Loading...
03-15-2016 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2016 INDEX Subdivision No. 22-2005 & 3-2014 Townhouses at Haviland HOA 1. MOD. — FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 290.17-2-39 Site Plan PZ 91-2016 Spruce Hospitality Group, LLC 2. Special Use Permit PZ 90-2016 Tax Map No. 309.14-1-89.1 & 86.11 SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS Site Plan PZ 80-2016 Frank DeNardo 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.-1-31 Site Plan PZ 77-2016 Ted & Shari Chrimes 6. FWW PZ 101-2016 Tax Map No. 266.1-1-14.7 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan PZ 89-2016 Brett& Pamela West 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Site Plan PZ 51-2016 Switchco, LLC (Holiday Inn Express) 15. ACKNOWLEDGE L.A. Status Tax Map No. 309.13-1-73 SEQR RESOLUTION ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan PZ 54-2016 Big Bay Lodging, LLC (Hilton Home2 Suites) 34. ACKNOWLEDGE L.A. Status Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2 through 9 SEQR RESOLUTION ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan PZ 44-2015 Performing Asset Strategies 42. Special Use Permit PZ 50-2015 Tax Map No. 309.10-1-37 Subdivision PZ 79-2016 John M. Hughes Trust 47. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.6-1-7 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, March 15, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. I think we only have one public hearing scheduled this evening. I would ask everyone to please silence their phones so that we're not disrupted during the meeting, and the first order of business is approval of minutes from January 19th and 26th, 2016, if anyone would like to make a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 19, 2016 January 26, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 19TH AND JANUARY 2e 2016, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-We have a tabled item and they've asked for further tabling. TABLEDITEMS FURTHER TABLING — SUBDIVISION PLAN MODIFICATION 22-2005 & 3-2014 TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND, HOA MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any additional information, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, just to explain that I did meet with the applicant that represents the Homeowners Association, and the individual that's handling the landscaping plan is out of the area. So when that individual returns then I'll meet with them again, go over the planting plan updates, and he's still requesting no trail and no gazebo, and they're working out that detail with the Conkling Center as well. So I'll get more information prior to the June 15th deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-And they have asked to table that until July. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and there's a draft motion if anyone would like to move it. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB MOD # 22-2005 & 3-2014 TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND, HOA MOTION TO FURTHER TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 & SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2014 MODIFICATION TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC., Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Tabled to July 19, 2016 Planning Board Meeting with information due to the Planning Office by June 15, 2016. This is including, but not limited to the updated planting plan. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-We have one further administrative item and that is Site Plan PZ 91-2016. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SITE PLAN PZ 91-2016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 90-2016 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC SEAR TYPE UNLISTED (FAIRFIELD/MARRIOTT) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) BIG BOOM REALTY, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,310 SQ. FT. THREE STORY (45 FT.), 79 ROOM HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK THAT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF PARKING, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND PREPARATION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITH SOME TREE CLEARING. PROJECT INCLUDES RECONFIGURATION OF TWO LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 18.44 ACRE AND 1.79 ACRE PARCEL; SEQRA — PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY STATUS 3/15/2016. PENDING SEQRA COORDINATION — PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MOTELS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 12/10/13 FLAG — NO. LOT GARAGE TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ANY BP'S. 9/1/10 LETTER LGPC VIOLATION WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2016 LOT SIZE 18.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14- 1-89.1 & - 86.11 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is, the Planning Board is requesting Lead Agency status for this project. The project is a proposal of a 15,310 square foot three story building. This is a 79 room hotel and associated site work. This includes installation of parking, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management and preparation for future development with some tree clearing. The project also includes reconfiguration of two lots of an 18.44 acre parcel and 1.79 acre parcel. The project will also include a sewer connection. This is an out of district user, and the proposal for relief is height relief. The project is also subject to the Main Street zoning code which includes a Special Use Permit to allow parking at the front of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Ed Moore and Luke Dobie. MR. FERONE-If I could just interrupt you, Jonathan, for just one minute. I just wanted to go on record. I am familiar with Mr. Moore. We serve on a board together. I'm not sure what my decision will be at this point, but I just want to be on record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-So this is the project that everyone knows as the former driving range. Ed and his company have the whole parcel under contract to build a hotel and hopefully eventually do 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) something nice with the back, but at this point the project is just to build a hotel. It's kind of a unique situation because it's not on Main Street, even though it's in the Main Street zone. So in terms of those design issues, I don't think it was really intended for something in the back there. So we, or the engineers have designed this as a typical hotel with parking in the front, but I think it'll really change the character of that area between the U-Haul and the excavating company really clean it up and make it a nicer addition. We can go through the details, walk you through the site plan if you'd like. We're just here for Lead Agency status. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the will of the Board? Do you want to hear a brief presentation? MR. DEEB-Mr. Chairman, I need to go on record, too. I also serve on the board with Mr. Moore. So let it be known. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Do you want to hear a brief presentation? I figure since they're here they ought to just? MR. FERONE-Absolutely. It would be good to go over it preliminary, and we can listen to the project later. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. LUCAS DOBIE MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board, for the record I'm Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and we've worked extensively with Mr. Moore on just feeling the site out to get the proper layout. We kept the building as far to the east as we could, and our entrance to the east could also in the future potentially serve as an access road to the back portion of the parcel. At this point there's not a plan for that, but we did design that entrance with that in mind, and it's a three story building, just over 15,000 square feet of footprint, and our only variance we're asking for is the height, a little bit of relief from the 40 foot requirement for the facade if you will. The main flat portion of the roof is below the 40 foot building height for that area, and in total we amount to just over 65,000 square feet of the parking and the drives with the majority of the parking actually to the rear, and as Laura said, because we have some parking in the front to allow, typically how you would have a hotel with the porte cochere set up, that triggers the Special Use Permit in the Main Street zone, and we've got plenty of room to work, minimal clearing. It's mostly a re-development project on the parcel, and we believe we can do a beautiful project and really spruce the neighborhood up. I'd be happy to answer any questions from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments? MR. FERONE-Are there any hard and true plans for developing, you know, the rest of that site with anything? MR. LAPPER-Nothing at this point, but they're buying the whole thing and after the hotel is there it will probably be more attractive to other tenants or purchasers. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you receive the comments from the Town Engineer? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any major concerns? It was mostly stormwater related, clarifications. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we can address all of that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean I know that's a site plan issue, but. MR. LAPPER-Yes, no we saw that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 also appreciated the color renderings. Are those colors pretty accurate? MR. LAPPER-That was off the website. ED MOORE MR. MOORE-Yes, they're accurate. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Is it more of a brick red, you know, it's always kind of hard to tell. MR. MOORE-No, that's pretty accurate. I mean, they could be changed a little bit, you know, but basically, you know, they have their footprint, but we can change a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-It's an attractive building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, the only action that we're taking tonight is to seek Lead Agency status. Is there anyone that would desire that or has an issue with us being the Lead Agency on this project? MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments, there is a draft resolution in the Board package. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP PZ 91-2016 SUP PZ 90-2016 SPRUCE WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan & Area Variance applications for: Applicant proposes construction of a 15,310 sq. ft., three story (45 ft.), 79 room hotel and associated site work that includes installation of parking, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management and preparation for future development with some tree clearing. Project includes reconfiguration of two lots to accommodate 18.44 acre and 1.79 acre parcel; 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, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617; WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTIONS WITH SITE PLAN PZ 91- 2016, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 90-2016 & AREA VARIANCE PZ 96-2016 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. LAPPER-Thanks everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you next month. We have three items that are Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN PZ 80-2016 SEAR TYPE II FRANK DENARDO OWNER(S) FRANK DENARDO ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 2380 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALTER EXISTING HOME WITH NEW PORCHES — FRONT AT 230 SQ. FT. AND REAR PORCH AT 224 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES ALTERATION TO THE ROOFLINE FOR A PORTION OF THE HOME TO CREATE A 23' 11" HEIGHT. ALSO A NEW BALCONY ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-0130 OF THE 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION IN A CEA OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN RR-5A ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2015-493 FRONT/BACK PORCHES; BP 2015-357 FIREPLACE WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2016 LOT SIZE 100' X 150' TAX MAP NO. 240.-1-31 SECTION 179-10-0130 FRANK DE NARDO, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to alter the existing home with new porches. The front porch is to be 230 square feet. The rear porch is 224 square feet. The project also includes alteration to the roof line. So a portion of the house will now become 23 feet 11 inches and there's a new balcony to the rear portion of the home. This property is located in the RR-5 acre zone, and the applicant's parcel is 100 by 150. So the relief requested is in reference to setbacks where he's required is to maintain 100 and 75 and the lot is too small. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is anyone here from the applicant? Good evening. MR. DE NARDO-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. DE NARDO-Yes. For the record my name is Frank DeNardo, owner of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-So tell us about your project. MR. DE NARDO-I'm basically just replacing the existing porches and the rear porch is old and decrepit, making it into a new one and putting a balcony up for a master bedroom on the second floor on the rear, which is that 224 square foot porch and replacing the front existing porch, 230 square foot porch and we need to go for the setbacks due to the small lot that I do have. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. DE NARDO-That sums it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-I was at your home site, looked it over on Sunday. It seems like a lot of property there, but your lot is just a certain area where you're encroaching on the property lines. MR. DE NARDO-The property lines are actually a little smaller than what it looks. MR. FERONE-Yes, it looks like a pretty wide open area with a lot of trees. MR. DE NARDO-Yes, actually none of the trees are on my property. So that's how small it is. The blacktop edge is actually about two and a half, three feet away from it for the driveway. It was all pre-existing from the early 80's, I guess. So it's all new to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? Any concerns anyone has identified with the variance requests? MR. FERONE-I don't think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments, a sample recommendation is in our package, if anyone would like to make that. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 86-2016 FRANK DE NARDO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to alter existing home with new porches — front at 230 sq. ft. and rear porch at 224 sq. ft. Project includes alteration to the roofline for a portion of the home to create a 23'11" height. Also a new balcony on the rear portion of the home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-0130 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion in a CEA of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for setback requirements in RR-5A zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 86-2016 FRANK DENARDO: Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; 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 15th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Is this site plan, is this PZ 80 or 86? The resolution references 86. MRS. MOORE-The variance is 86, but the application itself is an 80. The Site Plan is 80. The Variance is 86. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the draft resolution is correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I wanted to make sure. Okay. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. FERONE-Good luck. