MR. HUNSINGER-We did have a Negative Declaration resolution. MR. FORD-We didn't vote on it,though. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and Laura just wants to make sure that everyone's clear that it's in conformance,that the motion is consistent with the draft resolution that was drafted,prepared. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? Call the vote,please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-What is the Board's comfort level with considering a Preliminary approval? Are there any outstanding concerns that could not be addressed in Final? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think so,not if that's what the Staff suggested. MRS.MOORE-It's not necessarily what I'm suggesting. That decision is up to you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know the decision's up to us. I just want to (lost words). MR. TRAVER-I think if we condition, I mean, the issue was the sewer district extension. I think if we condition moving forward beyond Preliminary on that being finalized we should be okay. I mean,without Final he's not going anywhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other outstanding questions beyond the engineering comments that Board members have? We haven't talked in a while about the waiver from the road length. I don't know if there's any outstanding issues on that,for example. MR.TRAVER-Yes,and if I recall we considered the alternative,it was worse. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So I think that we felt that the road length, although not ideal, was the only practical way to manage this subdivision. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I'm comfortable with it. I'm usually one of the first people to say I don't like the, you know, 1,000 foot dead end roads, but I don't really see this as being a dead end road because it's a circle. MR.TRAVER-Right,it's a cul de sac. MR. HUNSINGER-And then you have the boulevard entrance. So,worst case scenario,you still have two ways in or out from any point in the property. MR.TRAVER-Yes,as the municipal services are happy. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And they are. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just picking that up as an example. There were a couple of other Staff comments,just to make sure people are comfortable with everything. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We did request a waiver on sidewalks and we requested an approval of the setbacks that were set forth in the Staff memo. MRS. MOORE-That's the last sentence. The Board may consider the applicant's proposed conservation subdivision of 29 lots, requests for modifications for the road length, sidewalk as well as lot size,width,and setbacks. So you could add that into the draft resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-The second page,the last sentence. The Board may consider... MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So really the only additional condition would be the sewer extension. MRS. MOORE-So I would see Number Three as you're modifications being granted for those items, and then Number Four being your condition of the Map Plan and Report being accepted by the Town Board or however that's worded. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So the Number One condition is. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,it's already in the resolution, if you look at the draft resolution, One,Two. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-She's suggesting Three would be the modifications are granted, and then Four would be approval for the map plan and report for the sewer extension. MR. O'CONNOR-The language on that, Mr. Hunsinger, would be the acceptance by the Town Board about the map plan and report,acceptance and approval. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say the Final approval,but accepted. MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to have it, if you can, an acceptance and approval by the Town Board. I believe there's also,then, a publication period that goes to DEC that takes a little bit of time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's right. Yes. You have to get State approval. MR. O'CONNOR-So I think the intent is we get the Town approval of it and other permits will follow as they come,but they may be a little bit, I think it's realistic that it might get the Town approval by the end of March. As I said they need to have two meetings, one for public hearing, one to set the public hearing and then one for their approval action. MR. TRAVER-I think in the Staff comments it talks about the completion of the Town Board review. So if we make it completed review and approval. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no problem with that. 1s (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR.TRAVER-That should do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready? MR. MAGOWAN-I hope so. MR. HUNSINGER-You'll find out in a minute,right? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I forgot to close the public hearing. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Now you can make your resolution. Sorry. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 8-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 29 lot conservation subdivision for 29 three bedroom single family dwellings along with associated utilities & infrastructure, common HOA land and passive recreation. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review. Project is also subject to Town Board review for proposed sewer extension. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12-19-13, 1-28-14; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION B-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: 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 requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3. Granting modification request for road length, no sidewalks, modification to lot size, lot width, and setbacks; 4. Condition the applicant completes and receives approval from the Town Board for the sewer district extension. Duly adopted this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-With the sidewalks, it should be,you're granting a waiver for the applicant to provide no sidewalks. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,we're granting the modifications. MRS.MOORE-Right. So I just want to make sure that it says no sidewalks. MR. MAGOWAN-Grant the modifications. MRS.MOORE-Okay. I know I said the word sidewalks,but I didn't put the word no sidewalks. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other discussion,other than that clarification? MR. FORD-Could I have that clarification, please on the sewer district. Could I hear that again, please? MR. MAGOWAN-That it will be approved, that the sewer district will be completed, a completed review and approved. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-By the Town Board. I think when you made the motion you need to specify the Town Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,the Town Board. I did say that. MR. FORD-Right. That's what I thought. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions,clarifications? Call the vote,please. AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So we'll see you after you visit with the Town Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I thank you all for bearing with me on this. I usually practice in front of the mirror before I come,but I didn't know I'd be here tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-We probably won't be back until April. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. We have several items under Old Business requiring a public hearing. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING: 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. 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 JON LAPPER&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the re-use and alteration of an existing building and for site specific uses that include food service, gallery, health related facility, office noted as small and personal service. The project is restricted to these proposed uses and the parking area of no more than five parking spaces. The Board may consider the waivers requested from lighting,stormwater,two foot contours and landscaping. The Board may request clarification or a condition such as certification that the stormwater is adequate, with lighting and landscaping being compliant with Main Street standards,as the site includes proposed changes. The Board may request clarification for the following items: purpose or use of the basement, site or building landscaping. The Board may consider a condition to the specific uses listed that any new uses triggering site plan review, as well as any site and/or building exterior alterations, as well as a requirement to meet the grease trap requirement for food use operations according to the Wastewater Department. The Board may request clarification for pedestrian/vehicular connections between the adjoining parking lots,properties and establishments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Curt Dybas. After we were here last week and received your recommendation, we did get the variances unanimously approved by the Zoning Board, which we're happy about, and just as you guys, they were very pleased with the design, with Curt's design for the building as a necessary upgrade for that house that's just inappropriately been sitting there deteriorating for all these years. So we're not trying to do too much with the site, obviously, just to totally re-clad the building and make it look nice, but also 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) extending the parking lot, paving the parking lot, adding the walk and of course the handicap ramp. So pretty simple,but we're here to discuss anything that you'd like us to talk about. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I will admit, I drove by a couple of times over the last week just to,and stopped and took out the paper and imagined, you know, I think it would be nice on that corner and start off Main Street with a new fresh look there. MR. LAPPER-It's kind of an important corner, visually, because it's where the City starts and the Town starts. So to have that thing sitting there,not good. