Loading...
02-23-2016 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2016 INDEX Site Plan No. 75-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48, 49 Site Plan PZ 73-2016 Faden Enterprises 1. SEQR/ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Site Plan PZ 53-2016 Jason Southwood 10. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-68 Site Plan PZ 62-2016 Curtis D. Dybas 14. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-35 Site Plan PZ 60-2016 Jay Salmon 15. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-58 Site Plan PZ 56-2016 Jean Hoffman 24. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.11 Site Plan PZ 66-2016 Larry Brown 30. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49 Subdivision No. PZ 61-2016 Joseph & Kathleen Noonan 35. Tax Map No. 302.18-2-61.22 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) FEBRUARY 23, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL SCHONEWOLF LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday February 23, 2016. Welcome everyone. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also handouts for public hearing procedures. Many of the agenda items do have public hearings scheduled, and we'll go into more details when we open the first public hearing. We have an Administrative Item before we get into the regular agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: FURTHER TABLING — SITE PLAN 54-2016 MC DONALD'S USA LLC MRS. MOORE-I'd like you to table to April 26th. They did receive their Zoning Board Area Variance and Sign Variance, and you'll receive an updated plan from them showing the proposed curb cuts on Route 9 and an adjustment to the Old Aviation Road curb cut, to move that entrance to a different point. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MRS. MOORE-You will see a new site plan. It's up to the Board if they wish to throw out their old plans. MR. HUNSINGER-If anyone would like to make that motion. RESOLUTION FURTHER TABLING SITE PLAN 54-2016 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC MOTION TO GRANT FURTHER TABLING SITE PLAN 54-2016 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled until the April 26, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Revised information due by March 15, 2016. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-1 failed to remind everyone to make sure you turn your ringers off on your phones because I know everyone has one these days. SEQRA/PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016; SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THREE MAIN BUILDINGS, SHED AND SOME SITE GRADING TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW BUILDINGS IN THREE PHASES. FIRST BUILDING TO BE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) 4,200 +/- SQ. FT. WITH PARKING FROM MAIN ST. TO PINE ST. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING PARCELS CREATING TWO PARCELS. SECOND PHASE TO BE REMAINDER OF FIRST BUILDING 4,200 +/- SQ. FT., THEN THIRD PHASE IS TWO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS 2,400 SQ. FT. AND 1,600 SQ. FT. WITH A DRIVE THROUGH. PROJECT INCLUDES LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING IN PHASES ALSO. STORMWATER TO BE COMPLETED FOR WHOLE SITE IN PHASE ONE. SEQRA- PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY STATUS 2/16/16. PENDING SEQRA COORDINATION — PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON MAIN STREET SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR BUILDING SETBACKS, FREE STANDING SIGN SETBACK, DRIVE THROUGH. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE BP 91252 SEWAGE ALT.; 2005-221 SIGN PERMIT; 2002-0208 WALL SIGN WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24, 0.42, .046, TOTAL 1.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-7-030 , 179-7-070, 179-10-040, 140-7 SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This evening the Board will review the environmental aspect of this project as well as potentially provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item the Board will complete will be accepting the Lead Agency status. In general this project involves the demolition of three main buildings, shed, and some site grading to construct three new buildings in three phases. The first building is to be 4,200 sq. ft. with parking from Main Street to Pine Street. The project includes merging parcels only to create two parcels in the long run. The second phase is to construct the remainder of the first building, another 4200 sq. ft. building. The third phase is to include two additional buildings. This is a 2,400 sq. ft. and 1600 sq. ft. building with a drive thru potentially. The project includes lighting and landscaping in phases as well. The stormwater is to be completed in the Phase I stage. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FADEN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. FADEN-Russ Faden. MR. LANSING-And Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. LANSING-Good evening. Again, Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. We're here tonight for the Faden Enterprises mixed use commercial site plan. Our objective this evening, this has been something that's been before the Board before. We did provide a concept on this a month or so ago. Since that submission we have provided a full submission, full engineering drawings, full reports, things of that nature, and we have submitted to the ZBA as well for an application for the variances that we are requesting for the project, and last week the ZBA did pass a motion and they accepted the Planning Board as Lead Agency for SEQRA for the project. Overall we're here tonight to answer any questions or comments that the Board may have, and we're looking for a SEQR determination and referral to the Zoning Board. Existing conditions for the parcel, we're approximately 1.08 acres. There are three residences currently on the parcels that are three separate parcels that combine to make up the 1.08 acres, and we are zoned Main Street. Proposed conditions would include the demolition of all three of the residential structures on the parcel, and we are proposing three buildings for a total of 12,200 square feet. The first building would be the eastern side, Building Number One. That is approximately 8,200 square feet. There would be approximately 2,200 square feet of restaurants. There would be a Subway location, and then the other 6,000 square feet would be for retail tenants to be determined on a later date. On the western side of the parcel towards the front on the corner of Pine Street and Main Street we are proposing a bank with a drive thru, and directly behind that there would be a retail building of approximately 1600 square feet. Access for the site, we have essentially two main access points. One would be from Main Street on the south, south of the parcel, and there is another one on the northwest corner to Pine Street. Beyond that we also do have an exit area for the drive thru. The drive thru is located just to the north of the bank structure. There would be the exit for that drive thru located in that vicinity. We do have a sidewalk system throughout the parcel connecting all of the buildings to one another and also to the sidewalk system along Main Street. Parking for the 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) site, we have 70 parking spaces overall. So we do meet the Town's requirements as far as parking for all the building structures and all the various uses. In overall the parcel we have 51 parking spaces on the parcel. Planted buffers, we do have a planted buffer on the north towards the residence to the north, and then we also have a privacy fence located on the back portion where the parcel kind of goes up and extends towards the north. The utilities for the site, stormwater is mitigated on site. There is a section that in the existing conditions flows towards Main Street. That area will continue to flow towards Main Street. The balance of that parcel will drain towards the back of the parcel and we are collecting that stormwater and infiltrating it into the soils. We have excellent soils on site, very sandy soils, great for infiltration. Public water and public sewer extending from the existing mains located on Main Street and Pine Street. We do have several variances and waivers that we are requesting for the project. As I did mentioned we have submitted a full application to the Zoning Board and then we are actually scheduled to go before the Board tomorrow evening. Those variances include, first off, is a Sign Variance. We're asking for relief for the setback from the sign on Main Street. We are asking for a drive thru facility to be allowed for the bank, and last but not least we're asking for relief for the setback from Pine Street for Buildings Two and Three on the parcel. That's essentially it for an outline of the project. We did receive comments from both Planning Staff and the Town designated engineer. We did provide written responses to those. We just submitted those today. So I doubt the Planning Staff or the Town designated engineer has had a chance to review those. I just wanted to let the Board know we did respond to those comments, and again we're here tonight for questions and comments from the Board. I would like to ask the Board to consider SEQR and a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-You're talking about completing this project, if approved, in phases. Can you describe what the conditions would be following the first phase? MR. LANSING-Sure. The first phase would be the front half of Building Number One, the Subway and the retail which I believe, I think it's about 1600 square feet. So between the Subway and the retail it would be about 4,000 square feet for Phase Number One. Phase Number Two would be the back half of Building Number One and Phase Number Three would be building to Main Street. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I should have been more specific in my question. What about the things like the landscaping and the parking and so on? Is that going to be, you're going to lay all of that out in Phase I and then add the buildings or? MR. LANSING-No, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question originally, but as far as access for Phase Number One, the front half of Building Number One, would include the access point on Main Street. We'd go through. There'd be parking along that access point and that would go back out onto Pine Street. So there'd be a full loop of access, although that loop would not include all the parking because we wouldn't need all that parking just for Phase I. When Phase II is constructed the additional spaces will be constructed to meet the parking requirements as they would be with Phase III. Around Phase I, that front part of Building Number One, all the landscaping around that area would be completed as well as around the sign and that portion. MR. TRAVER-And do you have an idea of what period or what conditions are required for Phase I and Phase II to be completed? And I guess my concern would be if we were to approve a complete project and you have partial landscaping, partial site development and a considerable length of time goes by after the Subway building is put up and now you have a large area that doesn't have the landscaping as approved by the Town, the parking as approved by the Town and so on. Can you help me with that issue? MR. LANSING-Yes. Mr. Faden did point out on PP-1, Sheet Five of Twelve, does outline the phasing, which is what I described as the front half of Phase I, with parking. As far as the ultimate build out of the other phases, I'd have to defer to the applicant. I know the applicant is trying to market the other portions of the project. He doesn't have specific tenants for those yet, and unfortunately it's not something that he can build, financially build, in one shot. So he'd like to phase that. MR. TRAVER-I understand. That's commonsense in a way. From our point of view, then, we have to proceed with the potential that not all of these three phases will ever be constructed. MR. FADEN-If I may add something. If you look at the phase plan that we have outlined, like if you're looking at it from Main Street, you'll see where the parking lot is going to be what it is, and then you'll have the front of the building with all the landscaping, and then where Building 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) Two and Three is going to be, it'll be, you know, seeded, mulched, it'll be all, you know, grassed, well-kept area. So when you're looking at it from the street, it will look presentable even as is. We're not going to leave it unkempt and grass high. MR. TRAVER-No, understood. Yes, understood, but the other buildings, if there isn't a tenant availability or marketing demand isn't there, may not be constructed. Correct? MR. FADEN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-1 see what Steve was trying to say and, you know, what you were trying to achieve, and 1, Phase 1, why not the whole building? MR. FADEN-Based on what I want to do, that is too much building for me to build right now. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, I understand the undertaking. This is quite a plan for that whole corner, but I'm looking at you, you know, doing the store, tearing everything down, doing what you have to do, and then going to tie this building into your existing building. MR. FADEN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And I'm just thinking of the construction and the mess and all that, if there was any way that you could, you know, that way then you could say Two and Three would be, each one of the other buildings on the other side, at least you had one big, and the whole site's done and the traffic and the flow and your customers, I think, would be happier, and I understand it's a little bit more of a financial undertaking, but, you know, to do this, and it doesn't happen. MR. FADEN-If for some reason it doesn't happen, behind our building would be grassed well- kept area, and I understand what you're saying, too, having one full building done would be ideal, but at this time, I'm. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, how much more of a cost is it just to shell it up? MR. FADEN-$350,000. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a little bit of dough to sit on, and that's just to shell? MR. FADEN-Just to shell. MR. TRAVER-The other issue, and this hasn't been raised yet so it may not apply here, but one of the concerns that we have when we see multi-phased projects like this where some of the other phases are not part of the main project, are not already intended to be produced, is an issue called segmentation, you know, where we're looking at a project as it is today, and then it ends up maybe not happening that way or changing and we have granted approval for something that potentially could be different, maybe substantially different than what we initially looked at. Now of course you would need to come back and review that with us, but nevertheless it makes it awkward for us to consider things like SEQR and engineering comments and so on when we don't definitively know what ultimately is going to be there. I mean, obviously we'd have to go based on what's submitted so we'd have what you're proposing, but I guess at least in the back of my mind I'm kind of uncertain as to where it's going to go, as it understandably is for you as well. MR. FADEN-1 definitely understand your concern, but like I said, the infrastructure and the base of the project is going to be done, you know, as far as the parking lot, you know, so pretty much what we don't have is the buildings for Two and Three, then also behind ours. So when you're looking at it. MR. TRAVER-So in Phase I you are going to do all the parking? MR. FADEN-Yes. If you look at the plan, it's pretty much all the parking coming off Main Street and leaving Pine. We're not going to do behind Building One or going back toward the cemetery there. That will be done after the fact. So when you're looking at it from Main Street, you're going to see exactly what you have except for those two buildings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FADEN-You're welcome. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. DEEB-Have you talked to any banks yet? MR. FADEN-Yes. MR. DEEB-Is there a strong possibility that that could happen? MR. FADEN-This project going through? MR. DEEB-No, a specific building for a bank? MR. FADEN-No, we don't have any perspective tenants right now. MR. DEEB-I mean, that could change, then. MR. FADEN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So you might skip One and go right to Lot One there, say a bank decides to come in. MR. FADEN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So you wouldn't add on to yours? You'd do the other building? MR. FADEN-Correct. I mean, so the way I'm going to do this project is, again, I know it's going in this first phase, you know, I wanted to do Building Three before I did Building Two. It's either going to be Building Two or behind Building One would be the next phase, depending on whatever the tenant may be. MR. FERONE-If you build Building Two, is there any additional parking that would go along with that or you would stay with the same amount you're putting in in the initial stage? MR. FADEN-I mean, we would have to look at it, but if we were to add any extra parking, it would most likely be behind where Building One is, going along in the back there, and then we would move the dumpster to the back, but the parking coming off the Main Street to Pine would be pretty much that's how it's going to be. MR. TRAVER-There are a number of clerical issues. Did you look at the Staff Notes today that show under Summary, on Page Two, there are some discrepancies between what the plan reflects and what seems to be indicated in terms of landscape narrative, building height, fencing detail missing, that type of thing. MR. LANSING-Yes, we did respond to those comments. We just got our response today. MR. TRAVER-You have updated plans? MR. LANSING-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LANSING-Those have been addressed. Unfortunately we just submitted them today. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. MOORE-1 received the plans today. I didn't have the time to reflect what was in my Staff Notes and the applicant's comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MR. FADEN-The building height will be 17 feet. I know that was one of the questions, is 17 feet. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, they looked like issues that were primarily clerical in nature, not that you were uncertain of what you were doing but rather, you know, what Staff are looking at is different than what seems to be in the narrative type of things. So then as we sit here this 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) evening we don't actually have the latest information that you've submitted on this application to the Town? MR. LANSING-We do have the latest submission. We did submit as far as to address the clerical items and technical comments from the Town Engineer and Town Staff. We did receive those. One was dated February 10th. The other was dated February 23 d. So they were very recent correspondences to our office. MR. DEEB-If we're going to do SEQR tonight, if we end up doing that, we'd have to do it on the whole site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It would have to be for the whole site plan. MRS. MOORE-I'll explain. During our meetings with the applicant, the applicant discussed how to proceed and whether the applicant's going to come in with just one project at a time, and the applicant suggested they didn't want to proceed that way. They wanted to proceed with all the buildings showing you the build out of the project, and that's what you're seeing is you're seeing elevations from Pine Street. You're seeing the first phase includes two tenants, Subway and a second tenant, and then that second phase is that additional building. So you're seeing every component of this project, even though it's a phased project, but you're seeing every component. MR. LANSING-And if I could add to that, as far as the concern on segmentation of SEQR, it's my experience, and I will defer to the Town Attorney on the Town's interpretation, but my experience with segmentation it's something if we were to come in with just Phase I and then several months later come in with Phase II and then Phase III. In my experience that is more, that is a segmentation of SEQR as opposed to what we're trying to accomplish here. We're trying to show what the overall picture is and what we anticipate is the ultimate build out and impacts for the project. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand and agree with your interpretation of that. I guess for me it's maybe a little bit of a gray area because you are presenting Phase II and Phase III, but at the same time you're also representing to us that Phase II and Phase III might be quite different. So how does that jive with our doing SEQR? I mean, maybe you'd have to come in. MRS. MOORE-If something significantly, significantly changes in this project, the applicant would be back before the Board. MR. TRAVER-And we'd have to re-affirm. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that could be a tenant that, you know, is coming in and building on that site and a re-configuration of the lot, you know, maybe it's one building instead of two. That's definitely coming back to the Board, but this way the applicant has asked, you know, I'd like to be able to market this site. You're seeing a proposed project that could be built this way. MR. DEEB-So if the site plan's modified later, we'd have to re-address SEQR. MRS. MOORE-Yes, and you've done that in the past is either going through SEQR again or you have said it's consistent with SEQR and no adverse environmental impacts. MR. TRAVER-Just reaffirm. Yes, that makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-It's actually kind of interesting because if they only were here for Phase I they'd only need one variance instead of. MRS. MOORE-Correct, we went through that, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm sure. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we talk about the variance requests specifically. Are there any specific concerns that the Board may have with the variance requests? And that being the building setback from the side street, the freestanding sign setback and also the drive thru. Okay. So there's three possible actions that we can take this evening. The first and obviously the easiest one is to accept Lead Agency status, and there is a draft resolution in our Board package to acknowledge lead agency status, if anyone would like to move that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FADEN ENTERPRISES WHEREAS, the applicant proposes demolition of three main buildings, shed and some site grading to construct three new buildings in three phases. First building to be 4,200 +/- sq. ft. with parking from Main St. to Pine St. Project includes merging parcels creating two parcels. Second phase to be remainder of first building 4,200 +/- sq. ft., then third phase is two additional buildings 2,400 sq. ft. and 1,600 sq. ft. with a drive through. Project includes lighting and landscaping in phases also. Stormwater to be completed for whole site in Phase one. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial development on Main Street shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016, AREA VARIANCE PZ 71-2016 & SIGN VARIANCE PZ 72-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-So the next action is the SEQR review. The applicant had submitted a Short Form. Are there any concerns with, I mean, are there any environmental concerns that the Board has that we haven't discussed? MR. TRAVER-I don't really see anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't, either. Any items that would qualify as a major impact is really the issue. Any small to minor impacts are okay. Okay. If someone would like to make a motion to grant a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION GRANTING A SEQR NEG DECLARATION FADEN ENTERPRISES The applicant proposes demolition of three main buildings, shed and some site grading to construct three new buildings in three phases. First building to be 4,200 +/- sq. ft. with parking from Main St. to Pine St. Project includes merging parcels creating two parcels. Second phase to be remainder of first building 4,200 +/- sq. ft., then third phase is two additional buildings 2,400 sq. ft. and 1,600 sq. ft. with a drive through. Project includes lighting and landscaping in phases also. Stormwater to be completed for whole site in Phase one. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial development on Main Street shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-And then the last resolution this evening is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: FADEN ENTERPRISES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of three main buildings, shed and some site grading to construct three new buildings in three phases. First building to be 4,200 +/- sq. ft. with parking from Main St. to Pine St. Project includes merging parcels creating two parcels. Second phase to be remainder of first building 4,200 +/- sq. ft., then third phase is two additional buildings 2,400 sq. ft. and 1,600 sq. ft. with a drive through. Project includes lighting and landscaping in phases also. Stormwater to be completed for whole site in Phase one. .Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial development on Main Street shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for building setbacks, free standing sign setback, drive through. Possibly Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE PZ 71-2016 & SIGN VARIANCE PZ 72-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES: Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Before we move on, are there any site plan issues that we haven't talked about that we might want to give the applicant a heads up on, that we haven't already discussed? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. FERONE-1 think if we approve it the only thing, and it was brought up earlier, is that those areas in the back of Building One, where the Two and Three buildings are going in, you said you're going to have them grassed, mulched and have them look nice. As long as you make sure that that's done, I'm comfortable with it. MR. DEEB-Well, on the site plan, too, if you do build those other two buildings, your egress between the bank and the third building is going to be strictly going out. There's no entrance. MR. FADEN-Correct. MR. DEEB-That's what the site plan shows. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-All right. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 like the building design. I think it looks real modern looking. I think it would really set a good tone on Main Street. So I did want to compliment you on the building design. Okay. You're all set. Good luck. MR. LANSING-Thanks. MR. FADEN-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE I — COORDINATED REVIEW MAURICE COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.24 ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.01 TO 1.45 ACRES. SUBDIVISION: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2015; WATER DIST. EXT. LOT SIZE 9.