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the timing on it? MR. LAPPER-He'd like to just immediately get started next week. Get it not vacant. MR. FORD-This may have been asked before, but could we get clarification on the use of the basement? MR. LAPPER-That's just for storage. MR. DYBAS-It's probably a 1920's building. It has, you know, basically it's a basement, you know, mechanical, that's it, and there's, access is by way of a Bilco. That's in back by the parking lot. There's no interior space. MR. FORD-I saw that. There's nothing on the interior. MR. DYBAS-No,there's no interior stair. It's strictly a basement,period. MR. FORD-So it's going to be used exclusively for mechanicals? MR. DYBAS-Mechanicals. MR. LAPPER-And maybe some storage. MR. DYBAS-Some storage, but, again, we have, it's a damp location. I mean, I don't think anyone would want to store anything of any value down there. MR. FORD-Is that damp with a"p"? MR. DYBAS-Damp with a"p". MR. FORD-Okay,damp. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's going to put a sump pump down there. MR.TRAVER-I think because of the location and the visual impact that the idea which is mentioned in Staff comments of having a site plan review should the use be changed would be appropriate. MR. LAPPER-Right now it's residential. So what we put down were all the permitted uses, and based upon that square foot, we calculated what the parking would be, but he's basically going to put up a for rent sign,because no one's going to do it in the present condition, and,you know, most likely it would be an office or a small commercial shop, some kind of a service business,but the goal was just to get this done so that the site plan is approved and he can get somebody in there,just in terms of if somebody's interested in leasing it, not have to,you know, apply and take a few months to come before the Board. So I would say that if it was something that required more parking,you know,any change on the site plan,that would be fair to say come back in and talk to you guys again, but based upon what's contemplated,just a few, the small square footage of the building, and what we provided for, there's not that much you could really do in there, if that's fair, but just to be able to do the work and get a tenant in there that's his goal. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you're offering if there's any kind of design change or physical alteration to the site or whatever. MR. LAPPER-Yes,or if the parking requirement changes and we need more spaces. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR.TRAVER-I could see that. MR. HUNSINGER-Along those same lines, could you comment on the lighting and landscaping, specifically? That was one of the Staff comments as well. MR. DYBAS-Obviously we'll need something on the building to illuminate the parking lot or some down lighting in the parking lot, but right now I had no specific plan for that, as how we will do it, but we will need something on site,but there's a lot of spillage coming over, CVS. MR. HUNSINGER-Well that's what I was going to suggest. I drove by there, it wasn't quite dark yet, though, and I wonder if you even, I mean, obviously you'll want to have some sort of a light by the door,but other than that,you might not even need anything else. MR. DYBAS-You are surrounded. MR. LAPPER-It's so light there with the CVS parking lot which is right on the border. MR. HUNSINGER-And you've got street lights,too. MR. LAPPER-Yes,the goosenecks. Yes, I think just something on the front is all,just a carriage light at this point, and in terms of landscaping, I mean, there's room for some foundation plants which are necessary and we'll certainly stipulate to that,but beyond that,there's just not much room. The back is really a drainage basin. So it will just stay grass. MR. FORD-Any lighting added,then,would be Code compliant. MR. LAPPER-That's fine. MR. FORD-We're good. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get that, any lighting will be Code compliant, exterior lighting? Any other questions or comments from the Board? Did we talk about colors at all,building colors? MR. DYBAS-It'll be earth tones,because of the stone, probably, originally we had some sketches and there was like a mauve siding with the stone bottom, and the roof right now is metal, and we'd probably change that to an asphalt. So we would stay with the earth tones. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don't see a lot of takers. Any written comments? MRS.MOORE-No,there's not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. It's a Type II SEQR so no SEQR review is required unless there's an issue that we identify, and unless there's any other questions or comments from the Board,we can consider a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 3-2014 1 MAIN STREET QUEENSBURY, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board 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. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) SEQR Type II -no further review required; The PB has provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 1-21-14; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1-22-14; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/28/2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 3-2014 1 MAIN STREET QUEENSBURY, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan 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) Waiver requests rg anted: design guidelines, lighting, utility plan, stormwater mgmt., topography,landscaping&soil info. 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 6) 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. 7) With the following conditions: 7a. Any changes to the plans /site design such as parking or building alterations need Site Plan Review; 7b. Any uses not specified in the application need Site Plan Review; 7c. Exterior lighting to be Code Compliant; 7d. Colors to be earth tones. Duly adopted this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion? MRS. MOORE-Just in reference to any changes to the site plan, my comment in Staff Notes was in reference to if there were any other uses than what was proposed, it would come back for site plan review,because each of the uses,that way they can market that site for each of those uses that were proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-I just wasn't sure if the Board understood that, and in reference to the comment any changes to the plans, sometimes it could be perceived if they've changed one portion of the deck, or the porch that's being proposed, that that change would come back. So I just want to confirm that it's specific to any changes to the site design,such as parking,so that it's clear. MR. MAGOWAN-Any changes to the plans,site design. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, your clarification comment is very consistent with the discussion, so, yes, I'm just not sure how else you would want us to word that so that it's clear. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How did you word it? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-I said any changes to plan would need site plan review. MRS.MOORE-I would put it through in an example such as parking,and then. MR. MAGOWAN-Such as parking or change of use,or not change of use,but what did you say? MR.TRAVER-Building alterations. MR. LAPPER-Building alterations makes sense,parking or building alterations. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So any changes to building alterations or parking. MRS.MOORE-Or any uses not. MR. MAGOWAN-Or any uses not specified in the application will need site plan review. MR. LAPPER-That's fine. MRS.M00RE-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. 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. CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for proposed changes to an existing home that include adjusting the roofline and adding a basement area. The applicant has proposed to not remove the 2nd story as was approved in the site plan modification of 5/17/11. The site has been monitored on an ongoing basis by the Code Compliance Officer who has indicated the site is stabilized per the stormwater and erosion control management measures that were implemented as part of the previous approvals. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BRICK-Hi. Good evening. Andy Brick from the law firm of Donald Zee, P.C. Thank you for this opportunity again this evening. Since we visited with you last week we did obtain both variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals,the first being for the height which is two foot variance for the height in the center of the roofline, as well as a 556 foot Floor Area Ratio variance that was obtained by the Zoning Board, and much like this Board there were a number of complimentary comments to my client of the work he's doing in finally getting this property legalized. I should, at this point, apologize for Mike not being here tonight. He had a mandatory training for his job that he did everything humanly possible to get out of, not because he wanted to be here, I don't think he wanted to be there regardless, but he did want me to apologize. This project is important to him personally, and he did want to be here but he was unable to attend. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. BRICK-Also at the Board, a representative, Mr. Navitsky, from the Water Keeper was there, and I don't know if he's here this evening, but we did say that we'd address any concerns that he had, and that I explained to him that we're not proposing to change anything on the approved site plan. The Planning Board,back in 2011, approved a full set of plans,including a stormwater management plan and a landscaping plan. That was worked through with the Water Keeper and the Town. Those two variances that we obtained do not in any way change the site plans that were approved. This is, to my mind, somewhat administerial because the approval in 2011 talked about demolishing the second floor, which is no longer taking place. So we're seeking a modification to that site plan, simply to take that language out to make it clear that we're lowering the roof, and there's an increase in Floor Area Ratio as a result of the variance, but other than the language changes, we're not proposing any type of changes to the approved site plan and stormwater plan and landscaping plan or anything whatsoever. The building footprint is not changing. The net effect is that the building, the roof is being lowered rather than that second floor being removed. That's the only change that we're seeking in the previous approval, and we're here to answer any questions that you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Any questions or comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I just wanted to reinforce that we,this project was approved over two years ago. MR. BRICK-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And we're not talking about the project now, we're just talking about the two things that you took to the Zoning Board. MR. BRICK-Correct. Because when you approved it in May of 2011, the language of the approval specifically said demolish the second floor which is no longer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,and also he had to do something about the driveway and so forth,which is done. MR. BRICK-I believe that's been accomplished,yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, but outside of that, this was a modification that had to be made, if you went down there and you looked and you saw water where you didn't want to see it and so forth. That's why he took this to the Zoning Board,is my understanding. MR. BRICK-That's my understanding as well. Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Did you want to address the Board, Chris? I know you heard the introduction earlier and you're well versed in the procedures here. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Good to know I blend in and I can still be hidden. I'd like to thank the Board for the opportunity to provide comment. Also we'd like to recognize the developer's efforts in regards to reducing the height of the building and bringing the non-compliant structure that was granted the variance by the ZBA into a condition that is more acceptable to the neighbors and the community, and I appreciate some of the clarifications, but I do have some questions that were part of the application. The application material states that the applicant is requesting a waiver from stormwater and from landscaping, and I just don't know if that needs to be a clarification? I don't want that to supersede. I saw that in the, I thought that was in the motion prepared by Staff under Item Two,waiver requests, stormwater management,grading,landscaping, lighting. So that should be clarified. I'm afraid because, you know, this site has had, in our view, and we've monitored it for years, no stormwater management present yet. I don't know where the claim came from Staff that there's stormwater management there, but there is not. I'd like to pass out a couple of, some photos,if I could,please. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. NAVITSKY-Two sets. Pass them down, but, so again, we do not feel that there is any stormwater management present on site, as was design, they had catch basins that were proposed and outlets. Regarding the shoreline buffer, again, it's extremely inadequate, and appears that it's been further reduced from 2009. We have a picture here that was taken from 2009, and if you compare it to a site, a photo that was taken today,you can see the difference in the vegetation that's present. So, again,what will the proposed landscaping be, and if that previous plan was there,that should be part of any motion that's approved. Again, this site was basically clear cut back in 2007. We had questions remain on the septic system. We have a picture that shows, right here, the slopes. Again,this exceeds any allowable slopes for septic systems. The plans that were submitted actually show a level area in here, and this is not shown as the plan should be graded. This well exceeds the allowable slope. So, again, we think that there needs to be some clarification on that. We also added a picture here that shows a silt fence that is washed out,and a retaining wall. Again, taking a look at this, to us this doesn't demonstrate a site that is stable, that stormwater management has been put in. The site has been eroded. The erosion matting and netting is exposed. So, again, this site, in our view, is very unstable. It shows no stormwater management. So,getting back to what the conditions were back in the approved plan,we had the picture, again to go back,that shows the shoreline. The approved plan,back in 2011, actually had a retention basin that was supposed to go along the whole shoreline, and that's shown on the plans that were submitted. That is not part of this plan. So again there really has been no stormwater management, as far as we're concerned, on this site. So,we question the waiver. We question the landscaping that's been implemented or proposed, and we know that this has been a long process. Trust me. We've been part of it all along, but it needs to be done right by the Code. It needs to be done right by the community. Restore the shoreline. Restore the site vegetation. Manage stormwater as required,and install compliant septic system. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Before you leave,you didn't identify yourself for the record. MR. NAVITSKY-I apologize. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. NAVITS KY-Sorry. I guess I don't know the procedures,then. MR. TRAVER-If I could just ask, is it your position that the landscaping and stormwater and buffering,shoreline buffering as proposed in the 2011 application is adequate? MR. NAVITSKY-We did have questions about the buffering and the plants that were proposed back then. The stormwater. MR.TRAVER-But I understand that it may not be 100%of what you wanted even then,but the point is there was buffering, and stormwater management and landscaping proposed that was approved by the Planning Board at that time. MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So if I'm understanding what you're representing tonight, those steps have not been implemented yet. MR. NAVITSKY-Apparently. MR.TRAVER-But if they,so,well, I withdraw my question. I was looking for a clarification on. MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, my concern was I saw that there were waivers requested from landscaping and stormwater, and I, from the applicant's agent this evening, it appears that the old plans would be implemented. I just really feel that that should be part of a motion because,again,the motion that's put forward asks for waivers,and that was the concern. MR.TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We approved it in '11 with everything that's on there. It's still good and that's still in force. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. SCHONEWOLF-He just hasn't finished the project. This picture's from'09. MR. NAVITSKY-Well,we're just showing the difference in the shoreline vegetation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know it,but you're saying that he's not going to finish the project the way you wanted it, but we approved it in '11, even though you disagreed with parts of it. We approved the project, and the project's not done yet. So I don't come up and run the guy into the ground. Give him a chance to do the project the way we approved it. MR. NAVITSKY-I understand, but also Staff said that the site was stabilized and stormwater measures were put in,and really has been nothing put in. MRS. MOORE-I said specifically in Staff Notes, but I did talk to the Code Compliance Officer. He's been to the site,monitored it on a regular basis,and he said the site was stabilized. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,so there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,yes, I mean, stabilized and completed according to the plan are two different things. MRS.MOORE-Are two different things. MR.TRAVER-I think we're good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we're good,too. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks a lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did anyone else want to address the Board on this project? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you can anticipate the question,if you could just clarify. MR. BRICK-Sure. A couple of things. I'm not sure why, on the proposed resolution, other than I think it might just be a form,that there are grant or deny and then there's a list of potential waivers. We're not requesting any waivers. I did, while Chris was speaking, I reviewed the minutes from when you approved the Site Plan in 2011,and there was a waiver request granted for lighting plans, which was granted in 2011. So we, of course, asked that that waiver be continued, but we're not requesting anything different than what was approved in 2011. We're just requesting that you change the language to say reduction of the roof, rather than elimination of the second floor, and the increase of floor area ratio. Everything else stays the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BRICK-And Mike is committed. I can speak for Mike and say that as this project progresses,he will personally monitor the stormwater compliance on that site. I mean,he has an interest in doing it. Obviously he's never going to get to the CO type stage with a property that's this visible and this watched unless he's making sure he crosses his T's and dots his I's,and he will do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So reduction of the roof. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the members of the Board? I don't think we need to say any, put any language into the draft resolution. I mean, it's everything that's submitted. MR. MAGOWAN-Except for Number Two. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we'll just say that no waivers were requested. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-For lighting only. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I guess I would ask for Staff to, if the lighting waiver was already granted,do we need to re-grant it? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-And just provide that clarification that. MR. HUNSINGER-Consistent with the previous approval. MRS.MOORE-Correct. At the time of application there were waivers asked,requested. MR. HUNSINGER-Are Board members comfortable with the clarifications that have been provided from the applicant's agent? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This also is a Type II action so no SEQR review is necessary unless there's an item that we feel needs to be addressed,and with that,we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#4-2014 GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to alter a previously constructed home. Alterations include a portion of roofline from peak 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. Change from the previously approved site plan and expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 1-21-14; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1-22-14 A public hearing was advertised and held on 1-28-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 4-2014 GARNER LAKE PROPERTIES. LLC. Introduced by Brad Magowan 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) Waiver requests rg anted for lighting plans with the requirement that previous conditions be implemented for the site. 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) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 5) 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. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution 8) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BRICK-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BRICK-I appreciate your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. 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 MICHAEL O'CONNOR&TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has completed a site plan application for the reuse and alteration of an existing building for a medical office and a one bedroom apartment. The board may consider the requested waivers from lighting, two foot contours, and landscaping. The board may request clarification on stormwater controls for the site modifications and for the existing sign that is located less than 15 ft.from the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor. I represent the applicant. With me is Terri Schuerlein and Brian Schuerlein who are principles involved with the use of the property and also Tom Hutchins,who is the engineer for the project, and Matt Cifone who is going to be the builder for the project. Most of the people here were before you a week or so ago when you made a recommendation to the Zoning Board that you, based on a preliminary review, found no environmental problem with the application. We then went to the ZBA, and the ZBA granted the variance for use on the property which would allow Brian to establish a medical practice in one part of the building and his apartment in the second part of the building. It wasn't conditioned, necessarily, upon him personally doing it, but that was what we presented. Basically they said we can use a certain amount of the square footage for medical office and a certain amount of the square footage for the building for a single apartment. We have requested waivers for lighting, contours and landscaping, based upon the existing site, based upon the fact that there will be no expansion in the existing building that's on the site. The freestanding garage that's on the site will be removed. The concrete pad that's behind the building that was part of another addition to the building, will be removed. The site is a very flat site that's based in an area that has a great depth of sand. Tom can addressed the issue that Staff raised that we did not submit a stormwater plan. With what little bit of disturbance we had, we didn't think that we needed one, and that's basically how I would respond to Staff comments, and we're prepared to answer any questions that the Board might have. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. O'CONNOR-You know, the funny part of doing the application before the Zoning Board is we started our application, after about five minutes the Board unanimously said, we're ready. It's not that my reputation precedes me. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? Yes. I'm sorry? MR.TRAVER-We looked at this pretty thoroughly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so, too. Okay. No questions or comments. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Anyone want to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-No takers? Written comments? MRS.MOORE-I do have two written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I'll start with one. It was a fax from Timothy Ruscio it says, "No, no more traffic" and the address is 57 Zenas Drive. Second item is dated January 23"d from the City of Glens Falls City Engineer. "Dear Town of Queensbury Planning Board, The City of Glens Falls would like to comment at the proposed project on 310 Dixon Road. The City would like to see all storm water runoff from the proposed property of 310 Dixon Road to be drained within the property limits to the maximum extent practical and not drained to Glens Falls Water shed Property. Please contact me at engineer @cityofglensfalls.com if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Steve Gurzler, P.E. City Engineer" MR. HUNSINGER-Is that implying that the stormwater is currently running onto the City of Glens Falls property? MRS.MOORE-I didn't ask them. I didn't follow up with a question back. MR. HUTCHINS-I don't believe that's the case, and certainly we're willing to agree that that will not be the case in the future. MR.TRAVER-I mean,to be compliant it has to stay on site anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. That's why I asked the question. MR. HUTCHINS-Right now this area behind the building, although I didn't show it as impervious in the existing has kind of been cut out and it's kind of a bowl back here already. So it really can't run off from the site, and our vision is some small sections of trench back there and get it in the ground. It is all sand and it's very(lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. Any additional questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-This is actually an Unlisted action. MR.TRAVER-Didn't we do SEQR before we did our recommendation? MR. HUNSINGER-Did we? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.TRAVER-I thought we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Don't we typically? They did submit a Short Form. MRS.MOORE-And you do have a draft reso in your packet. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-You do have a draft resolution for SEQR approval in your package. SEQR resolution is what we need. Right here. MR. O'CONNOR-The ZBA did the SEQR, their resolution was SEQR Unlisted action, Negative Declaration, Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Zoning 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. Unanimous decision. MR. HUNSINGER-So the ZBA did the SEQR? MR. O'C0NN0R-That was the ZBA. MRS.MOORE-They did their own SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Now you do your own SEQR. It's an uncoordinated review MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a draft resolution,whenever you're ready. Thank you for that. I didn't catch that on the review of the Zoning Board. RESOLUTION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SEQR SP# 5-2014 SCHUERLEIN The 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 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 A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 5-2014 / PAUL & TERI SCHUERLEIN. Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-And I think the only thing we need to add is that there were no items of significant impact, I'm sorry,moderate to large impact. Is that correct? MRS.MOORE-Yes,you're saying that upon your review of the EAF,there is no. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Upon review of the SEQR drawn up by Staff, we found nothing that was major to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Moderate to large. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-Moderate to large impacts. MRS. MOORE-So the statement is, upon reviewing the EAF, the Board found no moderate to large impacts of the proposed project. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.M00RE-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I said. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution for approval? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 5-2014 PAUL&TERRI SCHUERLEIN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board 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. PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 1-21-14; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1-22-14; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1-28-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 5-2014 PAUL & TERRI SCHUERLEIN, Introduced by Brad Magowan 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 rg anted: G, K,&L 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 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. Duly adopted this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I would strike Item Four for engineering signoff because this application did not go to engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It's not applicable. Thank you. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-So I strike Item Four for engineering signoff. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. You're welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-The problem with collecting (lost word) is the approval motion that says that we will submit four copies of the plans as submitted or as approved by the Board for signoff by the Zoning Administrator, and in order for the signoff, we then have to have to re-do those maps because they want your resolution on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,on the map. MR. O'CONNOR-So I used to collect them, but I've almost come to the conclusion that it saves time, unless Staff and the Board adopt a different procedure that says that you can do something by nature like a certification page that would be attached to a set of the plans that you approve. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. B-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 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-I have, the applicant has completed a site plan application for the demolition and rebuild of a Main House and a Guest Cottage where hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the lake requires site plan review. The previous approval required a landscaping buffer screening so lights in the new driveway area would be minimized to the adjoining neighbor -the board may revisit this condition during the application review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, representing Pam and Bill Roberts here with me tonight on this site plan application. A week ago we were here for a recommendation. Obviously we achieved the variance last Wednesday through the ZBA for really what was a construction procedure variance to be able to tear down and re-build these two cottages on Holly Lane. So we're back with the same site plan that ironically you approved back in August with our first go round. Nothing has changed, really, from that final plan that was approved in the August meeting, with the addition of that buffering that Laura mentioned in the description, that that's on the plan that has been submitted as far as the site plan. The house construction, or the end result of the house re-construction, will be the same as was approved at that meeting in August, and the site conditions, all the associated infrastructure, the driveway, the stormwater,the buffering that was proposed is all the same as what was approved there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. MAC ELROY-That should sum it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone left? Anyone want to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Type II SEQR. So unless there are anything else that is outstanding. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 8-2014 WILLIAM&PAMELA ROBERTS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board 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. SEQR Type II -no further review required; The PB has provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 1-21-14; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1-22-14; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1-28-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 8-2014 WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS, Introduced by Brad Magowan 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) Waiver requests rg anted: stormwater management., grading, landscaping & lighting plans 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-And you're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. DISCUSSION ITEM: 1. NORTHWAY PLAZA: PROPOSES TO CHANGE A PORTION OF THE SITE OF A FORMER REPAIR SHOP AND PARKING AREA. CHANGES INCLUDE 2 NEW RESTAURANTS, ADJUST LOCATION FROM PREVIOUS ACCESS TO ROUTE 9 AND RELOCATION OF FREESTANDING SIGN. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Our last item on the agenda is a discussion item for Northway Plaza. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is a development for two new restaurant sites in the location of the former repair shop and parking area in the Northway Plaza. The project is similar to another site plan where a Walgreens and Chili's was to be located -the locations are adjusted to accommodate drive-thru and the Hobby Lobby's truck well delivery area. And I'm not going to read through the comments, but there's comments from the Fire Marshal and the Wastewater Department and the applicant received those comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. TONY STILLOTO MR. STILLOTO-Good evening. I'm Tony Stilloto, engineer with CHA. We used to be Clough Harbor and Associates. MR. HUNSINGER-Now it's just CHA. MR. STILLOTO-Now it's just CHA. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. STILLOTO-I'm here representing RCG Development. They're the recently new owners of the plaza, Northway Plaza. The history of this property is, as many of you may well be aware, 2008-ish our company was in with a plan for Walgreens and Chili's, which got pretty far. In fact, I think it got approved with a number of variances for this property, and then for various reasons, some of which I understand and some of which I don't, that project went away by the choice of the developer and the tenants. RCG Development is a company that we met recently. They're a national developer. Their forte is to take properties that they refer to as distressed, retail shopping centers with multiple tenants that have a high ratio of vacancy, that have potential for re- development. This is a company that isn't looking to do a quick flip. Their MO is to come in and make a,you know, make a major improvement to a property,turn it around and make it,you know, make it a highly functioning Class A retail space again. MR. FORD-And then flip it? MR. STILLOTO-Yes, I mean, they do sometimes, and sometimes they don't, and quite frankly, you know, the business model is to turn the property around, and in the end, whether they own it or not, the property is, you know, is turned around. The nice thing about this property is the Home Depot's there anchoring it. They're, you know, they're a long term stable tenant. Home Depot owns their site,and currently we've got Hobby Lobby underway,and the current proposal is to take the two, the corner, the two parcels that are labeled out parcels and light blue on the map there, and, you know, the deals aren't done, and you probably know who they are already and we're not trying to hide it. One proposal is to take Panera from their existing space in the strip and put them into a freestanding site which is a situation that they much prefer to have. It allows them to offer a better dining room experience and, you know, they're looking for a food window as well, and then the other site is a steakhouse, it's the Texas Roadhouse, and we did one, or we actually reviewed one for them in Colonie on Wolfe Road, another re-development site, and they do a pretty nice job. So it'll be two national restaurant chains on the corner, taking that Monroe Muffler building down and replacing it with,you know,with two attractive buildings, and then the thought is the property continues to develop, benefitting from those two attractive uses out on the corner real estate. The project would also continue the, or actually complete the 2008 proposal to make the stormwater 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) improvements on the corner, in the area right on the corner of Route 9 and Quaker Road. The DOT and the Warren County Soil Conservation District have been working together and came up with a plan to make some stormwater improvements, and they consist of some buried detention infiltration chambers,located on the corner. There's some real estate swapping that needs to occur between the DOT and the County and the developer to make that all work, but we are talking with the DOT. They are enthusiastic to get this done. We've met with Mr. Lieberman at the Soil and Water Conservation District and he is enthusiastic to get it done. We've confirmed with them that the project as previously designed in 2008 by Bohler Engineering is what they want, and it is, with some minor modifications. I think there's a desire to maybe look at some technology and infiltration chambers that's developed since 2008, and maybe we can even provide a little bit more storage there. So our intent is to bring in,bring Bohler back and let them finish that piece of it, and then we would tie our design around it. So just,you know, I can give you some statistics here, and I don't know how much of this you want at this point, but, you know, the property is about 290,000 square feet of space, including the Home Depot. It's a mix of retail commercial, office and restaurant. We're proposing a 4500 square foot Panera and a 6400 square foot Texas Roadhouse. We've looked at parking requirements, and parking as provided, and based on our calculation the Code allows us to take a primary use and a secondary use, and the primary use would be retail and the secondary use would be office, and if we apply a sharing factor of.8 allowed by the Code to the office, we actually have more parking than we need, so, by a few spaces, not by a whole lot, but we're okay on parking we believe. We've received some preliminary comments from Laura and from the Fire Marshal,mostly pertaining to access,and I think,if it's okay if I get up from the table. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you can slide that right out. Thank you. MR. STILLOTO-I think, and actually I have some detailed plans here, but I kind of like this because it's easy to point to and we can flip to another page if we want to,but in summary,the comments on access are, have to do with the two Route 9 accesses. This is, we'll call this the south access because north is actually down on this page. The one comment received from the Fire Marshal is to give some consideration to making this existing right in/right out access right in only, and we are somewhat hesitant to, you know, to be enthusiastic about that right now and, for the main reason that RCG, in taking over the property, has obligations as an landlord to, you know, to these guys here, and to these guys here, to not interrupt their use of the property, and these guys in particular have some expectations about us not changing the existing condition, in terms of how they access the site, how their customers enter and exit. So, you know, we're not saying it's not doable, but we're saying it's going to be very difficult for us to change a major component of access where it would limit an existing access which allows an in and out to make it only an in. The obligation. MR. FORD-So safety is not an issue? MR. STILLOTO-Well, safety is an issue, but,you know, if you want to, I mean, if we want to look at I guess the technical merits of the argument, I think, you know, I think we need to go through them all, and the second comment that the Fire Marshal had was with regard to this access here, and this access is one lane in, one lane out until you get to about here, and it separates the two lanes, and there's a comment that traffic backs up in this driveway, it queues back beyond this driveway, and they'd like to see us widen that, and we're looking at that and it's very space constrained, and if there's a way we can do that,we may be able to entertain that,but we can't do it at the cost of losing this row of parking or this row of parking because they're, you know, they're important parking spaces, and again, we've got that obligation to these guys to not come in and say we're taking 30 of your parking spaces away, and the way they look at it is,you know,their tenants in a plaza and they have rights and they entered into agreements to be here based upon decisions that were made before we all got here, and so we're all really kind of in this together trying to do the best thing to keep the good tenants that are here here, and to bring some new ones in that are going to turn this property around. MR. TRAVER-On the other hand, they're going to be very anxious to cooperate with what you need to get this approved because you're obviously going to increase the amount of customer traffic that's going to be entering and utilizing their facilities. MR. STILLOTO-This is true they will support improvements to the plaza, but don't underestimate how protective these guys are going to be of their rights. MR. FERONE-But you took parking away from the Hobby Lobby site. You could widen that lane by taking the parking away from the north side because I think you have a lion's share of parking between Home Depot and that line of suites that's on,along the Lake George Road. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. STILLOTO-True, but the only parking that we really have the rights to use for this suite is this piece here. The Home Depot actually leases their parking, and they really, although people do park in it,they really do have rights to that parking. MR. HUNSINGER-That's interesting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it's vacant half the time. MR. STILLOTO-This is true, and I think what you're seeing is tenants cooperating with each other, because it's the right thing to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the issue you've got is a simple one. Regardless of what Home Depot thinks and the other people,the Fire Marshal is telling you that he's got to be able to, if he has a fire, and restaurants tend to light up occasionally, he's going to have to bring the truck from, the aerial truck from south to north. MR. STILLOTO-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And he's got to go through that intersection, which is congested, and then he's got to make a right turn into that lot. MR. STILLOTO-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He can't make it the way you've got it structured. He's got to have a one way in, and it's got to be bigger than that, and it's got to be wider at the end so that truck can make the swing. Without that,you can't build a (lost word). MR. STILLOTO-Hear you on that comment, and that comment, his comment about, he needs a 20 foot wide access to get the tandem wheel truck through there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He needs to do more of that at the beginning of it. MR. STILLOTO-And we see where he's coming from on that, and in terms of getting that truck in there, you know, we will work with the Fire Marshal to make sure he can and, you know, whether that means widening the drive lane to 20 feet wide or providing, sometimes what we do is, you know,where it doesn't necessarily fit well to have a 20 foot single direction lane,we can narrow the actual carriage way where the cars drive, provide a mountable curb that the trucks can go up on and make that area is clear. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Code in New York is 20 feet, and that's minimum, and for this truck, which is the biggest aerial truck this side of the Mississippi,they need more than that. MR. STILLOTO-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So, and that's why he wants it one way because he doesn't want it jammed up with traffic. You put any cars in the road,he can't get in. MR. STILLOTO-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And getting out isn't an ideal situation either, because when you go out that back, I assume that that's what that is,that little road is an exit. MR. STILLOTO-This road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,right there. MR. STILLOTO-This road here,and it doesn't really show it all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it's really not too good because you can't get out there because traffic is lined up on Quaker Road. MR. STILLOTO-Yes, and that's a very legitimate comment, and I think with that comment, his comment here is when we re-do this driveway here,we want to put some sort of physical barrier in there to make this right out, right in, where right now cars can come out and make that left turn across. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except there's a sign saying no left turn. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No left turn,you can't make that. MR. HUNSINGER-People try to. MR. STILLOTO-Right, and the Fire Marshal's comment was he'd like to see some sort of physical barrier there. So there, you know, is a good example of where we would look at providing, you know, some sort of an island there that limits that left turn but would be constructed of mountable curb and hard scape that a truck could easily navigate over. MR. SCHONEWOLF-A truck's not going to come in there. The fire truck's going to come in down right by the Panera Bread store. MR. STILLOTO-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-What does it come up from Central? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Why wouldn't it come right up Quaker and come in the back? MR. SCHONEWOLF-He can't, because he can't because of the traffic. The way the traffic lines up at that light, he can't make that swing. So those guys are instructed to go out on, they can go up Lafayette, take a right, and come up the main road, which is, what, four lanes wide in some spots, and then he can swing out and go in that driveway,but the way you've got drawn up,he can't. MR. STILLOTO-And I think that our next step might be to sit down with the Fire Marshal and try to work through some of these issues with him. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I suggest that you do. MR. STILLOTO-So that he's happy. Because frankly our mission here is, you know, we've got to resolve these access issues,you know, to the satisfaction of the Board and to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal to ensure that we have a project, and if we,you know, if we're not certain that we can satisfy the Board, satisfy the Fire Marshal, it doesn't make sense to come in to you with a set of site plans that you're not going to approve. MR. FORD-Yes, take it in that order. I like your idea of going to the Fire Marshal. When he gives his stamp of approval on it,we'll be in a lot better position to give you a green light. MR. STILLOTO-Yes. My client is, and that's his position. He doesn't want us to proceed with site plans until we resolve this issue, and he wants us to give him assurances that we've got this issue well underway and that you folks are happy with it, because, frankly, he doesn't think he's got a project unless we can work this out in advance, because he's truly concerned about his ability to come back and tell these guys they're going to lose their outlaying, and all they have to do is say no, and he doesn't have anything going here anymore. MR. FORD-Could you address that one that comes in off Quaker Road? You can see it right there,on the top of your,right there. MR. STILLOTO-This one? MR. FORD-Yes. Where is that going, because it doesn't show that it goes anywhere except to Panera. MR. STILLOTO-It doesn't because this is a conceptual plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It goes to Quaker Road,doesn't it? MR. STILLOTO-This plan shows it a little bit better. MR. MAGOWAN-No,you could go right behind Hobby Lobby and all that. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. FORD-And go all the way up to the Post Office and up to Home Depot. MR. STILLOTO-It goes around to the back. MR. FORD-You're not eliminating that? MR. STILLOTO-We're not eliminating it,no. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. FERONE-Well,there's a tenant back there. They have to be able to get back there. MR. HUNSINGER-There is,yes, there's a tenant back there. I actually work in Northway Plaza, so I have some interesting insights and comments to make. Your first comment, I guess I was a little surprised when I read the notes about the no left hand turn into the southern entrance. There have been several occasions when I've come out of the dry cleaners and been able to scoot right across and get in when there's,because there's a big gap in the traffic between the lights,you know,there's about a 30 second window,and if that's timed just right,it's just not a problem getting across there. MR. STILLOTO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,there are times when it's impossible,but,you know, depending on the time of day, it can be easy. So,you know,you know, my inclination would be, why would we want to limit something, unless there's a problem that's really been identified, and I really don't think there's a problem with that now,but there may be with a lot more traffic. If there's a lot more traffic coming in and out,then. MR. STILLOTO-If the issue is really, the comment is really driven by emergency access and not traffic, I think we can manage that. I think we can come up with something that satisfies the Fire Marshal and preserves our exit lane. That exit, that southern exit also takes some of the pressure off of the signalized,the main access which,you know,as you know can back up at times,too. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,there are lots of cars that come down Aviation Road,turn left,go up Route 9 and then turn right into the southern, and it really helps eliminate a lot of traffic from the light, from the intersection. MR. STILLOTO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-The other real traffic issue, and unless you were there a lot you wouldn't see it happen,but it happens way more often than you would think is when people pull out of the Plaza to turn left onto Route 9 south, for whatever reason, they think the incoming lane is the exit, and I have literally seen cars stopped at the red light and there are cars trying to turn into the Plaza that can't because they're there,going the wrong way,trying to turn left to go out, and it's just, or you're driving into the road coming into the Plaza, and all of a sudden there's a car coming right at you. There needs to be some sort of striping there. I think that would help eliminate that, because the striping doesn't go down very far, but in terms of internal traffic flow, the bigger area is in the area near the Post Office, and the last plan that we looked at, before Hobby Lobby, they were going to address that and change that,and when Hobby Lobby came. MR. STILLOTO-The four way,the T intersection? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, where that T is, and they were going to change all of the parking in front of, well,it's mostly empty now,but around the corner from the Post Office. MR. MAGOWAN-What,where Peter Harris and all that is? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,in front of Peter Harris. MR. STILLOTO-So you're talking about this parking area? MR. HUNSINGER-That parking area right in there, and in any given day, there's multiple near accidents, people coming in and out of the Post Office because of the way that that area is configured. MR. STILLOTO-In here or in here? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-The second pointer. MR. STILLOTO-Here? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. STILLOTO-Here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm sorry,yes. MR. STILLOTO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But it's really all of that in front of that building, and there was a design to change that,and really it was going to change the four way interchange as well. MR. STILLOTO-So I'll have to go back and look and see what we proposed for Walgreens and see if we can maybe bring some of that in,but was it the intent to eliminate that cut right there? MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think so. I think it was to re-align where the four lane interchange was. MR. STILLOTO-Where this is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then to change the parking area in front of Peter Harris and the hair design. MR. STILLOTO-We can look at that and see what we proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll tell you,that is also very tight. MR. HUNSINGER-That's the problem,it's tight. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a very tight spot. I have a crew cab duly that, you know, and I go to the Post Office, you know, I've got to watch where I park because it, but I, you know, like I say, that whole area is just very congested. MR. HUNSINGER-But the final comment that I want to make is I can clearly understand why Panera wants to move,because when they get deliveries, and they bring in a big truck,it is a disaster. They block off the entire lane. It's the only way they can get the truck back in there to unload. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought they weren't getting along with Weight Watchers. MR. HUNSINGER-Well that too,but,so it's really quite interesting to watch what happens when they have their delivery. MR. MAGOWAN-I have seen that,trucks back right up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,and it's amazing that they can get truck back in there quite honestly. MR. STILLOTO-Yes, I truly think that their, you know, the main reason they want a freestanding building is so that they can get the drive through customers through, too, but, you know, they're, I think, much more comfortable and used to a freestanding store and, you know, they're looking at this being, this Panera is always busy, it's very successful, and this is the natural thing for them to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, my selfish perspective is I wish they wouldn't move because I like having the covered walkway on rainy days to walk down to get coffee. MR. FORD-That area around the Post Office, however, that gives a whole new dimension to, the closest thing to touch and go driving. MR. STILLOTO-And again,we'd have to look and see what the,you know,what rights the Post Office has in all of this, too, because every, you know, every change we make to the site that impacts an existing tenant,you know,we need to bring them on board with it,if we're going to do it. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the plans were approved to make changes there. Or there was at least a discussion. MR. STILLOTO-Yes,so that leads me to believe that it's. MR. HUNSINGER-It was designed,yes,it was designed. MR. STILLOTO-Okay. So what we'd like to do,then, I think is to,you know,is to maybe follow upon some of those access issues and maybe come back and do another one of these before we do a full submission, if that is, if it's okay, and if we take it that slowly, and like I say, really our reason for caution here is not wanting to pour everything into a set of site plans until we know we've got something that everybody can live with,including the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we're certainly, I mean, I can't speak for the whole Board, but I know in the past when people have asked for discussion items, we're more than willing to provide you with that. MR. FERONE-And there's two restaurants and there'll be two separate buildings? MR. STILLOTO-Two separate buildings,yes. MR. DEEB-It looks like you have them connected on the first picture. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know it does,but. MR. STILLOTO-On this picture? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're just showing the area there. MR. STILLOTO-This is just a (lost word) that the applicant uses to talk, you know, on a large scale with potential tenants to show where (lost words) in the Plaza. So it's not even necessarily to scale. MR. DEEB-Okay. Well, I'm looking at the connection,the yellow portion between the two building. MR. STILLOTO-Between these two buildings? MR. DEEB-Yes,right there. MR. STILLOTO-This is Peter Harris and this is the Hobby Lobby that's underway. MR. DEEB-Okay. So we're down farther anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,you've got Tropical Tan. You've got the hair salon. Yes. MR. STILL OTO-There's a hair salon in there. MR. MAGOWAN-There used to be a little deli in there,too. MR. STILLOTO-They're very protective of their rights, and we have to respect that because they have rights, and, you know, the applicant, as landlord, has to honor the existing leases that were there when they bought the property. So we can work with them to some extent,but we don't have carte blanche to tell them what to do, and,you know,like I said,we're bound by decisions that were made before RCG owned it, and,you know, some of those decisions were,you know, were based in prior site plan approvals. So to some extent we have to live, our view is we have to live with some of what's there and improve what we can improve incrementally to make the Plaza better. MR. MAGOWAN-Where do we figure up how many spaces you need for parking lots? I look at K- Mart, you know, and oh my gosh and that thing you could put five restaurants over there and still have enough parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,that was from the old Code. MRS. MOORE-Those are Zoning Code, and the applicant described an opportunity to calculate the shared parking, which is in the Ordinance that's current now. So the applicant has provided that information verbally and we'll review that information at some point to confirm that those are the parking requirements. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-No, I'm just curious, because I look at a lot of these parking lots that are just so oversized. MR. HUNSINGER-It's in the Code. MR. STILLOTO-Your Code actually is pretty progressive in that regard, in that it recognizes that there are, with large sites with multiple users opportunities for shared parking and it actually lays out some provisions for calculating shared parking, and, you know, I went through it in a short amount of time and found it pretty logical and easy to use. So I think you folks have done a good job with that. MR. MAGOWAN-But you said like Home Depot owns their parking lot. MR. STILLOTO-Well,they own their building and they lease their parking lot. MR. MAGOWAN-All right,they lease the parking. MR. STILLOTO-Yes, and I think they recognize that some other folks park there and I think they're okay with that, but I think, you know, I think they are looking at, as a tenant, they want to protect certain rights, and they look very critically at issues of access and, you know, points of ingress and egress and what changing those points of ingress and egress might mean to their customers. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who owns the mall? MR. STILLOTO-Who owns the mall? It's a company called RCG Ventures. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,they just bought it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They just bought it,right? Yes. MR. STILLOTO-They're based in Atlanta. They're nationwide in terms of their portfolio, and they were up a few weeks ago, and I'm sure they'll be here for the Planning Board meeting. It's actually two guys that I actually have found to be very good to work with, very, I think, conscientious owners. MR. HUNSINGER-And they have made quite a few improvements since they purchased it. They've been putting new roofs on all the buildings. MR. STILLOTO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The irony is, in the building that I'm in, shortly after they put the new roof on, we had a major roof leak that came out of a roof drain, which was just bizarre. The drain failed. It wasn't the roof it was the drain,once it got into the building. MRS. MOORE-I have four comments, and just maybe they'll provide some guidance. In reference to the two restaurant buildings, maybe it would be useful to figure out what the trips generated by those new restaurants, and then evaluate the interior circulation, which I think is the bottom, what everybody is trying to get at how that interior circulation works. Again, you talked about discussing the information with the Fire Marshal and how that, what their requirements are for access throughout the entire site, not just maybe these two new restaurant buildings, but maybe there's something that they want to evaluate for the entire site, and then in reference to the Post Office Peter Harris parking area, you said you may look at that again. So, just to point that out as part of my comments. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, especially if there's going to be restaurants put in there. I mean, there are a lot of people that work in the Plaza, and there's really poor pedestrian access within the Plaza itself, and I think just some markings would go a long way. Along the wall, the Home Depot side, but across from the Post Office there's sidewalks that just end,and it's kind of interesting. MR. FERONE-Well, I think you bring up a good point. If you want to walk to those restaurants from where you are,you have to walk through the parking lot,there's no way to get over there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,it's tough. Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,it's dangerous. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I mean staff comment on that all the time,you know, especially when the weather's nice so they can walk around on breaks and stuff. MR. STILLOTO-Right. So we could take a look at pedestrian connectivity to see how, you know, what is the pedestrian path, does it include part of the sidewalks,you know, in front of the existing building. MR. FORD-Good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think it would be pretty easy to accomplish is some markings,primarily. MR. STILLOTO-Right. Okay. MR. FERONE-What's your estimated square footage for the two restaurants? MR. STILLOTO-4500 on the Panera, which is actually a little smaller than the space they're in right now,and 6400 for the steakhouse. MR. FERONE-They might be able to design it where there's more seating in that same amount of space,right? MR. STILLOTO-Yes,you know, and I think it's a more, the freestanding building is definitely a more efficient layout for them. The other thing about the two, the restaurants is the peaks for the two restaurants don't coincide whereas Panera has, you know, a morning peak and a lunch peak. The steakhouse is an evening, and they're typically not even open for lunch. Except they may be on the weekend. The one in Colonie I don't think, I know we've gone there for lunch from work a couple of times and were surprised that they don't open until I think 4 o'clock. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where's the drive in window? Show it to me right on the plan. MR. STILLOTO-Well, (lost words). This is the proposed Panera. The building is right here like this and the window is over here. So the drive through starts over here. There's a drive aisle here. This is a curbed drive through. So you've got stacking for one, two, three, four, five, six, seven cars here where the speaker is,and then there's another three cars. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So that's going to encourage them to come out that exit road. MR. STILLOTO-The drive through will dump here, and they will either come around this way and out, or they'd go around this way and either out here or out to the main entrance, and again, you know, I think for folks who do it all the time, who are familiar with traffic patterns, it's sort of a gut call as to when you would use each driveway. I think you're right about that southern access, that there's tons, and that's perfectly fine. I think the right out here actually, this lane here, this right out from a traffic perspective is an enhancement. It's a free flowing movement. There's no competition with other traffic movements, and it simply takes the pressure off of the other exit. So I think,from a traffic perspective. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It does,but you can't have that island in the middle. MR. STILLOTO-We want to try to preserve that. So, right,so we need to look at how to do that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just take the island out. MR. STILLOTO-And we could easily do that. What happens, then, when we take the island out is then we more invite that left turn. So we want to have some sort of a marking at least to limit that, you know, to a right turn out, and that's why I talk about the amount of mountable curbing, and when I say mountable curbing, I'm talking about just sort of a, you know, it's like a speed hump. You can drive up on to it. A fire truck wouldn't even know it's there, but a car would be a little bit more intimidated by it. MR. HUNSINGER-It's like the rotary. The rotary has the mountable curb in the middle. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, no, because they have that up at Lowe's, and you know how many times I sit there and see people come out and instead of going right they, oh, there's a break in the traffic and shoom, I mean, I did it once. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MR. STILLOTO-Yes, and, you know, there's a balance between how much of a physical barrier you can build versus, you know, how, you know, functional the driveway's going to be, and no matter what you do,some people are going to take the left turn anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-I like the idea for that southern entrance. I mean, like I said, it's going to keep a flow, people being able to come in and continue up Route 9, and like I said, once in a while you're going to get someone that sees a break and is going to go for it, and one day a cop's going to see it and they'll get a ticket,you know,and you get away with it,you get away with it. MR. FORD-As you described the traffic flow in there for the drive through and around there, I just want to re-emphasize the importance of your working on a pedestrian access and traffic patterns, and safety for the pedestrians. MR. FERONE-I think when you look at the site,Tom,the whole site has a major traffic issue,because you've got so much going on. I mean, you've got a Post Office. You have a drive through that you're creating a lot of people coming in and out. I'm sure you're going to have to do a lot of thinking about how you're going to manage all that traffic going on,just on that property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The only good thing is they all do it at different times. MR. STILLOTO-Yes. Okay. This is good. This has been helpful from my perspective in defining some next steps. Anything else out there that,we talked about traffic. We talked about,you know, is there anything else out there that's on your minds that we haven't addressed that we need to be thinking about? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we did a pretty good job of addressing the boundary line on the other side the last time we had this project up here. MR. STILLOTO-Was this Board pretty much as it is now when the Walgreens was approved, the Walgreens and Chili's,or was that a different Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe a couple of people are different. Yes. MR. FORD-Probably half,half on a seven member Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. STILLOTO-Okay. Well, that's all I have, and like I said I think our next step is to meet with the Fire Marshal and maybe come back and do an update. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,thank you. Yes, I mean, it's up,you know, it's your choice if you want to file a submission or if you want to do another workshop,so,you know,sketch review. MR. STILLOTO-Yes, I really, I need to convince my client that he is going to be able to live with the access requirement. So I think we need to ferret that out a little bit and make him comfortable with what is going to ultimately be approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. STILLOTO-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Tell him we asked for a more comfortable flow through the whole place. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to be brought up tonight? MRS.MOORE-I don't have anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone want to make a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I make a motion we adjourn. MR. FORD-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to do a roll call vote to adjourn? Because I noticed I think it was the Town Board doesn't. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/28/2014) MRS.MOORE-You do a roll call vote for adjournment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,we do every night. We do every meeting. MR. TRAVER-Well, sometimes I vote no. If it's after midnight, I usually oppose adjournment. It's only if it's early that Igo along with it. Does the Zoning Board do a roll call vote to adjourn? MS. HEMINGWAY-They do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. We'll call the vote, then. Thank you. We'll look into it next month,we'll have an answer. MRS.MOORE-Do you want a roll call vote,then,or no? MR. HUNSINGER-All in favor? Yes. Any opposed? Ayes carry. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 42