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-So, Laura, I was confused on this further tabling motion for Maurice Combs. MRS. MOORE-What happened was his next schedule is to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I had had the Planning Board table them prior to a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. So you need to table it until after one of the Zoning Board meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So he's going to see the Zoning Board of Appeals in March, and you're going to see him in April. MR. HUNSINGER-Does it matter which April meeting? You have it on the draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 didn't see it on the agenda. MRS. MOORE-He was tabled to a specific meeting time, and that was today, and I said we better get the resolution on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience here for the Maurice Combs project? Okay. Good. We will open the public hearing and table the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-There is a draft resolution to table this to the April 28th Planning Board meeting, if anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION TABLING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB #6-2015 MAURICE COMBS 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MOTION TO GRANT FURTHER TABLING OF PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6- 2015 MAURICE COMBS , Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled until the April 28, 2016 Planning Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The rest of the evening is under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 53-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JASON SOUTHWOOD OWNER(S) JACK & GAIL DE GREGORIO ZONING CM LOCATION 974 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REFACE AN EXISTING 2040 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH A NEW OVERHANG FACADE WITH PEAKED ROOFS OVER THE DOORS. ALSO INCLUDES A NEW FRONT STONE FACING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 65-2015, SP 25- 90 RETAIL WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE .66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-68 SECTION 179-3-040 JASON SOUTHWOOD, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to reface an existing 2,040 square foot building with a new overhang facade with peaked roofs over the doors. Also included is a new stone facing on the front half of the building. This requires Planning Board review, and the Zoning Board granted the relief for the front setback and the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Good evening. Jason Southwood for the record. I don't know. I guess we did good last week. So we're here again. Again, applying for Site Plan Review for 974 State Route 9, which I think was a four inch variance for a roof overhang, and I believe we got, last week, approved by the Board. So really I guess, I don't know if you have any questions. That's where we're at. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? We had a pretty good discussion last week. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-So your plans haven't changed after our discussion last week I take it. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Nothing on the exterior, no. There's a couple of interior ones that I actually have a preliminary sketch from my architect of a couple of interior walls and stuff, but, and that'll be submitted to the Building Department and I actually have a meeting with Laura on Tuesday to go over what I have to do, and I think I can come back in April before the Board again, but, no, as far as the exterior is concerned, there's zero change. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question that I had had from last week was parking, and when you were here last week it was right after that storm. So you couldn't really get on the site to really see what the layout was like, and I just had a question, you know, how many parking spaces there were. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Currently there's, I think it calls for 11, but I think there's 13, one handicap, but there is room for additional ones that I could add if need be. Currently they're not paved, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) but they are, I think there's 13 on the survey with there should be some additional room. I could squeeze some in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, your site plan only shows seven across the front. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, there's seven across the front. I think there's four or more in the back. It was on the survey. MR. HUNSINGER-Would we need him to identify the specific parking spots on the final submission? MRS. MOORE-You can, yes, but there's adequate room for additional spaces. He only needs 11 and he's already claiming there's 13, and I'll show you the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, I believe it was on there. MR. DEEB-Well, this one shows seven. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the one I have shows seven. MR. DEEB-Just in the front. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think it's an issue. I just want to make sure that we have everything documented. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes. MR. DEEB-I think that's what we have, Laura. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. DEEB-It shows seven on the front. Where are the other six? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-And he has this rear loop back here that's all gravel. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you maybe just point to the site plan and show us what you were thinking, where the other spaces are? MR. SOUTHWOOD-This building in the rear here, you have your spaces in the front here, and then in the back here there is one here and one there, there's two there and two on the other side, and I think there's even enough room to get a couple in over here, with still leaving enough room to get around the building, but those ones, these ones and those ones are on the plan. On the other plan, they're not shown, visible. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or concerns? Is this the other plan that he was? MR. DEEB-Should it be on the site plan? I feel it should be. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I think the Board should put additional information noted on the final plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Have you got that, Brad? The final plans show the 13 parking spaces, as a condition. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or concerns? I think we all pretty much gave you lots of praise for the building design. We all liked that. MR. SOUTHWOOD-It's got to be better than what's there. Right? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If there's no other comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ETHAN HALL MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Alyssa Dawkins, the adjoining property owner. We just wanted to come in and say it's not very often that you hear from an adjoining property owner that they're glad to see something going on, but we had spoken with Jason a couple of times. We're glad to see the front facade is being done to do that as well. The one issue that Alyssa wanted to touch base on. Our immediate north entry way, when the site plan was approved for us, is an in only, and when the sewer line was put in they removed the arm coat barriers that are there, and what Alyssa's hoping to be able to do is to put her landscaping along that edge to prevent somebody from going out that in only on our side. So we just wanted to bring that up tonight to make sure that everybody was on board. We've spoken to Jason about it and he's okay with it. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, I have no objection to it. That would actually probably help the flow of traffic in our lot. MR. HALL-That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HALL-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This an Unlisted SEQR. The applicant submitted a Short Form. Are there any environmental concerns that would result in a large or severe impact? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-If not, if someone would like to move a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION GRANTING A SEQR NEG DECLARATION JASON SOUTHWOOD The applicant proposes to reface an existing 2040 sq. ft. building with a new facade with peaked roofs over the doors. Also includes a new front stone facing. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-04 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an existing building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 53-2016 JASON SOUTHWOOD, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-So I think the only additional condition we would have is that the final plan identify 13 parking spaces. MR. DEEB-And the buffer plantings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm not sure how we want to. MRS. MOORE-As an adjoining property owner? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-And I believe that's on their property. if the applicant wishes to further landscape beyond on their side, then that's up to the applicant to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 53-2016 JASON SOUTHWOOD The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to reface an existing 2040 sq. ft. building with a new overhang facade with peaked roofs over the doors. Also includes a new front stone facing. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-04 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an existing building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/23/2016 and continued the public hearing to 2/23/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/23/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 53-2016 JASON SOUTHWOOD, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers request rg anted: 2 Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) a) 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; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. e) The final plans will identify the 13 car spaces. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The next project is Site Plan PZ 57-2016 for Ronald and Cynthia Mackowiak. We're going to table that. MRS. MOORE-You tabled it already until June. MR. HUNSINGER-We already tabled that. I even had the sheet right here to remind me. SITE PLAN PZ 62-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II CURTIS D. DYBAS OWNER(S) DOMINICK & KATHLEEN DI MARTINO ZONING WR LOCATION 97 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 100 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND HOUSE AT SECOND FLOOR. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2002-334 REPLACE DOCK; BP 93658 DWELLING ALTERATIONS, AV 64-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.179 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-35 SECTION 179-13-010 CURT DYBAS, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a 100 square foot breezeway between the garage and house, and the Zoning Board granted the variance for the floor area ratio. MR. DYBAS-For the record, Curt Dybas representing Dominick and Kathleen DiMartino. Laura pretty much covered the issue. I was here last week with the Zoning Board. They gave us the variance. What we're asking for 100 feet of roof over a concrete patio, as a connection between an existing garage and the house. Mainly for protection of snow, ice buildup. Maybe some melted this week. I haven't been down there to venture all the steps, but that's primarily what they're looking for is just the connection with the roof. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-We covered it pretty well last week. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any lingering concerns or new thoughts or comments from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-No written comments. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing and let the record show that no comments were received. We will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is necessary, and with that, if there's no other comments or questions, a motion for approval would be in order. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 62-2016 CURTIS D. DYBAS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes construction of 100 sq. ft. breezeway between the garage and house at second floor. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13- 010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of nonconforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 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; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/23/2016 and continued the public hearing to 2/23/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/23/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 62-2016 CURTIS D. DYBAS, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers request rg anted: 2 Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. SITE PLAN PZ 60-2016 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JAY SALMON AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) TIM HAVENS/MARSHALL PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 446 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TEAR DOWN 3,421.5 S. FT. BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A 3,469.5 SQ. FT. DELI AND TO INSTALL NEW PARKING, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER AND LIGHTING. PROJECT INCLUDES A 1 '/2 STORY OFFICE ABOVE THE BACK OR THERE WILL BE ANOTHER BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOOD SERVICE USE IN A CM ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 34-95 RETAIL PRE-BUILT WOOD STORAGE SHEDS; BP 2013-355 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) DEMO HOUSE & GARAGE WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-58 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CURT YEAGER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to tear down a 3,421.5 square foot building to construct a 3,469.5 square foot deli and to install new parking, landscaping, stormwater and lighting. The project also includes a one and a half story over the proposed garage used for office and storage area. The only comment I have as Staff is the Board may consider discussion in regards to the building design and window along the Dix Avenue frontage, hours of operation with light timing, it's been indicated it's a 24 hour deli, the landscaping type, and parking areas in front of the garage. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering, here with Curt Yeager who's one of the applicants. We also have the parcel owner, Mr. Havens is in the audience. This is a re-development of the existing Quaker TV site. When we first looked at this project, we looked at the potential to re-use the existing building. The existing building was actually within the setback limits. So anything we would have done to the existing building would have caused variances and other issues. So working with the owner, once we got the survey, we wanted to pull the building back into the setback limits away from Dix Avenue, away from Queensbury Avenue, which allowed us to layout the site a little better. Also the elevation was very difficult to try to do stormwater management. If anybody's familiar with that site, it's mostly paved all the way around. There's open curb cut all around except for on the very corner. All the stormwater runs off into the street, and goes along the ditch lines. With the plan that you have before you, we were able to pull the pavement back. We were able to drop the pavement down so we don't have any issues with handicap accessibility, getting into an island building. So we're all at grade entrances. We've been out and done soil testing with the Department of Health for the septic system. We have deep well drained sands, which is good for our infiltration also, and we've kind of designed it so that we've spread out the stormwater infiltration off across the site, kept the building roofs to separate small infiltrators in the parking area and the edges of the pavement go out to infiltration basins, drywells along the outside. We also had a, we had I believe just over a one minute perc, but we designed the stormwater management to 10 inches per hour, which is almost eight to ten times greater than what the actual perc rate is there. So we've got a lot of conservativeness in the stormwater design for the runoff. Septic system is designed for the deli use with a grease trap that'll have to go before the Department of Health for review. I've already spoken to Mike Shaw in regards to that, and it's very similar. This is a franchise of an operation that's downstate, that Curt and his partner Jay wanted to bring to this area, and so there's a lot of knowns with our septic use. So they're going to be the same operation. So we've got that dialed in pretty well. Those are a little bit bigger facilities, but we have almost the same capacity as they do at their facilities that are in much more populated areas. We do have site lighting, all downcast lighting around the outside, used on a lot of our projects previously. All of our signage is on the building at this time, there's no proposed freestanding signage on the site, other than what's on the building and what you have on the actual plan. Other than that, I know Staff has a comment regarding parking in front of the garage. The garage is a storage materials for the building. The parking in front of the garage would primarily be employee parking. After that it's a pretty straightforward design. I think it's a much better use of the site. The cut backs of the curb cuts in moving the entrances further away from the traffic light, is definitely a positive thing for that area. There's a dedicated entrance. We do have an in and an out on the Queensbury Ave, and then we have an in and then a left hand turn and a right hand turn on the Dix Avenue. So we had that parking separated so we're not stacking up behind it. So that two cars can get out there and one can turn right if possible. All the utilities are coming in from Dix Avenue, and other than that, there's no seating inside. There is an area for a couple of picnic tables on the exterior of the building, that's the pad to the east. Do you have any questions or anything in particular you'd like me to address? MR. HUNSINGER-So it's all take-out? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, and what's the name of the franchise, can you say? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. YEAGER-It's Cameron's Deli. The franchise paperwork has been filed. It's going through the attorney review right now, and we're just waiting on final approval of that. They have two other delis standing. They've been in business for over 20 years. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. YEAGER-So it's a deli/kind of convenience store. There will also be goods that will be sold in there, eggs, bacon, milk, cheese, you know, people can buy and purchase their deli meats to bring home to make sandwiches out of, you know, there will be beer and juice coolers as well, lottery, you know, candy bars. Very similar to a convenience store, but the main focus of it will be deli. MR. TRAVER-So sandwiches, subs and that kind of stuff. MR. YEAGER-Sandwiches, subs, dinners, specialty sandwiches. All the sandwiches are already all trademarked. So we're excited about it. MR. TRAVER-When you say dinners, what do you expect the hours of operation to be? MR. YEAGER-It's 24/7. MR. TRAVER-24/7. MR. YEAGER-Yes. MS. WHITE-Above the garage I see three office spaces. Is that all for the operation of the deli or will those, you're not planning on having other office work going on here, additional employees? MR. YEAGER-At this particular time what our plan was is to hopefully rent out those three spaces to help offset building costs. MS. WHITE-So that is the plan. MR. YEAGER-Yes, whether it be a small accounting firm, law firm, whatever it could be, small contractor that needs some space. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? I see you brought your color pallets. MR. CENTER-Again, the fact that it's a franchise and they've modeled the building similar to other facilities. So that was one of the interesting things about the existing Quaker TV is it almost fits the same type of model as the existing deli. If it wasn't for some of the setback issues and some of the site issues with the grading, it might have been a good re-use of the building, but we think this is a much better layout of the site, especially for access and grading and stormwater. MR. DEEB-How many parking spots? MR. YEAGER-1 believe there are 43.. It's over, 44. Forty-four. MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, you had a comment on lighting? MRS. MOORE-Right, because it's on 24 hours, so is lighting on 24 hours or is it on timed lights? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-That's the question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and what was the answer? MR. CENTER-The lighting plan shows we are at zero on the outer perimeter. We do need to provide, certainly with a 24 hour operation for insurance purposes have to provide a certain foot candle, and what we tried to do with the lighting plan was to show that we had zero foot candles and keep the main lighting to the parking areas away from the residential sides of the building, to where we only have, we have this light. We have zero before we even get to the edge of the property here for the one on Dix Avenue, and again, we have some plantings along the Queensbury Avenue residential, and again, there's only on that side just a security light downcast. It's much less than the overhead parking lights. We've kept the more intensive 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) parking lights to the commercial ends that kind of faces the commercial buildings on the other sides, being, you know, across Queensbury Avenue, the car lot on the corner and Aikens across the street. That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-And there's street lights there, too. MR. CENTER-1 believe there are street lights all the way around that light up the area. MR. TRAVER-And a traffic light. MR. CENTER-And a traffic light. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CENTER-Certainly if you want to place a condition if they do decide not to go 24 hour operation for a period of time having the parking lots be on a timer, I'm sure that wouldn't be an issue with the owner, that only the security lights, maybe the signage lights be turned off if it's not a 24 hour operation, and just leave the security lights. That would be a condition that you could put in there, if that's a concern, if we're not operating a 24/7 model. MR. TRAVER-Well, it's certainly a more attractive building than what's there now. MR. CENTER-1 think it's a good addition to the area, a lot of positive from folks that have asked what was going in there when we were out doing site work. MR. TRAVER-There were, in the engineering comments, they did talk about, a lot of it looked like clerical types of issues, but they did reference stormwater runoff into the street. MR. CENTER-Yes, that area, we're going to, once we get through with the Planning Board, we're going to have to go to the DOT for the Dix Avenue entrance. The plan there is to shed as much water in that area out to the basins on either side, and to have as little as possible go in that direction, and anything that does go out to the edge, to get it and taper it in to those basins. I don't expect to have runoff like there is now, certainly hardly any, that only the stuff where you have to match that existing pavement, there might be small amounts, but we're certainly going to improve the entire intersection with what we're doing with those basins on both sides of the street, and the drywells being in there will take care of anything during times of frost and get it into the ground and into the well-drained sands. So I think we can show some additional arrows showing slopes and grading that way so that it's not going in that direction. MR. TRAVER-So you don't see any issue in addressing the engineering comments? MR. CENTER-No, the engineering comments, a lot of them are on, based on new construction. I looked at this as a re-development project which gives us a little bit more flexibility in some of the things. So it's going to be a conversation between me and the Town Engineer to discuss which Chapter, they're quoting Chapter Six. I'm using Chapter Nine, trying to re-develop and do the best we can and, again, spread out the water and not concentrate it in one single area, and I think we've kind of done that, and in any re-development project you can't meet that book 100%, and it says right in the re-development they understand that new construction on existing, or those regulations on existing sites are very difficult. I think we tried to work it out. There's a couple of things that we can probably find in common and get through those comments. I don't see anything in there that's difficult. MR. HUNSINGER-I assume one of your comments is on the archeological sensitive area since it's already a pre-disturbed site. MR. CENTER-Right. We did get a letter from SHPO. I did give it to, we did receive a no impact letter from SHPO. When we did the EAF mapper the answer was no on the endangered species or anything else there. MR. HUNSINGER-I actually bought a TV from there not too long ago, before they closed. It was a flat screen, though. MR. CENTER-So did 1. Mine was a box TV as a kid. MR. DEEB-It's a pretty ambitious project that you're undertaking here. MR. TRAVER-On that note, assuming that you get the approvals, how long do you anticipate this will take? I mean, when do you plan on opening if all goes well? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. YEAGER-We would love to be able to open by September. MR. CENTER-We're going to have to go through Department of Health. That does take a period of time. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. CENTER-To get those permits, to get through their system. There's a month or two backlog there to get through their system and also work with the DOT office regarding that other entrance. MR. TRAVER-And the Highway Department still. MR. CENTER-And the Highway Department. I think, once again, I think we're going to improve what's there, and also by lowering the site it helps everybody. MR. FERONE-At least by Balloon Festival weekend they could buy their sandwich and take it to the Airport. MR. YEAGER-That would be great. MR. HUNSINGER-Quite a few years ago we approved a pizza place up the street a little bit. They were anticipating with the industrial park going in that there would be a demand for it. MR. CENTER-Right, up by Queensbury Avenue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CENTER-That building was in there. I think it's vacant now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Yes, they never even started construction. MR. DEEB-He's not trying to discourage you. MR. HUNSINGER-No, no, I'm saying there's an opportunity there. MR. YEAGER-You either buy into it or you don't, right? I think the traffic counts there are great. There's 18,000 plus vehicles that go by that a day. MR. DEEB-It's an intriguing project. I like it. There's a lot of varying in it. MR. YEAGER-I like to push the envelope. MS. WHITE-1 just want to say I appreciate you bringing the actual samples there. I think that's awesome. MR. DEEB-Yes, it looks nice. MR. CENTER-It was easy. The architect from downstate had a lot of this stuff, you know, since they're trying to maintain the same franchise style. We had a lot of access to this. So it was very easy. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't even notice the little model. MS. WHITE-1 appreciate it. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought you were just working on your modeling skills. MR. CENTER-1 can't take credit for that. That showed up on my desk. MR. DEEB-So most of the other franchises are similar to this, then? MR. YEAGER-Very similar, yes. MR. DEEB-It's a nice design. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MS. WHITE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? We do have a couple of people that want to comment. If you could give up the table, please. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to make comments to the Board. I would ask anyone that wishes to address the Board to speak clearly into the microphone and state your name for the record. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes and the tape is also available on the Town's website. So if you want to come up, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOEL MALLARD MR. MALLARD-Hi, my name is Joel Mallard. I just had a couple of questions. Looking at the, facing the building from Dix, the left hand side, is that all green space there, you know, according to the blank, the white section of the property, and is that all one piece of property right there? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MALLARD-What, if anything, is going to happen to that green space in the future, or what could happen to that? MR. HUNSINGER-To the green space? MR. MALLARD-Well, looking at that, that's all grassed area to, if you're facing the building, to the left hand side. MR. HUNSINGER-If that were to be developed it would have to come back before this Board for project review, for site plan review. MR. MALLARD-1 understand it's 24 hour lighting in the parking lot. How does that affect the adjacent property, the residential property that's there? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so one of the requirements in the Town Code is that all sites that have lights on them, that the light end at the property line, and so they have submitted to us a lighting plan that shows that the lights, any lights that they have on site, that the glow of those lights will end at the property line. MR. MALLARD-Okay, and in fact if that doesn't happen after this project's been approved, how does that get addressed for that residential property next door? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you live next door? MR. MALLARD-1 own the house next door. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You would call the Town and talk to the Code Enforcement Office and, you know, maybe one of the lights, that wattage could be turned down or something, but it would be addressed. They are required to build what they've proposed on this site plan. MR. MALLARD-So that would have to be after the fact, if there's an issue after the fact. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. MALLARD-1 would have to go somewhere else. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you'd call the Town and the Town would have, through enforcement, would make sure that it was addressed. I mean, obviously the first thing is to talk to the neighbor, and if you can work it out, that's fine. MR. YEAGER-Call me. MR. MALLARD-I'm just trying to figure out how that's going to impact my property, you know, next door, and the drainage and all that kind of thing. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so one of the other requirements, and you heard the applicant mention that, Town Code requires that all stormwater be contained on the site. So they have shown on their plans that there will be no stormwater leaving their site that would go on to a neighboring site like yours. MR. MALLARD-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And you should notice quite a significant improvement in runoff. If this is approved, you should notice quite a significant difference in the stormwater. MR. MALLARD-I'm just concerned about the lighting, you know, having our kitchen window, everything's right there, and bedrooms windows. MR. TRAVER-So you're immediately to the east? MR. MALLARD-If that is east, yes. MR. YEAGER-On Dix Avenue? MR. MALLARD-Yes. So it was just a concern, lighting, 24 hour traffic running through that property right next to the house. That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and as you pointed out, there's quite a large grass area between the building and the driveway and the property line. MR. MALLARD-But there again, if it's future expansion into that property. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, now I understand the question. So if they wanted to expand the building, or expand the parking or add another use on the property, they would have to come back before us. There would be a public hearing. You would have the opportunity to come in and comment on it. MR. YEAGER-We wouldn't be opposed to putting up some evergreens along there, too, to block it off. Whatever would make it good for you so it doesn't get in your way. We're very reasonable people AUDIENCE MEMBER-Us, too. MR. YEAGER-We'd be acceptable to putting a big evergreen or a fence or something there. MR. MALLARD-We can work that out. All right. I was just concerned. All right. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Did anyone else wish to comment. Is there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sir, I just would also add, I mean, if you wanted to review that lighting plan, you certainly can. It's here at the Town and maybe the applicant could even show it to you on the way out. The lighting plan. Because the light actually ends well before your property line to the east. Okay. If there's no other public comments, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR action. Are there any concerns with the environmental review? I heard several comments earlier that they felt that the proposal was better than the existing for runoff. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it will be a big improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-If there's no concerns, a motion would be in order. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEG. SEQR DECLARATION SITE PLAN PZ 60-2016 JAY SALMON The applicant proposes to tear down 3,421.5 sq. ft. building to construct a 3,469.5 sq. ft. deli and to install new parking, landscaping, stormwater and lighting. Project includes a 1Y2 story 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) office above the back or there will be another building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, food service use in a CM zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 60-2016 JAY SALMON, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-1 think the only addition would be the evergreen trees that you offered to put in. I don't know if we would need to identify that on the site plan. We probably should. MRS. MOORE-Yes, and you should indicate either a height, if you're going to plant evergreens it would be the height. If you're going to do hard woods it would be the diameter. MR. CENTER-Evergreens would probably offer the most screening for what they're looking for in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you have some. MR. CENTER-The plant list didn't make it on the final plan. MR. HUNSINGER-1 noticed that. MR. CENTER-Moving up into the new auto cad, a later got turned off. 2016, it's moving into the new world with the new computer, but we do have the planting list. We do have, along the Queensbury, well, on Queensbury Ave. along the southern property line we've got that the LL's are the green spire linden which is shade, shade bushes to block any lighting going into that direction. We'd do, you know, something similar along the east side. We could do, you know, four there and try to line them up and work with the neighbor next door. MS. WHITE-What height would they be when they were planted? MR. CENTER-They would be the six feet tall linden. MS. WHITE-Six feet. They'll grow. MR. MAGOWAN-What are they called? MR. CENTER-Green spire lindens. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MS. WHITE-But Laura mentioned that we should, you know, specify height. So I just wanted to see what was. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and also a number. MR. CENTER-We'd add four more over there, so there'd be a total of eight. MR. MAGOWAN-Eight along there? MR. CENTER-No, four. There'd be a total of eight on the site. We'd add four more along the east side, and keep them parallel with the parking lot, particular probably the travel lane where the vehicle lighting would be shining in that direction. MR. MAGOWAN-And you said four along the. MR. CENTER-We already have four on the south by the residential neighbor to the south. We'd do four along the east. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So they're already there. So I've just got to put in the resolution for the four six foot green spire lindens on the east side. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you're ready. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 60-2016 JAY SALMON The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to tear down 3,421.5 sq. ft. building to construct a 3,469.5 sq. ft. deli and to install new parking, landscaping, stormwater and lighting. Project includes a 1Y2 story office above the back or there will be another building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, food service use in a CM zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/23/2016 and continued the public hearing to 2/23/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/23/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 60-2016 JAY SALMON; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans k) There will be (4) six foot tall Greenspire lindens planted along the east side of the property to buffer the neighbors. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Great project. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN PZ 56-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II JEAN HOFFMAN AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) JEAN HOFFMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 159 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE 2,010 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,815 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME TO BE 12,420 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT TO INCLUDE NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SITE WORK. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 3.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.11 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to remove a 2,010 square foot single family home. This is to construct a new 3,815 square foot home which is the footprint, and this new home will have a 12,420 square foot floor area. The project includes a new septic system, stormwater 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) management and site work. The project occurs within 50 feet of 15% slopes, and that's the reason for the review before the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, and I'm here to represent Jean Hoffman on this site plan application for a new residence on her property off of Cleverdale Road. This is a property that's 3.4 acres. It faces the Harris Bay side off of Cleverdale. Quite a deep lot, 550 feet or so from road to shoreline. Obviously at 3.4 acres it's quite a sizeable lot. The plan is to remove the existing residence on the property and to re- build, all in accordance with setbacks, building heights, floor area ratios, all the standards that are required, but as indicated, the thing that triggers the appearance for site plan is the 15% grade that happens to be right at the shoreline, the steeper pitch right there. Otherwise we were totally compliant with all the different standards in the Town's Ordinance. There will be a new proposed wastewater system which will be pumped back that much further from the lake than what is currently in place. There's a new septic tank, pump tank and a new absorption field, back probably in the range of 350 to 400 feet from the, 300 feet, 350 feet from the shoreline. Stormwater management system, which hasn't been formally in place to date. So now with the new residence there will be a combination of rain gardens and shallow grass swales that will address the impervious, runoff from the impervious areas. So that's all a bonus and a re-development of the site. It's standard planting, whatnot, and actually the shoreline area, the existing shoreline buffer will remain. We're not really doing any changes to the shoreline or that area inside the 50 foot setback line, aside from where the old building will be removed. The existing building does not currently sit 50 feet back, but now the new structure will, so only in the removal and that restoration in that area would there be any disturbance within 50 foot. Standard residential lighting on building lighting, downcast, the standard for a residential, and any additional landscaping would be typical residential landscaping. That plan would evolve as the project is built out and the owner has the opportunity to work with the landscape contractor, but we have shown some planting areas on there in compliance with the shoreline buffer requirements. I'll be glad to take any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-That's quite the property. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It's a unique property, just in size alone, and it's a nice level property as well. There's a lot of nice aspects to it, west facing, level land. MR. HUNSINGER-So were you apprised of the lawsuits between the applicant and the Town? MR. MAC ELROY-I'm aware that there was some history on the docking situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, your client does not have the best reputation. Let me put it that way. It was a long kind of dragged out battle. MR. MAC ELROY-From what I understand. She had mentioned that. Hopefully that's all behind everyone, and we can move forward with this project and have it stand on its own merits. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I have a couple of minor questions about the project. I think it's probably a benefit to the lake and probably to the property because you're going to capture stormwater and move the house further from the water edge. Are you doing anything to capture stormwater from the existing patio? MR. MAC ELROY-It's not addressed specifically in this plan, although I will say that all the new impervious and not the net difference. You understand that the net difference is what's required. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-But we are addressing all the impervious for the stormwater management plan, but all the new impervious that we're building on site. That existing patio is, whatever exists there now will be. It's something that we can certainly look at, but it's not part of this plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and I think this is a semantics issue. The rain garden to the, the northern most rain garden, is not an infiltration device, correct? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. MAC ELROY-It's not an infiltration device that generates runoff from a vehicular surface. I don't know if you're getting at the 100 foot setback. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we've had these conversations before, because if there's an infiltration device within 100 feet of the lake, it requires a zoning variance. MR. MAC ELROY-On a minor project, this is another little twist, on a minor project the runoff from vehicular surfaces has to meet the 100 foot setback, but that from a roof does not, for a minor project. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-A major project it does require a setback to do that. So I think in both cases it's not runoff that's generated from vehicle surface, driveway, parking area type of thing, and I guess there's some question whether that technically is an infiltration device. It's a treatment, the rain garden becomes a treatment device. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, not an infiltration device. MR. FERONE-Where the plan says planting area, plant selection as per owner, any indications of exactly what is going in those areas? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, low growth shrubs and ground cover as per the native species directives. I always hesitate to make selections of plantings and what not because the owners inevitably have, or the landscape contractors have ideas, but the key thing is that it's compliant with the native species requirements. MR. TRAVER-Will you be participating in this project through the development if this gets approved? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, typically the Town requires the engineer in this case, to provide a sign off on the wastewater system, and stormwater management system. So in that regard, yes, I would be, I typically provide a letter of compliance, a letter for both stormwater and wastewater on a project like this. MR. TRAVER-Well, what about compliance with the site plan itself in general? I raise that issue because the last, the Chairman raised it briefly before, but the last site plan that was approved for the site, the applicant deviated substantially from what was approved and what you have presented us tonight is an interesting perhaps better project than what's there, but I guess I'm looking for some assurance that that pattern will change going forward, that there'll be some oversight to ensure that the applicant does not elect to deviate from, and understand the importance of adhering to the formal site plan as approved. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. The normal process is that Bruce Frank would meet with the owner or the owner's contractor prior to initiation of the project and there would be some review of what the plans require, what the expectations are of the Town. The engineer would be involved for those two aspects that I spoke about, and Bruce would follow up at the end with compliance of those issues. Now I suppose what could be different? They could move the location of the building. They could, I don't know, maybe not do a stormwater like that comes under my direct compliance. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand that. I'm not expecting that you would speculate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so what happened with the boat dock is that it suddenly got 25% higher and I can't remember the percentage bigger, but it was significantly bigger. MR. TRAVER-And there were some allegations of alterations, of filings, documents. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there were files forged that were filed at the Town. MR. TRAVER-Which is a minor violation of, I think local but not State law. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There were some significant issues. MR. MAC ELROY-The system of checks, the Town would have some, would have definite involvement in the building aspect of it. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess the comfort the Town has in this is they couldn't live in the house without a certificate of occupancy. Where a boathouse, you know, they used it without one until the finally won in the courts. They got to be the beneficiary of the new law, well, it's really not a new law, but an interpretation of the law that boathouses now are not subject to site plan review. They're on the navigable waters and only subject to the Lake George Park Commission. MR. MAC ELROY-This wasn't the court case that. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it wasn't. There was a prior one that this applicant benefitted from. That's how it was finally resolved. MR. MAC ELROY-Because once that decision was made that negated any irregularity with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but it was in the courts for like eight years. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it didn't negate the irregularities. Those remain. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It negated our jurisdiction. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-There's a big difference there. The violations of the approved plan were never addressed by the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So that's a concern with another project by the same applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And thus my question about, as a professional, you know, your level of involvement in the project. It gives us some level of comfort, I guess. MR. MAC ELROY-1 don't know what, I mean, I'm not suggesting this, but I don't know what conditions you could apply if that, you know, is meaningful or allowable. MR. DEEB-Well, if it's not up to compliance she won't get a CO. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. She won't be able to live in the house. MR. DEEB-And that's our assurance that this won't happen. I wasn't part of the last Board when this was taking place, but I certainly don't want to be part of another one and see this happen again. She just flaunted what happened up here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And it's pretty discouraging to see that happen. So you can see our trepidation with this site plan, but I mean, the site plan will be voted on its merit, which, you know, it looks like a good site plan, but again, the CO can be withheld if compliance is not met again. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on the site plan? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't want you to feel like these comments are directed at you. MR. MAC ELROY-1 understand, and I had some awareness that I might hear some of that. MR. TRAVER-I'm sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said I thought it was a pretty good site plan. It's one of the few projects where you have a very good shoreline buffer. We often talk about the need to add plantings and such, and this is one case where it's pretty good. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MRS. MOORE-1 can point out that in the draft resolution it does say, one of your conditions is as built plans to certify the site plan is developed according to the plan, as built is required, and I'm not quite sure it addresses Steve's comment that what happens. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-1 suspect the Town will be exercising some oversight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would imagine. MS. WHITE-1 have a clarification question. If I'm looking at the plans here and I see a first floor area and a second floor area, each of about 3,000 square feet for a total of 6,000 square feet, but in our project description I see a 3,800 square foot footprint with a 12,000 square feet floor area. What am I missing? MR. MAC ELROY-1 doesn't add up, right? Well, floor area ratio is, the floor area is the number of the 12,000 plus, that's first floor, second floor, a basement, which is the same as the first floor, so another 3,000, a garage, and then the accessory structures that are on there. MS. WHITE-Okay. Thank you. I just couldn't gather how that was all coming together. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MS. WHITE-So I appreciate it. So it's, yes, a big difference. So it's the total with the garage and the basement comes to the 12. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, because the floor area definition includes any space that has more than five feet of head room. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. DEEB-So the plan shows six bathrooms. MR. MAC ELROY-Is that what it works out? Yes. Five bedrooms., wastewater is based on the bedroom count. MR. DEEB-So that's going to require a pretty good septic. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I mean, it's a five bedroom design as opposed to three or four, but it's 550 gallons a day, but if you've been to the site you'll see that they do have a good, nice spacious level area to work with. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they might need it there with the bunk house, the guest house, the deck, the playhouse, the rec room. They might need a septic that large. Maybe a little bigger. MR. MAC ELROY-It is seven acres. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received, and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type 11 SEQR so no SEQR review is required. Are there any additional comments, concerns that we haven't talked about? If anyone would like to make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 56-2016 JEAN HOFFMAN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to remove 2,010 sq. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) ft. single family to construct a new 3,815 sq. ft. (footprint) home to be 12,420 sq. ft. floor area. Project to include new septic system, stormwater management and site work. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/23/2016 and continued the public hearing to 2/23/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/23/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 56-2016 JEAN HOFFMAN; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans k) All plantings for shoreline and for the property will be native species to the area. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to say anything about the plantings, since they weren't identified specifically? Dennis did say that they would be native species. We should probably have that in the resolution as well. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. You're welcome. SITE PLAN PZ 66-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LARRY BROWN AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE ZONING HI LOCATION 26 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 4,924 SQ. FT. ROOF STRUCTURE OVER EXISTING SHELVING UNIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE COVERAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-11, SP 41-12, AV 34-12, SP 54-02, SP 63-10, AV 54-10, SP 48-11, UV 40-92, SP 19-92, SP 16-02, SP 54-05 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 13.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-49 SECTION 179-9- 120 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY BROWN, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction or to maintain the construction of a 4,924 square foot roof structure over existing shelving unit for outdoor storage coverage of car parts and other items. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record Ethan Hall principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Larry Brown from Jerry Brown Auto Parts. The project is an existing parts storage set of racking that Larry, it's a lot of interior car parts they need to keep them out of the weather, interior car doors, things of that nature. It just needs to have a roof over it to keep them out of the weather. There, in a nutshell, is what we've got. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-This is kind of a hat in hand, didn't realize that it needed to have a review done prior to. It was found during Mr. O'Brien's inspection. MR. DEEB-Mr. Brown knows how the Town feels about his property down there. So we've already expounded plenty of compliments on him. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MS. WHITE-So even though it's kind of hat in hand, it was an improvement to the property. MR. HALL-It was an improvement to the property in that it allowed him to kind of enclose it and to keep stuff covered up more than just leaving stuff out in the wide open. Some of the stuff that sits out, truck hoods, you know, truck bodies, things like that, don't require a lot of cover, but when you start looking at interior doors and, you know, interior sides of doors and parts like that, it's best to keep them in some kind of enclosure, out of the weather. MR. MAGOWAN-If it wasn't for such a really wonderful facility that you have there, you know, I'm sorry you even had to come in. I'm sorry that they didn't see it, it took them so darn long, but, no, really, you've got a great show that goes on there. You do it and it looks spectacular. I just can't believe you haven't bought all of Warren Street there and just kept going. MR. DEEB-You're going to get a swelled head here, Larry. MR. HALL-Chris, you had a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the site development data, so there was the original submission, and then there was the revised submission. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. HALL-Yes. The original submission was kind of an error on my part. I thought that both lots had been combined, and both lots have not been combined. They're kept separate. There was an Area Variance issued. When we did the big parts storage and, the new warehouse to the east, there was an Area Variance that allowed us to connect the two buildings because there's a zero lot line, technically, but those two lots were never combined. All the combination of lots took place on that lot to the east. This is still maintained as a separate lot. So there is still a lot line there. MR. HUNSINGER-So you changed the. MR. BROWN-That's an old picture you guys have. MR. HUNSINGER-You changed the top table, but you didn't change the bottom table. MR. HALL-Because the setbacks really don't change. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except for one you come to the permeability calculation. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So your percent impermeable plus your permeable add up to over 100%. So that's how I caught it. I'm like, wait a minute. Because I saw the new one and I looked at the old one and I was like. MR. HALL-That's more than 100. I noticed that after I made the submission, and that's the reason. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so you need to correct the permeable, I guess, and it should be 5.38%, something like that. So you've got all the compliments. Now we'll find the corrections. So you'll need to correct that, the site development data sheet. MR. HALL-Yes. I'll print a map and get a revised sheet for the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. DEEB-Nice catch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was surprised, too. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? We do have one person that wishes to comment, if you could give up the table, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NANETTE RUSHLOW MRS. RUSHLOW-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'm Mrs. Rushlow. I own property at 1 Highland Avenue, about 80 feet from Jerry Brown. You know that corner, the red light, you go Highland Avenue up by the web, the plumbing place. I've gone through all the construction and everything, and Jerry Brown, as you have complimented him, I will also compliment him on his neat job of what he's doing over there. My concern is over the period of the years which my family have owned this home for 62 years. We've watched this develop, and I'm sitting in water there. So my question is, to Mr. Brown, the stormwater. When you start putting roofs over 5,000 square feet of this and, you know, all these buildings, am I going to get water again? That's my question. I've been flooded. I have two systems, one backing up the other, to keep me out of water, and I'm on the low end now, because when he did build this beautiful thing he built higher than the rest of us. So that's my question. I don't want to get wet anymore. I'm tired of water. I'm tired of pumping, and I don't know, the other question would be, are you, this is one more building going up to cover everything. You have 14 acres out there. Are you going to continue to put more of these coverings up to protect your equipment? Which means roofs and roofs and water can't seep in the ground under there. It's got to go someplace. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if you were listening when we were talking about the other applicant, but it is a Town requirement that all stormwater be maintained on the site. So we will have them address that. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MRS. RUSHLOW-Well, the reason I know the problem is because for all these years there was a quarry out there. When the quarry got filled in that pushed water right through the stone. We're sitting on stone or rock or whatever you call it, and it brought it all in to myself. I've been there a long time and it doesn't look like I'm going any place. So anyway, that's where I stand. I need that information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to come back to the table. We will close the public hearing. If you could just the stormwater questions. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HALL-Yes, to address that point, when the new warehouse was put in, Hutchins Engineering did a pretty significant amount of looking at that east side, and all of the drainage that comes down through there, there's a big drain that comes down from the K-Mart, and there's an easement that allows all that to come down through there. We couldn't tie into that, and that crosses Route 9, or crosses Warren Street right there at the light. The pipe that goes underneath the road right there wasn't sized large enough to accept anything except K-Mart. So the system that we have in place takes the water up and around the back of the building. MR. BROWN-Yes, I can show you. Basically what happens is, so this system that we put in place is, I think there's almost seven retention ponds down the side. The last one down here, basically what happens is there's a pipe system, we had to put the pipe under the building. It goes from right around here and the comes out onto this property over here that we also own, which, from that property. MRS. MOORE-Is that a better description, then? MR. HALL-A little bit. It doesn't have all the infiltration ponds on it, but basically there's. MR. BROWN-So when it comes out over, onto this property, there is a culvert that goes underneath Warren Street, over there. So that there really shouldn't be any water escaping. MR. HALL-This is the drain line easement that comes all the way down from K-Mart, and there's a system of underground piping with catch basins and turning structures and man holes and all kinds of stuff down through there, of which when we started going through this, all the manhole covers were gone because somebody had swiped them and turned them in for cash. So like Larry said, when it gets down to this last infiltration basin, they take the pipe from here and it goes back up and around the building and back over here. This structure that we're looking at right here, this is already hard surface. It was already a piece of hard surface. MRS. RUSHLOW-That main pipe that you couldn't tie into, that ruptured a few years ago. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. RUSHLOW-I was totally flooded. MR. BROWN-The other thing is there were critters that got into it and then it came down from K- Mart's pond and started running right down Highland. MR. HALL-So this piping that runs up and around the back here, there is the main pond which grabs a lot of this and that also ties in and runs back around this way. So they've done a great deal to try and amend that, to get that water. MRS. RUSHLOW-Yes, because I'm on this side of all of that, where that pipe is running. MR. HALL-Yes, where the pipe from K-Mart came down. MR. TRAVER-So basically you're assuring us that assuming the system remains intact and doesn't break as it did before, the neighbor should not experience any more stormwater. MR. BROWN-And that isn't ours. That's actually going, there's a right of way for that, and that's not ours. We're not the ones that have to maintain it. If we do see a problem. MR. TRAVER-Right, but you do maintain the stormwater on your property. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. BROWN-Absolutely. I don't have an option. MR. HUNSINGER-So who owns the one coming out of K-Mart? Is that owned by K-Mart? MR. BROWN-That's owned by K-Mart, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-Yes, that was the big to do that we had with the parts storage building was getting the stormwater to work, because we were going to try and just tie in and go right underneath Warren Street, but DOT said absolutely not, because they replaced the culvert underneath Warren Street and they replaced an 18 inch pipe, with an 18 inch pipe. MR. BROWN-They wanted to make it bigger, and they just, they couldn't because there was so much bedrock. MR. HALL-There was so much ledge there they couldn't get it any larger, not without blasting, and when we put the drainage out around back there was a significant amount of blasting that had to be done there to get the rock excavation off. Water doesn't run up hill. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Thank you for that explanation. MR. HALL-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-That was really helpful. I mean, I do remember going through that, but it was a while ago now. MR. BROWN-Five years ago? MR. HALL-Approvals. Eight years ago. MR. MAGOWAN-Four, wasn't it? MR. BROWN-Time flies. The older I get, the faster it goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no kidding. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it just seems like Rozell was there yesterday. MR. BROWN-Well, actually August was our one year anniversary of having our CO for it. MR. HALL-The Area Variance was listed as 2011 and the Site Plan was 2012. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, here's the whole list. MR. HALL-Going on four years. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? This is an Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a Short Form. Are there any environmental c that we didn't already discuss? If not, if you'd like to make a motion. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP PZ-66-2016 LARRY BROWN The applicant proposes to construct 4,924 sq. ft. roof structure over existing shelving unit for outdoor storage coverage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 66-2016 LARRY BROWN (JBAP), Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else that we need to consider in a motion? MR. TRAVER-No, the stormwater issue is already in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Next time you want to put a roof up, make sure you. MR. BROWN-1 think I'm done. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN PZ 66-2016 LARRY BROWN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to construct 4,924 sq. ft. roof structure over existing shelving unit for outdoor storage coverage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/23/2016 and continued the public hearing to 2/23/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/23/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 66-2016 LARRY BROWN (JBAP); Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers request granted: 2 Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) a) 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; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; C) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 23rd day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. SUBDIVISION PZ 61-2016 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGES SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOSEPH & KATHLEEN NOONAN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NR LOCATION COOLIDGE AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 2.542 ACRES INTO 1.262 ACRES EACH. APPLICANT PROPOSES ON-SITE SEPTIC, CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL WATER, TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, TWO DRIVEWAYS AND AREAS OF CLEARING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 4-2008 2-LOT ADMIN., SKETCH PLAN 2 LOT 10/2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 2.542 TAX MAP NO. 302.18-2-61.22 SECTION CHAPTER 183 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-I'll read information into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to create a two lot subdivision of a 2.542 acre parcel into 1.262 each, and under the preliminary review there's no changes to the application. Two septic systems are to be installed, and the only thing that I would suggest at the Planning Board level is in reference to limited disturbance and remaining wooded or vegetative area to remain no cut. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering representing Mr. Noonan and his wife. This was before the Board under concept, I believe, Matt Steves from VanDusen and Steves presented a three lot concept plan and the determination from that was the Board thought that two lots on this parcel fit better, so we took that back with the owner and discussed it with him and we came up with the plan that's before you. We did go out with Chazen Engineering this week and did a couple of test pits in the locations near where the septic systems were proposed. Found the soils that we were pretty sure we were going to end up with. In that location at the higher elevation we had 60 inches to mottling and 80 inches to ground water. In the lower elevation for Lot 2A we had 36 inches to mottling and 42 inches to groundwater, which would still work with the shallow system details that are already on the plan. Having done several replacement septic systems in this area, including the Parks and a few on Hughes Court, had an idea of what we were going to end up with for soils. So there was no huge surprises. The perc rate was just over a minute. So we have good material. We do know we'll do shallow systems. That's why we've shown the limited disturbance where we have them to continue with the grading elevation for the homes and the septic system. Water would come off of Coolidge Avenue. The power runs along the property line to the north. We would take overhead power would come on the back side across the lot to a pole. We'd have to work with National Grid in regards to that, but all the power in this subdivision kind of comes behind the lots, but there is power that comes along the back near the corner of Parks and Della Bella that National Grid could run power and telephone off of that pole, and could either go 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) underground or probably overhead to the County property line to a pole in back of both of the residences. Other than that it's a pretty straightforward design. We've got some infiltration trenches and eaves trenches for stormwater for the roofs and the driveways, and that's everything. The owner is from this area. He previously owned the lots, Lot One of the parcel. He's moved away but, you know, he's of the mind that possibly he'd like to come back and have the option to have one lot, maybe sell one lot, possibly his children may want to move back to this area. So he doesn't have any firm plans right now or there's no spec houses. There's no buyers, but that's kind of onus of trying to open up his options for the parcel that he's had for quite some time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MS. WHITE-The third proposed house, is that just? MR. CENTER-Well this is, it was subdivided administratively from one lot to two. So the three lot kind of comes in, would be the Lot One with the existing house, lands of Saleem, and then the other two lots. MS. WHITE-No, I'm looking at the third proposed house. Off to the left. I think a layer didn't get turned on. MR. CENTER-That's gone. The school's going to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that's on the athletic field. MR. CENTER-Yes, that's on the athletic fields. MR. CENTER-We also got signoff from DEC. That just came in yesterday. I gave a copy to Laura in regards to endangered species. There was no archeological issue with that being an existing subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone's quiet. No comments or questions? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, I like the two lot better than the first proposal there. MR. FERONE-Agreed. MR. MAGOWAN-That seems to fit a little better. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's nothing else from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I imagine that's why these fine people are here is to comment. Who would like to go first? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN WESTNEY MR. WESTNEY-Can you just show us where the, we just talked about power lines and National Grid, could you point it out on the map? MR. TRAVER-And on the way could you hand it to the gentleman just briefly to make sure his name is on the record for making that comment, question, rather. MR. WESTNEY-John Westney, 28 Broadacres Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. CENTER-The power line comes back in, right in here, in this area. There's a power pole right here that serves I believe the back of Parks and Della Bella. We'll have to work with National Grid o locate a power pole somewhere back here, come across the lots and come into both the houses, either above ground or below ground from the pole. MR. WESTNEY-And gas, is that from Coolidge or is that from? MR. CENTER-If there is gas on Coolidge, we would be coming from Coolidge. We'd have to work with National Grid. I'm not sure if it terminates on either end. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. WESTNEY-1 can tell you it terminates, the end of the main is I front of my lot, which is the corner lot. MR. CENTER-Okay. Then the owner would have to work with, anyone wanting gas would have to work with National Grid and work within the right of way to get it over to the parcel. From Coolidge to Broadacres that would be a substantial cost, but certainly it would be an extension. Mostly in that area over by my house they'd do it by directional boring. So you've got good sand there with very little rock. So they can always do directional boring to get it across under the road if they had to and get it over to that location. MR. WESTNEY-The main that's there now was just put in this summer. It's brand new. It's a high pressure main. MR. CENTER-Yes, they very well may extend it at the cost of the applicant if they wanted it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to make any comments, ma'am or sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER-We actually already discussed quite a few things outside. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Did you have any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There was one written comment. This is addressed today. It's addressed to Mr. Brown. "We reside at 120 Coolidge Ave. in Queensbury. It has come to our attention that the Noonan's are planning to subdivide the land they own next to us and place 2 homes on the property. We have concerns because the property has a very high water table and we want to ensure all the drainage remains on their property. After purchasing our home from the Noonan's we dealt with our basement flooding several times and do not want this to be an issue again. Thank you for your attention in this matter. David and Cathy Saleem" MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they're an adjacent neighbor. That was the only comment? MRS. MOORE-That was the only comment. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll close the public hearing. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 do have a question. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, ma'am. Could we get you on the mic, please. BARBARA PARKS MRS. PARKS-I'm Barbara Parks of 1 Griffing, adjoining this property. I'm concerned about the water. I know that the Della Bella's next door to us have a sump pump going 11 months a year. We have not had that much problem, but I'm very concerned about the water, and I noticed that when you were testing yesterday, I watched you from my kitchen window, and I noticed that you seemed to be closer to Coolidge Avenue. MR. CENTER-We were out, we were parallel with the corner where the fence turns, in the area where those proposed septic systems were. MRS. PARKS-But the land goes way back. MR. CENTER-Correct. MRS. PARKS-And you didn't do any testing back there. MR. CENTER-If any owner decided to move the septic system further back, they would have to have another test pit performed back in those areas to confirm where those wells are, and like when we did your house, that would be something that Dave Hatin would require. If we located that septic system further back, we'd have to go back. That was one of the reasons why we tried to keep the development closer to Coolidge, was because the further back you go, we thought we might hit, you know, groundwater or mottling or not have the soil. We tried to keep the septic system on that higher plateau, especially for the lot closer to Saleems, because like I said, we had five feet of good well drained and there, and then the lower lot, again, keeping it closer to the road with the driveway and also the land lends itself better to bringing in material to do a shallow system, like was previously done. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MRS. PARKS-Originally the plan showed the houses set back farther onto the lot. MR. CENTER-Correct, further. MRS. PARKS-So why would that change? MR. CENTER-That was changed, again, when they went from three lots to two, driveways, keep everything closer. It becomes a cost factor with a driveway, the amount of clearing and keeping it closer to where we know we have the better soils. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the plan you've shown us here, the proposed houses are set back from Coolidge Avenue about the same distance as the house immediately next door. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, usually that's what you do. MR. CENTER-Right. We're trying to match that house and match the grade. The similar grade of the house will probably be closer to that elevation, depending on what style of house that they build. If they build ranch, if they build two story, if they build a split level, that all affects the grading and not knowing some of these things on these lots, and certainly if they decided that they wanted to build further back, it would be a matter of, you know, re-looking at the soils for whatever site layout they had to do that. BILL PARKS MR. PARKS-I'm Bill Parks. I also live at 1 Griffing Place. Does anybody know, off hand, what the side by side property setbacks that are required in that neighborhood? MR. CENTER-1 believe they're 15 feet side setbacks. MR. PARKS-And about where those two houses are shown, you've got about 75 feet on the frontage there. MR. CENTER-Seventy-five feet to one hundred off of the road. Width wise? MR. PARKS-At the road. MR. CENTER-At the road there's 110, or 75 and 75, sorry. MR. PARKS-Okay. So I'm thinking that back where those houses are it can't be more than about 80 feet wide, those lots are, and we're subtracting off 30. So we can have a 50 foot wide house there. I guess that's reasonable. MR. CENTER-These dashed lines are the setback limits for a house, house setback, this one, and over here. So the limits of clearing would be just along the edge, to be able to get around the house, and the house is, again, another 10 or 15 feet off of the setback line. So somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 feet off of the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess there's no other comments. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? I would assume that you would have standard wastewater controls? MR. CENTER-Yes. Yes, on the drawings we've got standard system and a shallow absorption system along with an infiltration trench for the driveway, eave trench. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a SEQR Long Form. Were there any concerns that we have not addressed that would cause you to think there would be a moderate or large impact? MR. TRAVER-I don't think so. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I don't see any. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there are not, then we will entertain a SEQR resolution. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION NOONAN The applicant proposes to create a two lot subdivision of 2.542 acres into 1.262 acres each. Applicant proposes on-site septic, connection to municipal water, two single family homes, two driveways and areas of clearing. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivisions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the 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 impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 61-2016 JOSEPH & KATHLEEN NOONAN, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else that we need to discuss? MR. TRAVER-There was a suggestion that the no cut lines be addressed, that there be no further tree cutting on the property. MRS. MOORE-So Tom has proposed the clearing limits. That's instituted as part of your resolution, that's the way I would put that, or if there's some other suggestion that the Board would want to discuss, they certainly can. MR. TRAVER-It makes sense to try to preserve those wooded areas. MR. MAGOWAN-So how do you want me to word that? MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know if we need to if he's proposed clearing limits. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So to follow the clearing limits, or don't say anything? MRS. MOORE-You can highlight that the clearing limits are defined and are to be maintained as part of this project. MR. CENTER-What would be the recourse if someone wanted to take a driveway further back and reduce the front clearing and construct a house and a system closer to the rear of the parcel?/ 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MRS. MOORE-So, in the past, we've taken that clearing limit and moved it, as long as it maintained the clearing limit that was proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-The size? MRS. MOORE-Just so that the Board understands that that's what we've done in the past. So if you want to, if the resolution needs to be adjusted a bit to reference that, you can. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think it's likely that someone would want to move the house further back? MR. CENTER-If they have room. The possibility is there. I mean, when we're specking, when I'm specking the clearing limits and what I'm trying to show is what a normal person, what I think a normal person would want for a lawn, a pool, and the backyard. Setting them in stone early on may change, especially with these larger lots. If someone wanted to go further to the back, you'd be protected beaus they would have to provide, you know, the same stormwater management would have to be provided, but they'd have to do other soil testing for the foundation of the house and for the septic system. So they'd have to protect, the Town, that's something that Dave would require us to do. I just wanted to look and see what I had for a number of, for our clearing limits. I think I have. MR. MAGOWAN-You're just suggesting if they do want to do that, you're just going to move that clearing limit. MR. CENTER-Right, but I was thinking of a number, I was trying to think of maybe a number in mind, not greater than, that would give us the flexibility, because it is, could be, you know, a couple thousand, a thousand square feet more gets us further back, be thinner, but, you know, that longer driveway, because it is a deep lot. I just wanted to try to see if I had quantified the disturbance. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you did on Sheet Three of Three. It says total area of disturbance 11,596 square feet, .27 acres. MR. CENTER-If we could say no more than 15,000 square feet, that would give us what we might need for a driveway, if we could limit it to that, and then if somebody wanted to go further than that, they'd have to come back, but I think, you know, if we could say 15,000 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, our biggest concern, of course, is the common property line, just to make sure the no cut zones are honored along the edges as much as anything. MR. CENTER-Right, and I think that if someone were to build that they would keep that no cut because it would cost money to keep that to the width of the driveway a little bit more, and then widen out to the back, and 15,000 square feet may be the right number to get somebody a little bit further back and be able to have a septic system and a basement and do whatever grading they may need back there. MS. WHITE-So just incorporate that flexibility. MR. CENTER-If we just incorporate that flexibility of 15,000 square feet of clearing total if the house is moved further back off the lot. MR. TRAVER-So disturbance not greater than 15,000. MR. CENTER-Per lot. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's still only about one quarter of the lot. MR. CENTER-Right, but it gives them a little bit of flexibility if somebody, if they have to. If they want to do more, then they've got to come back. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like a fair compromise. Are you ready? MR. MAGOWAN-1 think so. MR. HUNSINGER-You've got to do Preliminary first, and Preliminary there are no conditions. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB# PZ 61-2016 NOONAN A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to remove 2,010 sq. ft. single family to construct a new 3,815 sq. ft. (footprint) home to be 12,420 sq. ft. floor area. Project to include new septic system, stormwater management and site work. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/23/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 61-2016 JOSEPH & KATHLEEN NOONAN. Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-And then on the Final we would have the conditions. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # PZ 61-2016 NOONAN A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to remove 2,010 sq. ft. single family to construct a new 3,815 sq. ft. (footprint) home to be 12,420 sq. ft. floor area. Project to include new septic system, stormwater management and site work. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/23/2016; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION PZ 61-2016 JOSEPH & KATHLEEN NOONAN, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests rg anted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) 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 Planning Board Chairman. 5. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 11. The clearing limits that are defined shall be entertained as per the drawing, or no more than 15,000 square feet per lot. Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Thank you. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else to be brought before the Board? MR. TRAVER-I don't believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-We have regular meetings in March on the 15th and the 22nd. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. DEEB-I make a motion we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2016, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 23 d day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-See everybody next month. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 44