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The next project is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN PZ 77-2016 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT PZ 101-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II TED & SHARI CHRIMES AGENT(S) MARK J. TABER, THE LA GROUP OWNER(S) TED & SHARI CHRIMES ZONING RR-3A LOCATION LOT 3 OAK VALLEY WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,398 SQ. FT. PATIO AREA TO THE REAR OF HOME. THERE IS A WETLAND AND SEVERAL SETBACKS ON THE PROPERTY LIMITING THE AREA IN WHICH THE HOME CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. PROJECT INCLUDES EARTHWORK, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UTILITY INSTALLATION AND PLANTING INCLUDING ADDITIONAL VEGETATED BUFFER ALONG THE WETLAND EDGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 94 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2016 APA, CEA, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 2.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-14.7 SECTION CHAPTER 94 & 179-6-050 & FRESHWATER PERMIT MARK TABOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes construction of a 4,398 square foot home with a 438 square foot patio area to the rear of the home. There is a wetland and several setbacks on the property limiting the area in which the home can be constructed. The project includes 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) earthwork, erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, utility installation and planting including additional vegetated buffer along the wetland edge. In reference to the setbacks, it's really only one setback in reference to the shoreline. Setback relief is requested where 75 feet is required and 43 is proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Are you here to represent them? MR. TABOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could come up to the table and identify yourself for the record. MR. TABOR-Good evening. My name is Mark Tabor. I'm a landscape architect with the LA Group. With me tonight is Ted Chrimes. He is the applicant and Charlotte Abnosky who is also an employee with the LA Group, and Ted is seeking to build a single family home, as Laura said, on a previously approved building lot on the North Forty subdivision, and we're just going to give you a quick overview of the project, why we located the house where we did and Ted and I are obviously here to answer any questions you guys might have. So first off, the first lot here we're going to look at is an aerial showing the North Forty subdivision, which is essentially here. This is located roughly a mile and a quarter north of Route 149, Queensbury Country Club, and you can see the existing neighborhood is pretty much built out. The only road coming in here is Oak Valley Way, and the subject building lot here, right in the middle of the neighborhood, is where the home is proposed. It's just shy of three acres, and you can kind of see here on the aerial it's split in half on a diagonal right through the middle here, and the north section is primarily wetland, and the southern section is the building area or the area suitable for building. Laura. This just zooms in a little closer. It's just a quick shot of a survey. Again his shows the area. Well up here is the wet area, and down in here is the building area. It's currently, it's maintained as a grassy lot. So it's not a wooded lot. It's a grassy lot, and as you can see there's some trees scattered throughout. So the first thing we did is we took all the setbacks and site constraints and applied them to the building lot and we created this diagram. This is a buildable area diagram, and the property boundary is this outside portion here, and what we did is we applied all the setbacks to come up with the area within which that you could build a house that would be compliant. The setbacks that we apply, there's two different kinds. There's structure and sanitary setback. First, 75 foot building setback is along this upper portion here of the shaded area. This is the wetland edge here. So 75 foot back is this upper edge of the shaded area, and then in addition to that there is both a 20 foot setback that was part of the original subdivision approval, and that's a side yard setback along this edge, but there's also a 50 foot property line setback that is, it's a structure setback, and it's part of the deed restriction associated with the lot, and that creates the lower boundary of this buildable area. So when you apply those setbacks to the project site, it obviously limits the area where you could build on the property in a compliant fashion, and that's essentially the reason why we're seeking a variance. This is the only buildable area on the lot within which we could build a house. Obviously it's not feasible to build a house within that location. Some additional setbacks are, can you go back, Laura? Some additional setbacks are related to the septic, sanitary. There's a 100 foot setback from the sanitary which is in this area here, and there's also 100 foot setbacks from the wells. We have an existing well on site here that'll service the house and then this is the neighbor's well here located to the west. So those were all the site considerations when we were looking at siting house on this piece of property. So when we weighed all those factors, essentially we came up with this site plan, and the way that we started is first we located the septic here in the southeast corner. That takes into consideration not only the setbacks that we spoke about earlier, but also where we have suitable soils on the project site. We dug several test pits and this was the most conducive for sanitary disposal and it worked really well with the setbacks. So we kind of tucked it in that corner as much as we possibly could. Once that was located we went on to try to locate the house, and as you can see we kind of split the difference here. We were trying to balance or minimize the encroachment both not only to the wetland setback but also to that structure setback to the south there. So that was the second thing, and then finally we also paid close attention to the neighbor's home here. When we originally went out on site and were looking to locate the house, we had it back further in this area here, but when we were on site we realized that, you know, we had some fairly close proximity to the neighbor here, and if we push the house a little bit further down to the east and to the south, we could take advantage of, there's a few existing mature evergreen trees here, and in pushing the house further south and east, we're able to use that as a screen to the neighbor, and then also we shifted the house a little bit so you don't have so much of a face to face orientation with the neighbor's house here. So that's sort of the process that we went through really to, you know, our goal obviously was to situate the house on the site in a way that kind of balanced and minimized impacts to all of those constraints with regards to the setback. So in addition to that, realizing that we did have an encroachment on the wetland setback there, we created a detailed erosion and sediment control plan which includes slope stabilization on the back side of the house here where there's some steeper 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) slopes in order to get back to grade. We've also incorporated two levels of silt fence back here. One is standard at the edge of disturbance. It's located right about here, and then the other one, we have a redundant line right at the edge of the wetland here, just as extra protection. There's also a wetland protection fence that we're going to put back there just to notify everybody and designate the boundary of that wetland. We've also included six stormwater management devices around the property. There's rain gardens around the home here, and stormwater planters and also a stormwater planter here adjacent to the driveway, obviously to manage any stormwater runoff associated with construction of the house, and in addition to that finally we have a detailed landscape plan and that incorporates planting not only in the stormwater areas and stormwater planters, but we thought it was prudent to include additional plant material here along the edge of the wetland to provide a little bit of extra buffer there in that location. So there's a little extra buffer between the house site and the wetland there. currently there's just lawn vegetation in there, and we feel that this'll kind of help protect the wetland a little bit more from anything that might result from construction of the house. So that's kind of the quick overview but I wanted to kind of just get you guys familiar with our thought process when we were locating the house. Obviously Ted and I are here to answer any questions you guys might have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. That was really helpful. Yes. TED CHRIMES MR. CHRIMES-Not exactly the project we envisioned, and I guess along that same line we really wanted to make sure that, ensure the character of it and the nature of it stayed preserved. We like the whole kind of wetland piece of it. It's a challenge. We get that, but we like that, and then we wanted to make sure that we found a way to put the house on the lot in the context of the neighborhood. Right? So everybody's lot is three, four, five acres plus, and as Mark mentioned, when we were trying to find a way to do it in a compliant way without compromising our decision about the house. We kept pushing it farther back into the lot, and the next thing you know we're door to door and the houses are 150 feet apart and it's like, wait a minute, we could do this anywhere. So that's how we were thinking about it. MR. MAGOWAN-You really, you worked hard in placing that, and try to do as minimal as possible. You know, I kind of think turning it a little bit and how you were able to fit it in, you know, like you said it was a compromise, and with all the filtrations and, you know, infrastructure there, you're probably, in my opinion, improving the lot. MR. TABOR-We'd like to think so. It's a vacant lot. Landed the tax rolls, hopefully put a nice house up. That's our, that's where we're headed. So I'd like to think that's what we're doing, absolutely, and we twisted a little bit, too, because it's a view off the back. so you kind of look out towards that French Mountain range, right out through the back there. You see, so the street view is the garage, and we're working on how to make that look really nice. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? George? MR. FERONE-I was going to say, I applaud you on threading the needle. You didn't have a lot to work with there. You did get the notes from Chazen and there were a couple of things here about rain garden and stormwater that were encroaching on the wetlands and the leach field. I don't know if you were able to address that. MR. TABOR-1 did have a look at that. I don't see any showstoppers with any of that stuff. Very quickly, one of the rain gardens that is on the northeast corner of the house there, that is going to be converted to a stormwater planter, which essentially you take a liner and you put it at the bottom of the rain garden and it prevents any infiltration. By doing that, there's no infiltration, therefore you don't need a variance for an infiltration setback from the wetland. That was essentially an oversight. The second thing relates to the sanitary field and there's something in the Code that talks about 100 foot separation and if it's less than that then you just need to explain or make sure or verify that it won't impact the sanitary system. Just really quickly. The sanitary as I mentioned is here, and these are the stormwater management devices in question. They're roughly, this one is 55 feet and this one's 80 feet away. They are approximately at the same elevation. So the runoff from the stormwater or from the leach field is not going to go in that direction because they're both at the same elevation. So they won't influence one another, and if you look at the DEC regulations, DEC requires a 50 foot setback from stormwater devices, between stormwater devices and larger sanitary or septic systems. We're compliant with that. So I don't have any problems or see any issues with any of Chazen's comments there. MR. FERONE-Thank you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions? The one question I have, and I don't know if it's more appropriate for the applicant or maybe even Staff. Can you build a house within that 50 foot deed restriction? MR. TABOR-Within which one? MR. HUNSINGER-The 50 foot deed restriction. MR. TABOR-The deed is originally with Joan Kubricky. We have been in touch with her and she is willing to waive the restriction. She also actually has to approve the design of the house. The original, this neighborhood was done 30 years ago or something like that, and she owned all the property, and so we've been in touch with her and she loves what we're doing and we didn't get it in writing yet, but we will. She's going to waive that 50 foot setback. MR. HUNSINGER-I always understood deed restrictions to be on the deed forever, you know, on the lot forever. MR. TABOR-There are, written into the deed, and this is where you're going to get past me, my wife is a lawyer, not me. There is a provision in it for waiving restrictions, and she has the first right, and then you go to the neighbor. There's a whole process involved, but that's all spelled out in the deed, and she has the first right to say, yes, I'm okay with this. MR. HUNSINGER-We'd need to have Town Counsel weigh in on that. MRS. MOORE-Right, and last I knew is that this Board does not enforce deed restrictions. It's always been that way. MR. HUNSINGER-There's no liability if we approve something that would cause a liability down the road? MRS. MOORE-It's not in our purview. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So that was always my understanding. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we approved the lot when we approved the subdivision? Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Thirty years ago. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, 30 years ago, I mean, have the Codes changed that much? MRS. MOORE-It doesn't have anything to do with the Code. It has everything to do with an individual placing a restriction on the deed itself. When you approved it, whether you saw the deed in reference to the entire subdivision, I don't know that, but in some cases I'm able to review that information as subdivisions come through, and that would have come up, but since this subdivision happened in today's standards, their two different. So it was approved in the North Forty with certain setback requirements that were approved at that time. The wetlands were not part of that. So this is why the applicant's before us simply because now the wetland setback is being addressed. MR. CHRIMES-And that was a question we asked just before we spent the money on the dock. We called the Town and said, hey, do you consider this an approved building site, and the answer was yes. So, and then as Mark's shown you, when you really go and look at every constraint that you could possibly look at, it's interesting to think about what you could build. I don't know what that would be, but again, I would think, by the way, with the deed restriction, this is just a common man on the street thought, not a legal opinion. Like with some deed restrictions will say you can't park boats on the lot and somebody might make, the neighbor, the association may decide to make that change, whoever has the first right of adjustment may decide to say, hey, you know what, we're going to decide to change our view on that. So I don't know why this would be any different. Again, man on the street, not a legal opinion by any stretch of the imagination. MR. HUNSINGER-I'd feel better if we had Counsel chime in on this. It's a commonsense. MR. FERONE-It wasn't too long ago, Mr. Chairman, there was another issue with deed restriction, and I thought it was between the owner or the original contractor and the individual 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) that owned the property. I raised that question as well and it was, again, outside of our purview, that it was between the project owner and the people who owned the property originally, and at least in your case you still have somebody who's involved with the property, where in this other case, the contractor. MR. CHRIMES-And we've talked to the neighbors, particularly Dr. Varney who it would be closer to his house and he's perfectly fine. He's seen everything we're doing and he's very comfortable with it. He would send a letter to that effect. I really don't want to drag him into it. We've sat in the yard and talked about it. He knows where everything's going to be. He's completely comfortable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CHRIMES-So we've tried to do what we can do to become a part of the community. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Any concerns with the specific variance request? And that's relative to the shoreline setback and the side setback. Okay. Hearing none, if anyone would like to make a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 87-2016 TED & SHARI CHRIMES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 4,398 sq. ft. home with a 438 sq. ft. patio area to the rear of home. There is a wetland and several setbacks on the property limiting the area in which the home can be constructed. Project includes earthwork, erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, utility installation and planting including additional vegetated buffer along the wetland edge. Pursuant to Chapter 94 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for shoreline setback. 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 NO. PZ 87-2016 TED & SHARI CHRIMES: Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CHRIMES-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-And our final recommendation to the Zoning Board is for Site Plan PZ 89- 2016. SITE PLAN PZ 89-2016 SEAR TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 785 SQ. FT. THREE SEASON PORCH ADDITION SHORELINE SIDE, AND 880 SQ. FT. OF NEW PORCHES AND A PORTE COCHERE. ALSO, TO MAINTAIN AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 158 +/- SQ. FT. DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW DRIVEWAY PERMEABLE PAVERS, STORMWATER 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MANAGEMENT AROUND NEW CONSTRUCTION. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PLANTINGS ON NORTHEAST SHORE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SEPTIC, STORMWATER, SHORELINE AND SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 39-2007, SP 37-2009, AV 47-2007, MISC. PBS — ALL FOR DOCKS, BOATHOUSES, ETC.; BP 2007-359 RES. ALT.; BP 2007-571-DECK WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2016 PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN APA & CEA LOT SIZE .91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-6-050 JON LAPPER & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes alterations to an existing home. This includes a 785 square foot three season porch addition along the shoreline side, an 880 square foot new porch and porte cochere along the house frontage. Also to maintain an already constructed 158 square foot deck. This project includes new driveway with permeable pavers, stormwater management around the new construction area, and project includes the new plantings along the northeast shore. The relief that's being requested is the building setback where 50 feet is required and 25.7 feet is proposed for the porch. Additional relief is to construct a deck 19.6 feet from the shoreline and considered a second garage. In reference to stormwater, there is a stormwater relief requested for having a device within the 100 feet where proposed is 49.6 feet, as well as groundwater separation where two feet is required and one foot is proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Again, for the record, Jon Lapper with Brett West, Andy Allison the project architect and Luke Dobie from Hutchins Engineering, the project engineer. I'd like to make some general comments and then I'll turn it over to Andy to show you what we're proposing with the building and officially what we're proposing to do to mitigate the site. So Brett grew up in Queensbury. Built his business in Connecticut and eight years ago was lucky enough to be able to purchase this now 75 year old cabin on the northwest point of Assembly Point. I know you've been to the site and in terms of the character of the lake, this is a classic log cabin. Somebody other than Brett would be in here with a proposal to build a much larger home than the large footprint that exists a little farther away from the lake, closer to the entrance, but he wants to maintain what's there, and what we're proposing, although the variances are not insignificant, but they are in terms of the scope of what's proposed. It's two porches, a three season porch and a porte cochere on the roadside. Really modest improvements just to make the house more livable. Obviously there's water on three sides so a lot of constraints under the Code, but in order to address that and mitigate that what's proposed is stormwater devices that don't exist now, and to convert the existing septic system which, you know, certainly is nonconforming, very old septic system, convert that into three holding tanks. Last week we were at the Town Board acting as the Board of Health and were granted variance for the three holding tanks. I was pleased that Chris Navitsky was there to support the application, which doesn't happen a lot on lake projects. So that's always nice, and when we got the Chazen comments they were also supportive of the stormwater devices that we're proposing under the driveway and while they don't meet the separation that we require in the Code, they pointed out that this is a big improvement for what's on the site, and it's clean water anyway. Just the way to infiltrate it as far away from the lake as possible. So with all these measures in mind, we wanted you to get familiar with this, what we think is a very modest project on this point. It's not what somebody else would want, but fortunately it's what Brett wants. Let me turn it over to the guys to just walk you through some of the details. ANDY ALLISON MR. ALLISON-Good evening. I'm Andy Allison with AJA Architecture and Planning. I'll walk you through the plan. I think you have most of these in your packets. I'll quickly go over the site plan first. Hutchins Engineering will go over the numbers, but I'm just going to go through what Brett's original concept was. He really wanted to do a way to make the living room right now which is quite small in the house for the type of houses that are out there, it really doesn't work for the size of the family that he has up there sometimes. So his idea was to do a three season room that in the height of the season when they have larger crowds there they can sort of get more room, and he also talked about wanting some way to kind of pull up to the house and just improve the way the house looks from the roadside. It really is not overly attractive, even though it is historic looking, it's not quite attractive from the roadside, and we talked a little bit at length about how do we do that and then still keep the site beautiful and Brett was willing to look at taking that entire driveway which is in perfect shape right now, it's a nice clean asphalt drive, easy to plow, the water runs right off of it, and goes right into the lake, and he's willing to 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) rip all that up and come in and do stormwater permeable pavement there to, A, it helps him immediately because he gets quite a bit of ponding that happens on his site near the house. So this will take care of that, but it will also, for what happens with that water when it goes to the site, because right now all that water comes down and ponds up here and then there's a pipe that takes it right into the lake. So it's sort of the worst case scenario, and in an effort to offset the additional roof that he's going to put on the site, he wants to try to take care of dealing with stormwater that's happening on his driveway which is actually far worse than what comes off of the roof. So that was part of the project, and the other part of the project was the septic, which is not failing right now. It's in working order. It works fine for them. It would work even if we put the additions on it. It still meets the requirements of that, but it really is not compliant. So as Jon said he's going to put in these holding tanks up there, and because he's penned in on three sides of his property, there really is no good place to put a leach field system. So I thought that was great. Everything he's going on the site is a big improvement. So the part that's the struggle is the fact that we want to add this room. When you add on to a lakefront house you really want the views. Initially the idea was to sort of bring that down on the south side of the lake, but he didn't like the way that that impacted the neighbors' view to the south. So we brought it more to the north side of the lake, which still gives him great views looking north, but it gets it out of the view shed of the house to the south. The house that's up here to the east is really not impacted by it because they won't even see it. It's already tucked in behind the roofline. So really where he's put this the only people that will ever see it would be boats out on the lake. So I'll show you some photos of what that will look like. Just a little bit larger plan first. Here you can see, this is the house with the lakeside down, and this is the three season porch that we're adding on. Right now the existing house is shaded in. This right now is a roof that we're proposing to extend out so that when they walk out from the front, the historic log siding which has taken quite a beating from this edge, this really takes the brunt of all the wind and snow and ice, most of Assembly Point right on this house. So we looked at putting a roof out here to help protect those logs a little bit and give them a way to open up these doors and protect the windows in there which I think are originally if not 50 years old themselves. Three season porch out here. This will have glass doors on it so it can be closed, but it's generally a three season porch. Large stone fireplace inside of there, and just a little hospitality counter in there. Other than that it's just furnishings and a t.v. Out here, this area again we're putting a roof on it. You get snow piling up against the house on that corner of the house, four and a half feet, and it really is quite dramatic, so we plan on extending those roofs there to help protect the house again and provide a little bit of relief there, and then a porte cochere out front. This porch right now exists. It's failing, so we're replacing that in kind, and then this was an addition just to get some cover so when we drive in our cars they have some coverage getting in to the house. MR. MAGOWAN-Was that four foot snowfall from this year? BRETT WEST MR. WEST-Unfortunately no. MR. ALLISON-But it does take the wind and the ice. So from the lakeside we were really careful to study the way this would look and the positioning of the building on the lake, and this is an picture of what it looks like right now. This is January 1St when I paddled out there. You can't even tell if it was spring or summer, but it really was January 1St, and I took this photo and then we did the model rendering of the new addition. Our goal was really just to sort of make it look like it's been there. So it's designed in keeping style with not only the house but Brett also has a boathouse out there, so the way the logs are joined together, the roofing, the way the ceiling works, all of it's designed to match the style that's there. This is very similar to another project that was done on the other point of Assembly Point, which actually used to be my in- law's, and they came in and built a three season, well, it's actually a four season porch out on the peninsula there as well, and did something very similar. It works quite nice, but you can see it really blends in. There's really no negative impact to it at all on that side, and then on the porte cochere side we came in, you can see this is a photo of the existing house, and it's quaint in some ways, but really this wall is just a great big blank wall, and you're out there and you walk around and you drive up it. It really feels sort of out of place in scale. So the idea was to bring in something where you sort of drive in, drive through and drop off, it's not meant to be another garage. They certainly aren't going to want cars parked right in front. They usually end up, this happened to be the landscaper's car that day, but they're usually, they're parking front of the garage over here. So it's just a drop off point, and as a way to sort of soften that heavy blank wall that you drive up to all the time and to integrate some timber and some nice soft lighting out there. Right now Brett has this gazebo out here which at night is quite spectacular, the way he lights it from underneath. That gazebo is going away and we're just sort of taking that same, and making it much larger so we can drive underneath it. Do you want to go through the numbers on the site. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. DOBIE-Again, Board, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, and Andy did a wonderful go through on the site so I'll keep it brief. With the installation of the permeable pavers, that allows us 50% impervious credit, if you will, for that area. So we're able to realize a net reduction in impervious cover on the site. So we're actually about five percent under the allowable impervious coverage, if that makes sense, and similarly with the floor area ratio, we're five percent under what we're allowed there as well, at 17% versus 22. So we feel it's an environmentally responsible design. We've added additional stone below the permeable pavers, above what we normally would, to account for some of the existing runoff that flows across the driveway area right now into the yard draining through a pipe right to the lake, and that pipe will be capped and cut back and covered over so that that conduit right to the lake goes away. We will realize much more site infiltration. We have some shoreline buffering along the north side, and again, due to the restraints of the site we're requesting setback relief, horizontally to the lake, for that drainage course under the permeable pavers. One hundred is required, we're at about fifty, and then the groundwater separation, where two feet is required, we're proposing one foot, just due to the grades on the site. We can't bring the site up anymore, so we're constrained there, and the Chazen comments, as touched on by Counsel, in general confirms with us that it's a nice site improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-You talked about the septic system's going to be replaced. What's the age of the existing system? Is it a leach field or is it a holding tank? MR. LAPPER-It's a leach field, and Tom Hutchins was asked that by the Town Board last week, and there are no plans on file because it's been there for so long. So we don't really know. MR. FERONE-1 guess my other comment would be, Brett I'm sorry you weren't at home, but I did walk your property. So I'm probably on your camera system there, but it is, you know, where you're recommending you want to put the three season section of it, really close to the shore, I mean, would you consider moving that a little bit like I know what you're trying to accomplish, but if you put that right in the back of the house and then have the porch area on the side, would that eliminate the request for variance. MR. LAPPER-One of the things that Andy had said, and Brett told me this, that it would really affect the view of the people to the south and that it would really upset them because that's an important view for them. So that was really the reason to put it here, to not impact the neighbor. MR. FERONE-Not impact the neighbor. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Were there any specific concerns with the variance requests that have been asked for? You have three sheds on the property. Are any of those being removed? MR. LAPPER-Anticipating that that might be an issue, I did have that discussion with Brett, and if it came down to that, he would be willing to, even though these are all important to him for whatever reason, using the sheds for storing bicycles and kayaks and firewood, but he could lose one of the sheds, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The shed that's the closest to the lake, is that? MR. WEST-That's a pump house. That's original to the house. So it's the only one of the sheds, well, two of the sheds are original to the house. The one that's like three feet off the lake in the upper corner there, so the pump equipment's in there, and then if you go where the garage is to the left of it, two over, that's original to the house. That's actually a lean-to, an Adirondack lean-to, and we use that for storage of firewood and kayaks, and then the one between that and the garage, it's been most recent add only two summers ago, that is just one of those portable sheds that you get at Garden Time, and we use that for storage of all our bikes. It's very small. That could go if necessary, but I'm not sure where we'll put the bikes, but we'll find a spot. MR. MAGOWAN-Where are you bringing the gazebo? MR. WEST-Do you want to buy it? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any concerns with the specific variance request? MR. MAGOWAN-No, I mean, I'm sorry he's got to go for the expense of moving the paved driveway, but going with the system there, you know, improving the drainage and capping off the pipe that goes directly to the lake, I think it's a great improvement, you know, along with the addition, and it looks like, now around the addition you have the same thing, with the natural stone with the permeable pavers and that. So even though you're encroaching a little, you're also taking that stormwater and, you know, trying to get it into the ground as quickly as possible. I mean, overall, it's a tough situation to do and I understand the home and wanting a little bit more square feet. I don't have really any issues even with the sheds. I think they kind of set in nice with the property. MR. HUNSINGER-The proposed shoreline plantings and buffering? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that was to augment the shoreline. MR. HUNSINGER-But I didn't see details on what the planting species are. Did I miss that in the plan? MR. DOBIE-No, Mr. Chairman, you did not miss that. We'll polish that up for sure. I anticipate the typical Adirondack species/rain garden plantings. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, the concern always is to make sure that it's a native plant and not invasive. MR. DOBIE-Absolutely. MR. LAPPER-We'll have that when we're back. MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, it is in the Code, you know, there is a variety of species. Okay. Anything else? Would anyone like to make a recommendation? MR. MAGOWAN-I'd be more than happy to. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 95-2016 WEST The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 785 sq. ft. three season porch addition shoreline side, and 880 sq. ft. of new porches and a porte cochere. Also, to maintain an already constructed 158 +/- sq. ft. deck. Project includes new driveway permeable pavers, stormwater management around new construction. Project includes new plantings on Northeast shore. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for septic, stormwater, shoreline and second garage. 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 NO. PZ 95-2016 BRETT & PAMELA WEST; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; 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 15th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: MS. WHITE-1 was just going to say that we never actually commended the choice to keep the historical building on the lake and not tear it down. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set. MR. HUNSINGER-We have three items under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 51-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED SWITCHCO, LLC (HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS) AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SWITCHCO, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION CORINTH RD. & 1-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A PORTION OF A 16.38 ACRE PARCEL FOR A 13,800 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) 4 STORY (55 FT.), 100 ROOM HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS HOTEL. SITE WORK INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESS ROAD, INSTALLATION OF PARKING SPACES, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MOTELS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD TO CONDUCT SEAR AND MAY PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 28-2008; AV 41-2008 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 16.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-73 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So for this evening the Board will consider Acknowledging the Lead Agency status, complete the SEQR review process and possibly provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant proposes development of a portion of a 16.38 acre parcel for a 13,800 sq. ft. 4 story, which is 55 feet, and this is a 100 room Holiday Inn Express Hotel. The floor area for the site is 54,233 square feet. This includes all the floors of the project in relation to the lot size. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Again, for the record, Jon Lapper with Chris Boyea from Bohler Engineering. Chris and I are actually very familiar with this site because we, probably eight years ago, had this approved for a hotel for Rich Schermerhorn, had the site under contract at the time. The recession hit and Rich decided to focus his energies on what he knows best, and ultimately Jerry Nudi purchased it for Switchco and now we have a very similar project proposed and really the same site constraint because of the Northway being about 30 feet above the site and this being behind McDonald's, and also just in terms of how the Code reads about the worst case between the finished floor area, either pre-construction or post construction. We're asking for the height variance to 55 feet, which is like with the other hotel project that was presented tonight it's not so much the roof as architectural detail on the hotel just to make it more interesting. So in terms of that height variance, because this is really in a hole if you will to people who are traveling on the Northway, it's going to be hardly noticeable. Also it's so far behind the McDonald's and behind Corinth Road it's not very noticeable. You'd say why can't you make it a three story hotel and take more room because he has the site, but just in terms of, you know, trying to avoid sprawl, that site lends itself to other future developments for being at the interchange, that's office, retail, banks. There's a lot of things that could happen there. So we're trying to be efficient, build the hotel so we'll have some visibility with the number of stories but it's not going to be very visible because of where it's located. So I'm going to ask Chris to go through the details, but that's really why we've asked for the height variance. MR. BOYEA-Good evening. For the record, I'm Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering, and just to further the site plan approval and from our discussion of last month's meeting where we talked about SEQR and taking Lead Agency. We have a wooded undeveloped lot here today and what we're proposing to construct is there's an existing signal here right at the Stewart's, and we are proposing to create the fourth leg of that intersection. So it's all set up and was planned for during the recent improvements that happened along Corinth Road. We do have a 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) very long driveway that we're going to construct and install here that leads back to the proposed hotel. It's four stories. It's about 100 rooms. The brand is Holiday Inn Express that's going to be here. We have provided and worked with the Town Staff. They've given us comments to date and we've been able to address all those comments in whole. I'm sure that there's a few more comments that we're going to get tonight here too as well. Some of the comments that we received were, you know, could we please incorporate a few large parking spots for RV users, boats with trailers or buses, those types of things, and we are hopeful that this will actually be a sporting event location, too, for kids on buses, those types of things. If anybody's got kids that are in sporting events, they can travel and take up hotel rooms for these events and there is a sports dome that's nearby here, and so we're looking to capitalize on that as well. So it was a great idea and we've provided those large parking spaces along the side over here at the same time to make sure that we can get in and provide those as well. We do have approximately 100 parking spots. I think the accurate number is 113 parking spots. So that's enough parking for this facility as it occurs. As you enter in, we will have a port cochere here and that's just the entrance feature that's up in here. Other than that, it's a two way traffic flow around the facility. There's parking around the perimeter that's there. As Jon mentioned, we do have the benefit of having this exact plan almost approved in past, a few years ago. So at that time we had negotiated with the neighbors in the back. This is a residential area behind us. This is established single family units that are back here, and at that time we were asked to go ahead and leave this buffer in here. So we're going to go ahead and leave all of these trees. Our property line is actually back in here, as you can see from where we're going to put the water line in. That's why this little strip of green is up here. This is where we're tapping our water service off of the Town road, but we're leaving all of the trees that we possibly can that are mature in this area, and then we've agreed to put up a six foot tall wood stockade fence that's there. Now that was agreed years ago, but we just felt why change life. It's going to be the same. So we've got that same proposal in place here to provide buffer. So the trees are really great because they're mature and they're very large, and so that takes a good job going up in the air. The fence is more solid, stockade for any type of headlights. So during, you know, parking maneuvers that are happening in the parking lot, that six foot wood stockade fence would be adequate for that as well. Water and sewer we have it here. That's one of the benefits of this site. It does have municipal water and sewer available to it. So we will be connecting to those facilities that are here. Lighting would be full downward cut off lights for parking. There are a few up lights that are proposed here. If anybody's seen any of the newer Holiday Inn Express, there's a light blue cast that goes up the wall of those, of the Holiday Inn. I do have some handouts, Josh, if you could help me. Josh is with Bohler Engineering here as well. These are just some additional information that actually Laura had asked for. So we can stick it in the file, but we just wanted to make sure that we provided the information that was requested. Basically what that package has is some information on signage, lighting, and, you know, design features that are part of the building, and I will point out that we're doing our best to give you a complete package, but there will be a local sign vendor who will be here with the full sign permits, but I know that it was asked, hey, can you show us the signs that are here. So we've gone through their standard signage package as you can see. We just drew X's through the bigger ones that we're not proposing, and just circled the ones that would be more Code compliant and scale appropriate that are there. The lighting, yes? MR. FERONE-So on the signs that are depicted here, are any of these going to be on Corinth Road? MR. BOYEA-Yes. So what you're holding right there is I believe the freestanding sign options that are there, and so the one with the square around it would be, as it's shown on the plan, right at the entrance way. That's correct. MR. FERONE-Would there be any on your property towards the highway to show people along the highway? MR. BOYEA-We would love that. It's a great idea, and if you're okay with that, we didn't think you'd be okay with it. MR. FERONE-That was just a question. I'm not approving it. MR. BOYEA-We are looking to fast track the approval and not create any issues. We would love to have that sign. We figured it would be difficult, and so we didn't propose it. MR. HUNSINGER-There's no sign on the building? MR. LAPPER-There is. MR. HUNSINGER-Just on the front, though. So it's not facing the Northway. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. BOYEA-Well, there's two signs being proposed here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BOYEA-But one sign is allowed on the building. The second sign would require a variance for a second wall sign. Again, the sign vendor would look at that, and that would be an application that needs to get filed for the Sign Variance application. So we wanted to provide the signage so that you could see, you know, the look and maybe the feel of the project, and they may or may not get that second wall sign. I suppose they'd have to make that application. As far as stormwater management, I think we've had a great experience here with McDonald's and Taco Bell that we know the land pretty well. It's very sandy soil. We have the infiltration capabilities to have the 100 year storm stay right on site. So it's a self-contained system here, and it will be relying on infiltration, the good sandy soils that are here, and that's this area out front here, the stormwater basin is there. It's a nice benign use as far as just a hotel. It's not heavy traffic oriented. It works well with the existing signal that's here. Hopefully it draws some attention to the rest of the property and maybe we'll be back in years to come for any future development that we have on the balance of the site. So we're here tonight just to answer any questions or comments through the site plan review process. We are looking for variances, or a variance, which is a height variance, as Jon had mentioned. It's my understanding that the Code is being, in the midst of being re-written or evaluated and that the proposal in this area is the 70 foot high structure, which we would be far underneath that, but again, just the same reason we're not proposing a sign at the interstate, we want to not cause hardship and we want to get the approval as soon as we can. We didn't want to necessarily wait for the Code to be re-written to allow the height. We would like to proceed with the project at this time. So we understand that our next step would be the Zoning Board tomorrow night hopefully for a variance, and then we would come back, but we certainly would want to get any comments or any issues that you guys would like to talk about now, but we think we have a great project. Thank you. MS. WHITE-Going back to the lighting, can you just explain the reasoning of the upward lighting? Why is that necessary? MR. BOYEA-Yes. So right on that package that was submitted, that's one of their design features. You'll see it's called Sunset Arrival up in the top left corner is what they call it. It is basically a design element so that when people come in, they see that wall wash light, it's a sophistication in the client's opinion in the Holiday Inn Express that, you know, this is a safe secure spot. It's an illuminated, right, so they can see the size, mass of the building, and it is a light blue color which Holiday Inn likes. Actually McDonald's that we did right in front of me has some wall washing and it's got some yellow tint that shines up onto something yellow that looks down. It's just a design element. MS. WHITE-So it's kind of tilted towards the building? MR. BOYEA-Yes. MS. WHITE-It's not straight up. MR. LAPPER-It's washing the wall with a little bit of light. MR. MAGOWAN-Kind of like the Sleep Inn does it with their purple. It's kind of their code, a more of a welcoming. You're, you know, home. You're here. MR. BOYEA-A picture's worth a thousand words. So those uplinks are what was submitted there. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-In the top right corner there. MS. WHITE-That makes more sense. MR. MAGOWAN-And it's not minimal, too. It's not like The Sleep Inn where the whole building's purple. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-1 like this much better. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-So is the sign on the building going to be illuminated? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Similar to what's shown there. MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So there would just be a couple of streaks of blue going up? MR. LAPPER-Yes, right in the center. MR. BOYEA-Yes, it's exciting to bring some of these national brands. I mean, the next application is another national brand, and it's going to be exciting for this. I think maybe once the McDonald's and the Taco Bell came maybe that's what did it. I don't know, but it's exciting. MR. LAPPER-1 think it's once the Northway came in. It just took a little while. MR. HUNSINGER-Fifty years. MR. FERONE-We talked about the height of the building, and I think you talked about the elevation of the highway there. In regards to HVAC, mechanicals, stuff that's on the roof, would that be visible from the highway, do you think, or will that all be hidden behind any kind of parapet, whatever's built? MR. BOYEA-That's a good question, and that would actually support the height variance in itself is, you know, if you were to go to a third floor, it comes down, it's more visible what's on the roof. Fourth floor, we believe that we're going to be at an elevation, with a parapet wall, yes, there will be a parapet wall around the building. You will not see it from the interstate. MR. FERONE-You will not see it. MR. HUNSINGER-So, yes, you submitted an elevation this evening. Is it an HVAC unit? MR. BOYEA-No, I think that that is a makeup air vent that's up there. There is a break in the parapet right there. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, when you look at the front, you see several there. MR. BOYEA-That's the rear. I think those are makeup air. They have to be a certain, you have to draw the fresh air a certain distance off the roof. I can look into that a little bit more and have that answered for you at the next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course just to George's point, you know, the Northway is elevated there. So I don't know what floor you'd be looking across, and if you would be able to see. MR. BOYEA-Yes, well, keep in mind that we have the 49 foot plus or minus building. We're actually in for a 55 foot variance because the grade, we're building five feet up with the grade on the first floor, because we have soils from the stormwater that we're using on site so that we don't have to excavate it off or truck it off. So that's really the total height, and that's what the variance is based on is current grade. So that's the 55 feet that they're looking at. MR. LAPPER-If you look carefully at this also you can see the white parapet wall. It's a small scale so it's hard to see. MR. HUNSINGER-Personally I'm comfortable with the variance request, but there's some site plan issues that we need to talk about. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Some you answered tonight. Some you need to address. MR. LAPPER-Hopefully we'll get through the Zoning Board and get right back to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Again, I know they're site plan issues, but in the Staff Notes there's a list of nine items to be addressed and one of them is related to pedestrian opportunities. Have you given any thought to sidewalks? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. BOYEA-We have looked at that a little bit. I think there will be opportunities, when the whole site gets built out. This would be quite nice, a lighted sidewalk, to make it down to any type of road frontage that we have down here. What we do have is a fairly wide road for the minimal usage that we have here. We could certainly consider like a ped sign or something like that or yield for pedestrians or, you know, shared walkway, shared drive with pedestrian type signs at this junction. There's no doubt that when we develop this here there's going to be an overall plan and we will have, we have the sidewalks around the facility here. We like to think that there would be some cross pollination with McDonald's. MR. FERONE-That was going to be one of my questions is with the hotel and folks staying there wanting to access McDonald's, how would they go about doing that? MR. BOYEA-Yes, and so short of that sign, if I want to go one step further, if it's something that's concerned about or would like us to explore, we can certainly, before we come back, we could look at making this section down towards McDonald's, you know, another four foot wider, and actually stripe a walk. MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I was going to suggest. Just make it a little wider and just put a stripe there. MR. BOYEA-We could get people to the property line for sure, and I think McDonald's is going to welcome the additional business. MR. HUNSINGER-I would imagine. MR. BOYEA-I would imagine that they will. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I just, not that I travel a lot, but, you know, thinking about the times that I've stayed at hotels like this right off a highway and, you know, after you drive for hours, it's nice to get out and go for, especially when the weather's decent, to get out and walk, like if you could walk across Corinth to the Taco Bell or, you know, who know what else would go in. MR. LAPPER-For this application, we can only promise a sidewalk to the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-Chris and I were just here last month at the Zoning Board on behalf of McDonald's at Exit 19 across from the Home Depot. So we can certainly talk to Renee and see if she's interested in bringing, or having these guys bring it across the road to her parking lot. So we'll have that answered before we get back to you. MR. FERONE-Now the green shaded area, that's where all of the trees are going to be removed. So there would be a line of sight from the road through the property that McDonald's is on to the hotel? MR. BOYEA-Yes, that's correct. Yes, so it would be welcoming, yes. People would probably walk, if we didn't provide the path, and just make a cow path. MR. HUNSINGER-People do that all the time now. That's a technique that's used all the time. MR. MAGOWAN-Wait to see which way they go first before you put it in. They don't use it anyway. MR. BOYEA-Well, for now I think following the path of the road makes sense. Like I said, there could be two, three, four, five years from now, we could hopefully come back and have more of an overall plan that's going to actually probably involve sidewalks everywhere. MR. LAPPER-When you know what's going to be there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. FERONE-So at this time we don't need to address these additional Staff Notes? MRS. MOORE-Can I just interrupt? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MRS. MOORE-In reference to that, there's some Staff Notes that are definitely site plan related issues, but there's additional information that was provided in your packet, and the applicant may want to address this as well, is in reference to traffic, and I think you definitely need to talk about traffic this evening, basically because you have potentially three hotels that are being proposed which actually triggers this whole cumulative effect that's discussed by A/CFTC and Chazen. So I'd like to hear some information about the traffic and the Board should have that as part of their discussion. MR. BOYEA-On high level for traffic. We had a hired Creighton Manning, a traffic engineering firm, to review the project, and they are familiar with traffic in general. Creighton Manning has done a lot of work. I know CHA did the most recent study that's out there, but certainly they used and reviewed those studies to evaluate impacts that this hotel may have on the facility, and they also included in that assessment the proposed hotel that's over here that's going to be here. So those are the two hotels. They did not include any hotel on this side, although the CHA study did include a study over here on this side that came to a total room count, from what our traffic engineer has reviewed and considered on this, of 100 rooms here and 89 rooms here. The overall traffic and the impact on this signalized signal, and the key benefit that this side of the road over here has is it's got a lot of infrastructure in place. One of the reasons why it's more appealing is we do have the water, we do have the sewer and we do have the signalized intersection to control the traffic. They have issued their findings and we've provided that, that said that no immediate improvements are necessary for these two facilities, specifically the one that we're talking about, going to the next one, the next application, but they did consider that. Now, in future developments they did say that if something of substance comes in here, we may need to make improvements here, and that is understandable, and the project owner is aware of that. The question was raised by I think Chazen or the Town Staff, somebody, should we be making those improvements now to this intersection in anticipation of something happening here. Our position on that is we really don't know. I mean, if we end up coming in here and it's, you know, a 15,000 square foot facility and it has three employees and no customers that visit it, maybe it doesn't get any improvements at all. If it ends up being a Dick's Sporting Goods and a movie theater, yes, we're probably going to have to replace that signal and do some improvements. We just wouldn't want to guess at that right now. MR. FERONE-1 would imagine the improvement would just be as you exit your property a turning lane? MR. BOYEA-Yes, I think that that's correct. I don't know the answer to the question, because it really depends on it, but the more traffic, we'd be adding another lane of leaving here, and it could be widening a little bit of Corinth Road on either side of it. Depending on the traffic counts, but at this point we're not even near that threshold according to Creighton Manning or their review of the study. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments that the Town Engineer made relative to traffic is that the proposed drive is slightly offset from Big Bay Road. MR. BOYEA-Yes, and that's not by accident. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn't think so. MR. BOYEA-Yes, no. So it is offset by like maybe two or three feet. That's how close it is, but there's a reason why we didn't just move it the two or three feet. If we moved it the two or three feet, there's a major utility pole that needs to be re-located, and we think that if we were to widen this to a three foot, or to a three lane outlet, we're going to have to cross that bridge at that time and there'll be infrastructure, light work, those types of things, but the current hotel doesn't support that small trip generation for that purpose. MR. MAGOWAN-That's that telephone pole that took them four years when they put the light in for Ma Bell, Verizon to, that's that infamous, yes, I remember that pole. It took them a long time to get that out of the way because it is a major conjunction area there. MR. BOYEA-Yes, but that being said, anything's possible. It just takes money. So this project doesn't support any type of monstrous infrastructure, but, you know, depending on what this is, now it's a cumulative effort and we might have to deal with it at that point, but that's the reason. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be the comment. The engineer talks about establishing some sort of agreement if there's a need for future improvements. So I don't know what discussions have been had on that outside of the Planning Board. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. BOYEA-None, none. I think that we would need site plan review and approval for any future development on the property and I'm sure that there would be a condition at that time that we obtain a, you know, move any utilities at that point that would be associated with that project. So we haven't had any discussions further. MR. MAGOWAN-You also own that property between the road and McDonald's, right? MR. BOYEA-So there's potential for, overall 16.3 acres. MR. FERONE-So now I need to pull a 180 on you. I talked about the sign, but now in the Staff Notes they talked about landscaping and trees along the border of the Northway, additional trees to be identified to be put in there. So you will comeback with that or? MR. BOYEA-Well, yes, if you would like something additional there we certainly can. The plan as it is right now is to leave the mature trees back here and then right here you'll see that there's canopies that are in here with mature trees. These trees are on the DOT's property that are there, and so our goal is to take down the trees that are on our property, construct a stormwater basin. It would still leave not a heavy buffer, but a few mature trees to dot along that. We also want to make sure that we can still see the hotel. So we're okay with leaving a couple of the big trees, but we don't necessarily want to leave a whole bunch of mature trees that would make it tough, and then also we have our infiltration basin here which is sized appropriately. So we're obviously taking down the trees in that spot. MR. FERONE-Maybe some islands or something that are built in to the parking lot? You could put a tree in that doesn't have to grow, you know, 16 feet tall, but. MR. BOYEA-We can put a few trees in. That's certainly possible. MR. DEEB-I'm just reading the last sentence. It says A/CFTC staff strongly encourages the Planning Board to consider the cumulative potential development impacts of this and the surrounding parcels while assessing the need for system improvements, and you've said that the third hotel was not taken into account. MR. LAPPER-By this project's engineer. MR. DEEB-Right. Well, and they're recommending if need be mitigation be a new east bound lane, left turn lane into Exit 18 hotel development, a two lane south bound exit from Exit 18, and a new north bound right turn lane from Big Bay Road to Corinth Road. Now, they did the study, and obviously they see some need for some mitigation aspects, not necessarily for themselves, they're saying maybe for future development, and I'm just wondering if you should maybe address that now, take a look at it. MR. BOYEA-Yes, it's a good point, and we would be guessing. That's the only issue at this point. MR. DEEB-You could guess incorrectly. MR. LAPPER-1 guess the thought is that at this point the traffic generation from these two projects doesn't justify it, but we certainly acknowledge as a condition when we come back next time, whenever that is, with another project, you know, whether it's here or on Frank Parillo's site across the street, at some point it's going to reach a threshold where there's going to be traffic improvements required. It's just that for these two hotels that are not big traffic generators, it doesn't make sense to build something, as Chris is saying, you know, guess what the traffic generation is going to be for a future project and have it sit there for a number of years when it's not necessary. So we're not running away from it. Certainly that could be a condition of approval when we get back here that that's going to have to be looked at when it gets to a threshold. MR. FERONE-1 think the big question is, we're talking about three hotels. It's not so much what this project should do on their entrance and egress to their property, but traffic on Main Street on the east side of the highway and what becomes Corinth Road on the west side of the highway, and traffic in between all of the areas where there are businesses, gas stations, three hotels, whether or not that road needs to be modified to handle the traffic going in and out. MR. LAPPER-We did talk about it, Ed Moore's project, only because we just got SEQR Lead Agency, but, and for that one there's some specific recommendations about an additional left turn lane. So that's certainly going to be a part of that project. Whatever has to be done there will be a part of this project. It's a little bit more immediate there because of the UPS situation. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. DEEB-Well, I think it would be more problematic on that side at this point. MR. LAPPER-Something will be added there to increase the capacity. It's just different on this site. MR. MAGOWAN-The majority of the traffic is definitely on the east side. I don't foresee a major impact with the two hotels on this side right now, but any further development on that, I agree that they'd have to address it then. MR. DEEB-I just don't want to kick the can down the road. MR. LAPPER-We'll agree as a condition that, when the can stops getting kicked. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And there's also some other comments in the new package about, I guess it would apply more to the lot in front that any future development to not, almost encourage vehicle traffic to not use the signalized intersection, and I don't know how we would word that in the approval condition, you know, that future development should plan to use the same access road, signalization. MR. LAPPER-Depending upon what it is, we could see coming back and somebody would want a right in, right out by the McDonald's, but the left would use the signal. So depending on what's there, with the restaurant, we certainly get it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay, but again, you know, if you don't address these things now, five years from now somebody's going to say, well, you never talked about it or it was never a condition or why are you coming back to us and we have an approved project. MR. LAPPER-Jerry Nudi, he spent a lot of money for the property hoping that someone is going to come to him soon with a subdivision or a lease. We'll see what happens next. MR. HUNSINGER-What other questions or comments? MR. MAGOWAN-It's a beautiful piece of property. I'm happy that the cleanup was a lot less than what you thought. That's the side that's coming next. The sewer's already over in there. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't have a problem with the height, like I said, with the height of the highway and stuff like that. I kind of like the idea. You're leaving a nice buffer in the back. MR. DEEB-You know coming off the Northway, coming south, off the exit ramp, certainly it's going to be higher than the hotel. It's certainly going to be visible when they're coming off. MRS. MOORE-Listening to this comment a couple of times, is there a method to showing that height elevation from the Northway? MR. BOYEA-We can get the elevation for the off ramp in comparison to our finished floor. MR. DEEB-That would be good. MR. HUNSINGER-And maybe not so much the off ramp but the actual roadway. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we'll do both. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Once they get by the off ramp, they can't get back on if they see it, until the next exit. MR. HUNSINGER-So the three actions that we can take this evening, obviously the first one's kind of a no-brainer, Acknowledging Lead Agency status. Certainly haven't heard any concerns about the Planning Board doing that. The second is to complete the SEQR review and then finally to make the recommendation to the Zoning Board. Are there any additional questions, comments or concern that any Board members have that would prohibit us from moving forward on those three action items? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. FERONE-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Then if someone would like to make a motion to Acknowledge the Lead Agency status. There's a draft resolution in our package. RESOLUTION RE: ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP PZ 51-2016 SWITCHCO WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop a portion of a 16.38 acre parcel for a 13,800 sq. ft. (footprint) 4 story (55 ft.), 100 room Holiday Inn Express hotel. Site work includes construction of an access road, installation of parking spaces, landscaping, lighting and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels 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 51-2016 SWITCHCO, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-So the applicant has submitted a Short SEQR Form. Are there any outstanding SEQR issues that we haven't already discussed? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, could I just identify? An additional concern is that I realize in future development that the applicant is saying that we'll agree to some of these improvements and things like that. However, both A/GFTC's comments and Chazen's, they're saying that some of this mitigation should be occurring now, and so I just wanted to make sure you're aware of that, and I would, I truly would consider that there's three items that A/CFTC highlighted in theirs. I'd be happy to read them aloud, just so there's reference to them. One of them is a new east bound left turn lane into the Exit 18 hotel development site from Corinth Road. The second item is a two lane south bound exit from the Exit 18 hotel access road, including one dedicated left turn lane to east bound Corinth Road and one shared right turn lane west bound and through lane south bound. The third item is a new north bound right-turn lane from Big Bay Road to Corinth Road, which would be effective of the other hotel that's being proposed, and under SEQR one of the questions for the Short Form is simply does it increase traffic. So in both instances they're saying it could bring it to a point that it's degrading in that area, potentially, and again, it's guessing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-But they've both identified that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe we could talk about each of these recommendations one at a time. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is a new east bound turn lane onto the Exit 18 hotel development site from Corinth Road. MR. BOYEA-Yes, I think the one response to all three is we've hired a great traffic engineer, Creighton Manning. They've provided a review of this and submitted documentation for the file that says that no additional improvements are warranted based on the use of the two hotels at this time. Certainly those additional items, turning lanes, types of uses, road widenings, it just is quite excessive for a hotel, and to further drive that point home a little bit, if you just look at the amount of infrastructure that this project is proposing, the roadway from the signalized intersection back. I would dare to say that we could stack the whole occupants at the hotel at the light. In other words widening it for an additional turn lane or to get somebody out is, we have a lot of stacking room here on this site. MR. LAPPER-So you're not going to cause a problem for a public road. MR. BOYEA-It is possible, but I don't see how we could possibly cause a problem on a public road for the small use that we have here. Conversely it's the same across the street. We're fortunate enough to be sharing the access drives cross access, good planning measurements and forcing all the traffic to use Big Bay, which has ample stacking down towards Curtis Lumber that's there. Restaurant's use, transient, in and out, high trip generation traffic, high peak hour traffics, those certainly are going to trigger these types of things, but we've spent the money to have a, and based on the Town's request, actually, because we're not getting because we're not getting caught off guard by this comment, you know, three, four months ago we were advised you should probably get a traffic engineer to look at this, and so we had planned to have and have had that work done and in place. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we have a copy of that report? MRS. MOORE-We were given that. MR. BOYEA-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Is what he's saying true? MR. BOYEA-That's a fair question. MR. DEEB-The letter's dated March 7th from Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council and their recommendation for, they must have looked at the study. MRS. MOORE-Yes, they did. MR. DEEB-And they still came up with this. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-They looked at the report, too? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they did. MR. MAGOWAN-And they still feel the need for? MRS. MOORE-As a cumulative effort, yes. MR. DEEB-This is going to be a sticky wicket. MR. MAGOWAN-Will we make all three hotels do their improvements to, I mean, it's kind of hard to say, I mean, we're just addressing Holiday Inn's egress right now. Right? But this kind of states. MRS. MOOR E-Everyone's responsible. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. That's what it's saying. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So I think we boys all ought to sit down at a table and have some coffee and discuss this. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and what the Town Engineer said, and, you know, it is recommended that the Town initiate negotiations with the project applicant to establish an agreement to begin to collect funds for the improvements. MR. LAPPER-And that's fair, I mean, you know, to do some sort of a mitigation fund so everyone pays a fair share, but not one party's responsible. MR. HUNSINGER-For all three of those. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's what I'm saying. MR. DEEB-I think it should be a shared responsibility. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Actually this is three hotels so it should be done three ways. I kind of like that way. I kind of agree that the light right now, the two hotels on this side won't generate any form, more back up than we already have. Because that can get congested at certain times, but I don't feel it has that great of an impact right now on the hotels because of the different times of the entering and exiting. MR. HUNSINGER-Has either the Transportation Council or the Town Engineer provided us with an estimate for what those improvements would cost? MRS. MOORE-No. The entity that performed the study was in the process of preparing that information. So that was the CHA Group, and I have not heard back what those cost estimates are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we do have agreement that they want to, that they will do the improvements. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I'm hearing the applicant say you're willing to pay your fair share, and here we are saying, well, everyone's acknowledging that these things may have to happen down the road. MRS. MOORE-Right. So one of the questions you have, in reference to the Short Environmental Assessment Form, is will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway. So is it a no, a small impact may occur, or a moderate to large impact, and one of the things that just sounds like it's been mentioned that there's a mitigation measure where the applicants are all agreeing to share the responsibility. I think that if you're answering this question that you would include that as part of the mitigation. Whether you're choosing, as a Board, to call it a nor or a small impact may occur or a moderate to large impact. That decision is you're, but I'm hearing a mitigation measure saying, yes, we're willing to contribute to this. Is that accurate? I don't want to speak for the applicant. Okay. MR. LAPPER-It's just that that has to be worked out fairly. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. BOYEA-Yes, and I think that we're saying that going forward this project could definitely contribute to it because it's got a lot more development that could happen to it. MR. LAPPER-So ultimately it might contribute a bunch. MR. BOYEA-Yes, it might contribute a bunch to this. MR. LAPPER-But now we can commit on behalf of the applicant to work it out in review to contribute something that's fair, as long as they're not asked to put in the whole, you know, set of turn lanes that aren't necessary for the hotel, but a fair share contribution to a fund is certainly reasonable. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. FERONE-1 mean, I'm trying to wrap my head around the recommendations. As an example, the first one says a new eastbound that's heading towards the City left turn lane into the Exit 18 hotel development site from Corinth Road. If I'm understanding that correctly, so someone traveling from west to east, turning into your property, how many, I would think the majority of your customers are coming from the highway, not from that direction. MR. LAPPER-And Chris' point was that if you're making that left turn, you're not going to be stacking and waiting because you've got, you know, a quarter mile, everyone's going to go. No one's going to be holding you up. Why would you need a turn lane? MR. BOYEA-Yes, there's not many people from West Mountain coming to the hotel. There's only 100 rooms. MR. LAPPER-Not this winter anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good point. MR. MAGOWAN-There's been things going on on that Mountain, you know. You never know. MR. BOYEA-1 mean, it just doesn't make sense. MR. MAGOWAN-The majority of your traffic's going to be coming from the east. MR. BOYEA-And that's why we have hired Creighton Manning. They're very reputable. They do a great job. MR. LAPPER-We'll bring them with us when we come before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the dilemma is, I can only speak for myself. I can't really speak for how the rest of the Board feels, but if we were only looking at this project, absent anything else, I wouldn't have any concerns at all with traffic. MR. DEEB-No traffic problems. MR. HUNSINGER-But, because I think any increase in traffic is going to be small to moderate, and I don't really see where it would really impact the level of service, but you've got a hotel across the street and a hotel down the street, the cumulative impact of the three together may require some mitigation. MR. LAPPER-But that left turn, just to use that example that George raised, that's only for this project. That's a left in, and we can't see how that would be necessary if it's only a hotel because we've got this whole long road for people to, you know, no one's going to be stacking and holding you up from making that left. MR. DEEB-Unless traffic backs up from the light at the Northway. MR. FERONE-That's in the opposite direction. MR. DEEB-No, that's going this way, traffic backs up. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. DEEB-That could be a problem. MRS. MOORE-Can I just, I'm thinking when I did happen to talk with Arron, maybe I misunderstood. I'm not completely certain, but you're getting off of Exit 18 and going towards West Mountain, and the left hand turn lane would, instead of sending them to the signalized light, they're turning left into the Taco Bell entrance at that point, and they are, so it's a different hotel. MR. DEEB-I think that's a different item that they're talking about. MRS. MOORE-So that's why, I think this first item is talking about that turn movement, that I'm turning left. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's for the other project. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MS. WHITE-Because this letter is looking at all, cumulative. MR. MAGOWAN-The letter is really generalized for all three hotels. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It's not really stated for just, yes, there's going to be more traffic there with all three hotels, and that's kind of what my understanding of the reading was. MRS. MOORE-So the concern was stacking from the Exit to that Taco Bell entrance. MR. DEEB-That would be westbound. That wouldn't be eastbound. MR. FERONE-Heading from West Mountain into the City. MR. DEEB-It says eastbound. MR. MAGOWAN-That would be turning into the Taco Bell going towards Curtis making a left, right? MS. WHITE-Maybe Aron could give us a little map. MR. DEEB-Okay. I mean, it is a little bit confusing. MS. WHITE-1 mean, I don't think that's a bad idea to have maybe a little bit more of a visual representation of what he's looking for here. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. I can do that, but I think you did discuss addressing the SEQR portion of traffic. I wanted to make sure the Board was able to proceed, if they were going to proceed through SEQR. To make sure that traffic was identified, simply because we've had the study being completed. MR. HUNSINGER-And when might you be having those cost estimates? Fairly soon do you think? MRS. MOORE-1 would think fairly soon, but I don't know. The Senior Planner, Stu Baker, was handling that conversation. MR. HUNSINGER-Since we're talking about SEQR, I want to get a feel from the Board. Is the Board's feeling that the traffic mitigation could be potentially large or do you feel that it's small to moderate? MR. MAGOWAN-For this particular project. MR. DEEB-For this particular project it's small to moderate, but if we're looking at a total cumulative project. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the questions is does the project have, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the exact verbiage, the potential to create additional impacts and, you know, putting that access road in, in and of itself, could have the potential for future impacts, but we really don't know what those may be at this time. MR. DEEB-Yes, we don't know if it's small to moderate, large, it's a guess at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FERONE-Well, we have one report that says there should be no problem and the second report that's indicated these are recommendations due to what they say. MR. BOYEA-That's a well stated statement. Those are just recommendations at this point. I mean, when we did the McDonald's here we were worried about traffic, right? McDonald's has been there built up. There's been a major amount of money in improvements put in to Corinth Road. They brought sewer over there. It's been widened. Traffic at that place has never been better. Those are noticeable improvements that have been made over the last five years that are there. I mean, you used to wait to try to get out of that McDonald's. Everything flows a lot better. These two hotels, based on our traffic engineer, who's the same one that helped us with McDonald's, just not triggering any type of improvements. I mean, this is pretty benign over here on this side of the Northway. It's part of the reason why this side of the Northway is 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) more appealing than the other side because we've got the water, we've got the sewer. We've got less congestion. I mean, there's a reason why this side was expensive. MR. MAGOWAN-Plus the other report, isn't that more for all the hotels. I mean, we have one report that's basically just for your project. MR. BOYEA-Two. MR. MAGOWAN-Or two projects, and then the other report is with the third one added in. MR. BOYEA-Those are recommendations. MR. MAGOWAN-Which you're going on the other side which is already a little congested. MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. MAGOWAN-But, you know, I feel comfortable, and, you know, with the SEQR, knowing that it's already out there, is that all three parties are going to have to address the traffic on both sides that, you know, as that one project gets more developed, and as we approve, you know, with the hotel across the street, you know, it's going to be a joint effort with everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think if we just take the two comments from the two letters, the three recommendations from the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council and then the comment from Chazen which says that the, one of the conclusions of the re-zone study is the need to provide a means to equitably allocate the costs for funding those improvements with developers and property owners in this area. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that off of Chazen? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the bottom of the first page, and it says that it is recommended that the Town initiate negations with the project applicant to establish an agreement to begin to collect the funds for the improvements. I mean, the applicant said that they're willing to pay towards such a fund. So I think if we just identify those two comments in our SEQR resolution, that's just my opinion. MR. MAGOWAN-Where was the other one? MR. HUNSINGER-The three recommendations are on the Glens Falls Transportation Council letter. MR. DEEB-Then my question is we're doing SEQR for this project only? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-And not for the cumulative projects at this point. MS. WHITE-But we're acknowledging the effect of this project in the cumulative. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We can't ignore the two letters that we have that identify MR. DEEB-Fine as long as we acknowledge that with the SEQR, then we should be okay. MR. HUNSINGER-1 would believe, yes. MR. DEEB-And Jon agreed to that they would negotiate with the two developers and try and get this mitigated. MS. WHITE-Equitably. MR. DEEB-Because there's going to be a problem, I think, later on. MR. HUNSINGER-So the only real question we have, in terms of the SEQR review, is to say if we think the traffic issues would be small to moderate or potentially large. MR. DEEB-I'm okay with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Which do you think it is, small to moderate? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MS. WHITE-Small to moderate. MR. DEEB-At this point I'm going to say small to moderate, but based on this project alone. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if we think the impact on this project alone for traffic is small to moderate, then we don't need to worry about mitigation. That's the other issue. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we're doing SEQR for, isn't it, we're doing SEQR for just this project. MR. DEEB-Just this project, but what happens when we come to the next project? Then, okay, and now you've got three projects. MR. HUNSINGER-Can't we just say in the SEQR resolution, Laura, that the Planning Board acknowledges the two letters from the engineers relative traffic and the applicant has agreed to work with the Town on providing financing for future mitigation? MRS. MOORE-Right. You can identify that this project, small, cumulative, it's a moderate to large, and the applicant has agreed to follow through on those two letters. I think you've adequately reviewed it, and that's the point is that you've adequately reviewed it. You've identified it, and you've written into a resolution, and that's where I think you need to be. MR. DEEB-And we beat it to death. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just going to do what Paul does, whatever she said. MS. WHITE-What Laura said. MR. DEEB-I like that. I'm comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the only SEQR issue? MR. FERONE-1 have a couple of questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, George. MR. FERONE-All right. Item 12 it says is proposed action located in an archeologically sensitive area. You checked yes. MR. BOYEA-Yes, it's just in a check zone that's there, and this goes back to the Schermerhorn proposal, again, that was fully reviewed and approved and then later, for full clearing at that point, and we're not even clearing at this point. MR. FERONE-Okay, and then Question 20 says has the site, proposed action or adjoining property been subject to remediation, and that remained unanswered. I believe this project had been. MR. BOYEA-There was some remediation done for heavy metal out by the intersection. MR. FERONE-Well, do we need this updated, because there's no information on here, and someone signed this that information provided is true and accurate. JOSH O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Ferone, at the time that that was prepared, and I can't speak to today, but at the time that that was prepared, DEC had not yet listed that. MR. BOYEA-It self-populates in the form. MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn't come up when I completed the form, and I checked the website and looked at all of the records for remediation that had been done in this corridor and it's not listed at this time. I mean, it has happened obviously, and it was closed. MR. DEEB-And DEC has no record? MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn't show it in any. MR. LAPPER-In any of the databases. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. O'CONNOR-In any of the databases at this time. So I don't have a reference number to include in the Short Form. MR. LAPPER-The DEC would have participated in that. MR. O'CONNOR-That is correct. MR. LAPPER-Issued a closure letter. MRS. MOORE-So that is something, the SEQR form sits here, the official file, if the applicant wishes to update that based on what the Board has discussed, and it's a local remediation with DEC. The applicant can choose to update that form and re-date that. MR. FERONE-So this form can go in as that question being unanswered, or should they check no? MRS. MOORE-They should be able to check that and answer. There may not be a number associated with it, but there is enough information that says that DEC worked on the site. MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-That should be reflected then. MRS. MOORE-That should be reflected. MR. DEEB-In this. MR. MAGOWAN-Do I have to write that down, too? MR. DEEB-So we have to get an updated SEQR? MRS. MOORE-So you're updating Question 20. MR. FERONE-Do we have to do that now? MRS. MOORE-All you're doing, you can identify it in your resolution that says the applicant is updating Question 20 to answer it yes, and that there was a remediation and it has been identified and discussed with the Board. They're just updating the SEQR form. MS. WHITE-Do we need any kind of letter confirming that that's been completed? MRS. MOORE-He's going to update that and initial it before he leaves. MS. WHITE-Okay. -Sorry. MRS. MOORE-No, that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Good catch, George. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to go through the SEQR questions on the form so that you can pull that specific question or that comment out? MR. DEEB-Yes, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-So on the Short Form for SEQR, this is impact assessment, this is Part 11, Question One. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? And the answers now have been changed. So now there's a check box either for no or small impact may occur. That's one box. The second box is moderate to large impact may occur. MR. HUNSINGER-I'd say no. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Consensus is no. Question Two, will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? Consensus? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Clearly they're increasing the intensity of the use of the land, but it's small to moderate impact. MS. WHITE-It's going from nothing to something. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, from nothing to something. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the box that's being checked is called no or small impact may occur. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Number Three, will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? And the word is impair the character or quality. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Question Four, will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Five, will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what we talked about, small to moderate. MRS. MOORE-For this specific project it would be considered small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MS. WHITE-But we're incorporating the two letters. MR. HUNSINGER-We're acknowledging the two letters. MRS. MOORE-Because it's part of the cumulative project. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. WHITE-Exactly. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't want to say moderate to large? MS. WHITE-Not for this project. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, not for this project. MR. FERONE-Cumulatively it's moderate to large. MR. HUNSINGER-Well. MS. WHITE-We don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-We don't know, yes. MS. WHITE-So we're just acknowledging the input that was given to us in the two letters, and the acceptance of the client to participate in the mitigation project. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I would argue, you know, if the interchange goes from a Level of Service from A to C, I don't, personally I don't consider that to be a large impact. It's really not a significant delay for most traffic. So I wouldn't consider that to be large, and that's if there's no mitigation. MR. FERONE-Small to moderate. MR. MAGOWAN-Small to moderate. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Six, will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Seven, will the proposed action impact existing, a., public/private water supplies?, and b is public/private wastewater treatment utilities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Eight, will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Nine, will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Ten, will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Eleven, will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So that completes all the questions for Part II. MR. HUNSINGER-So again, there was only one. Are you ready? MRS. MOORE-So you're doing the SEQR resolution now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. You have the draft. MR. MAGOWAN-I know. Do you want me to add anything on to that? Question 20? MR. HUNSINGER-That was already done. MR. MAGOWAN-We took care of 20? MRS. MOORE-You can identify it in your, the motion, as per draft resolution, including the applicant has agreed to update Number 20, and that the project, in reference to traffic mitigation or the two traffic letters, has agreed to participate in the process. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP PZ 51-2016 SWITCHCO The applicant proposes to develop a portion of a 16.38 acre parcel for a 13,800 sq. ft. (footprint) 4 story (55 ft.), 100 room Holiday Inn Express hotel. Site work includes construction of an access road, installation of parking spaces, landscaping, lighting and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels 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; 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) 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 51-2016, SWITCHCO, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. 3. Additionally the applicant will be updating Question # 20 to a yes, and signoff to complete the Short Form. 4. The two traffic reports from A/CFTC & Chazen concerning the future traffic have been agreed upon to contribute monetarily, as reasonable for each project, and to participate in the mitigation measures. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-The two traffic letters concerning the future traffic have been agreed upon to be mediated for future improvements as needed. MR. LAPPER-To contribute. MR. MAGOWAN-To contribute. MRS. MOORE-To contribute and agreed to participate in the mitigation measures. MR. DEEB-We have to get the other two to agree. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds good. I like what she just said. Do you have that down? MR. LAPPER-It just has to be reasonable for each project. MR. MAGOWAN-Reasonable for each project. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-So this one should be the easiest. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals? MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Are we changing anything on this one? Just a recommendation? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 69-2016 SWITCHCO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to develop a portion of a 16.38 acre parcel for a 13,800 sq. ft. (footprint) 4 story (55 ft.), 100 room Holiday Inn Express hotel. Site work includes construction of an access road, installation of parking spaces, landscaping, lighting and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested from height. Planning Board to conduct SEQR and may provide 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 NO. PZ 69-2016 SWITCHCO, LLC: Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; 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 15th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Thank you. We don't often have such a comprehensive and thorough discussion of a project. MR. BOYEA-Well, actually half that work is going to be done for the next project. So it's going to make it go a lot smoother. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. SITE PLAN PZ 54-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BIG BAY LODGING, LLC (HILTON HOME2 SUITES) AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING MA OWNER(S) FRANK J. PARILLO ZONING CI LOCATION BIG BAY RD., SE CORNER OF CORINTH RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 15,095 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), FOUR STORY (66 FT.) HILTON HOME2 SUITES HOTEL BUILDING WITH 89 ROOMS, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND INTER-CONNECT BETWEEN CORINTH AND BIG BAY ROADS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MOTELS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT, FAR, PHYSICAL ACCESS. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEAR AND MAY PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 74-2016, SV 53-11, & SP 54-11 TACO BELL; SP 31-12 & SP 2-13 CLEARING; 9/97 OFF PREMISES SIGN; P23-94 ZONE CHANGE. RECOMMENDED, DENIAL; SP 31-96 PRODUCE STAND; UV 35-97 DENIED MOBILE HOME WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 2.3 ACRES PORTION OF 6.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2 THROUGH 9 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS BOYEA &JOSH O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to construct a 15,095 sq. ft. footprint of a new hotel. It's 66 feet in height. It's 89 rooms. The floor area is 60,380 square feet. This includes all the floors of the project in relation to the lot size of 2.3 acres. Project includes site work for stormwater management and connection to the municipal water and sewer, and do you want me to go over the list of comments? In reference to the Area Variance, the applicant is asking 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) for height relief. They are also asking for relief from the floor area ratio where the required is up to .3% and the applicant is asking for .6. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. BOYEA-Yes, for the record I'm Chris Boyea from Bohler Engineering, and here with me tonight is the proposed owner of this whole project that will be built here in the Town of Queensbury, Bobick, came in from Clifton Park, Clifton Park area. So he's got hotels in different spots of the Northeast here and then Josh is here with me from Bohler Engineering at the same time. This project is a re-development of a vacant piece of property that is owned and, currently owned by Frank Parillo and he owns this whole area that is out here. This is Taco Bell. This is the McDonald's here. Our last applicant was over here. The Taco Bell's in this parcel here, and that was constructed within the last five years. The rest of the site that he owns is made up of multiple sites and what Bobick is proposing here is to subdivide out the piece that's rendered here, so he will actually own in fee the rear portion of this site, and that would be the balance of the site for Mr. Parillo that he owns. We are proposing a four story hotel here. This is a Hilton Home2 Suites, and I'm not sure, Josh, did you get a chance to pass out this? MR. O'CONNOR-I'll do that right now. MR. BOYEA-This is similar to the last application. Staff had asked for some additional information about building floor plans and elevations, those types of things. So very similar to the same package that was just provided. This is just geared more towards the Hilton and the products and amenities that they offer here. For this application we are proposing to take advantage of some previous work that was done by this Board when we came in with the Taco Bell. We had discussed that we would have one access here, as you can see on the aerial, and that this property, no matter what happened, would not put any more curb cuts on Corinth Road. So we are using this current access. So we would not be proposing we will access out onto Corinth Road, but what we will be doing is we will be constructing that through that provides access out to Big Bay Road, which is a great benefit to, even the existing Taco Bell can now get out to the traffic light that's here, and then any future development would also be able to do that. So we're completing that access management to make sure that we're providing that. As you can see we have such a long stack here to the signal light that's here. So that's by design, too, as far as making sure we come out far from the intersection. This project does need two variances. One is for height, similar to the other application. So we're a little over 60 feet in height, four stories, same stories, but just different architecture as you can see in the handouts, and then there's a lot coverage, a density for calculation. Where the other one across the street has a very big lot, we talked about that at length, 16 acres, we are maximizing the available land that's available here for this. So if we were to just look at a first floor, the facility, you would be in Code compliance, but because we are four floors, we exceed the density that's available here, and one of the arguments that we're looking at there for that is that if this was, you know, commercial retail or if it was an office or something like that with four floors, the demand is much more. We'd have much more parking, much more everything for that density for all those levels. This is a Hilton Home2 Suites. Very big rooms. There's only 89 rooms total at this location now. So the actual occupants per floor is not very grand. It makes sense here and it makes sense being next to the interstate here. Again, we do have water. We have sewer that's over here. Water is coming from here. Sewer is coming from Corinth, and we have area allocated for infiltration. That's the green space that's over on that site. That's our low spot for the site over there that drains in this direction. Any future development that happens here would have its own stormwater system. Everything's separate. So that the hotel that Bobick owns is self-sufficient. Similar with the other application we were asked to, you know, could we provide maybe a few RV/bus type spots here, and so we've done that here, and we've actually addressed somebody's comments about snow storage, kind of kill two birds with one stone here. So these are located in the midst of, the middle of the back of the site, and by putting two bus parking or RV park spots here we've opened up some place in the middle where a snow plow could get a few plows in here before plowing and turning this direction and plowing and turning this direction. So we've provided a little green relief that is in there for that. We've also addressed the two bus parking spaces or RV, etc. that are there, and that provides the access around the facility here. So we have an entrance here, an entrance here, and then we're going to build the access road as part of this project on Mr. Parillo's land. We have 99 parking spaces here, smaller, private which meets Code, and again, we've handed out the lighting information to document that it's cut off light fixtures, and some specs on the overall building that's there, and so with that, a lot of the same things will, you know, the traffic item, I think we've caught that. This is an existing signalized intersection. There's no through curb cut here. We had Creighton Manning take a look at this, and see what kind of impacts, if any, there would be. We had them look at both hotels together and make sure that that cumulative impact, we did not consider the hotel that is proposed over here at that time. We 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) just really weren't aware of it at that time. So with that, we're here tonight to answer any questions, comments. Similar to the other one, we need to go to the Zoning Board because of that height and density, and then if all goes well we need to come back for site plan review and approval here. So I'll turn it back over to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-I'm a little bit concerned with the ingress and egress with the Taco Bell. There's no way we can, the people are going to exit the hotel through that road onto Corinth Road, through the Taco Bell road. I don't think there's any way you could stop them. I mean, they're going to want to do that, and I think, I'm a little worried that's going to create some traffic problems trying to get in and out. So I was hoping that all traffic could be directed to the light at Big Bay Road. I don't know if that's something you can address. MR. BOYEA-Well, I don't want to, just ideas out here, I mean, I've seen traveling, I do a lot of traveling. I've got one of those frequent reward cards for the hotels, and I have seen where they put up signs that say, you know, Interstate 88 this direction, you know, left to 88. Now can you go straight and get to Interstate 88 or in this case 87, but, yes, I mean, you could, but what the intent is to bring all traffic out to the side street that's there. Is that possible for here? It could be. The concern probably isn't that big, though, with exiting traffic, because it's, nobody's really going to take a left off Corinth Road here. Most people are going to be heading back to the interstate or to the urban points of interest. So taking a right out of here, when we did the Taco Bell, we actually have a right out here, even closer to the intersection, that was permitted and allowed by DOT, and the right out isn't the issue, you know, that's a very benign type movement. A left out would stack on site. However, though, even with that said, I don't think it's a bad idea. I mean, I have seen those signs, I was just in New Jersey last week where it said exiting traffic use side street. MR. FERONE-So traffic heading westbound on Corinth wouldn't enter the site by Taco Bell, it would probably go to the light and down and around. MR. BOYEA-Well, they could. They could enter the site there, yes. There's no restriction there. MR. FERONE-So there's no double line, nothing directing traffic for, as you get closer to the intersection? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. There's no restriction, and that was planned when we did this Taco Bell for Mr. Parillo, to look at where the light is here, and where the light is here. That's equal distance, and it's not by chance. That was put there for that specific reason, and it's right in the middle of the two. MR. MAGOWAN-I remember talking about it when you put in the Taco Bell, and that's why you have the berm there between the parking lot and that. That was going to be an access road for future development into the back. there's one in the entrance, but I remember talking about we want to direct traffic out onto Big Bay Road as much as we can. MR. BOYEA-Yes, and at the time, when we did this, yes, it was asked whether we could build this road out here, and it just was outside the feasibility of that Taco Bell project. Again, not trying to think too far ahead, but here we are a few years later and now we're ready to complete that and it's definitely been designed to function well, not as like a cut through. I mean, we've got a jog in here. We've got a stop here, you know, so it's not a convenient, I mean, there was a lot of thought that went in to it back then. So we didn't have to do too much thinking of it now. It was just kind of a dusting of things off and making sure that we looked at them. MR. DEEB-It's very similar to the McDonald's up here on Route 9, the new project. Remember they had people coming in, but people going out, and they were using it as a drive through to get to Route 9, and I'm concerned that that's going to end up being the same thing. MR. MAGOWAN-That they're going to what? MR. DEEB-Use it as a drive through to get out to Corinth Road, coming from, they can come in from Corinth Road, go over Big Bay Road, if they don't want to go up to the light at Curtis Lumber. Just that going out to Corinth Road I think could be problematic, but if we can get traffic to exit at the light, I think it would be a lot smoother coming out of the hotel. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. BOYEA-Again it's a good thought. There's another flip to the coin, though, on this that we should also consider is from fire safety, emergency vehicles, redundancy of the access, not just having it from one to the other. MR. DEEB-I agree with that. MR. BOYEA-So we've looked at, again, the hotel, hotels are big buildings. There's no doubt. You look at them, they're impressive. People like to stay in them, they've got a nice lobby, everything's great about them, but, you know, 89 rooms, and they're not all there arriving at the exact same time and they're not all departing at the same time. It's a very benign type use. So if we were looking at building a Red Robin here or pick any restaurant, Chili's, something of that nature, I mean, now you're talking over 100 trips in an hour. We don't even have 100 rooms here at this hotel, if they all arrived in the same hour. So it is a good use, and that's why Creighton Manning had looked at this for that. Again, there's future development here, similar, I mean, this is ditto for conversation. MR. DEEB-There's not going to be any more curb cuts up front? MR. BOYEA-1 don't think there's going to be anymore curb cuts here. I don't know. MR. DEEB-I don't think there will be. MR. BOYEA-1 mean, we had, yes, here it is, and here it is. I mean, I think that that's pretty good. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? A lot of the comments that we made about the other project, about the, being able to see into the roof, I'm not sure will apply here, but I'm going to ask you the questions anyway. You'd have the other hotel in the way and I mean, you have the trees in the way. MR. BOYEA-We'll find out, though. That's not a heavy lift. I can try to get the elevations for that, too. MR. MAGOWAN-That also sits a little further back, too, than the other one. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR . BOYEA-Quite a bit further. MR. HUNSINGER-And I'll say the same thing. I don't have any concerns with the variance requests. In fact, I often kind of wonder how relevant the floor area ratio is for some of the commercial projects. I mean, certainly it applies very well to residential projects and small sites, but, you know, the bigger issue on a project like this is the lot coverage not the floor area ratio. I mean, you know, you have green space. You have enough room for stormwater mitigation. So I don't have a problem at all with the floor area ratio on this particular project. Anyone else? MR. DEEB-The same concerns with the traffic. They've definitely got to address that issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have the same level of agreement in helping to contribute towards the future traffic mitigation? MR. O'CONNOR-We would be open to a discussion. Our project's a little different where we're purchasing a small piece of land that we don't have control over Frank's land and what he does. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So I think we'd be open to a discussion, but I think our site has the least amount of further development, you know, it's kind of a site that's most ready for development. We've looked at all the sites at Exit 18 and 19 going back many years now. So we have a good understanding of all the different sites. Like I said, we'd be open to a discussion, but we have no control of that future development in the front because we're buying ours fee simple. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, one of the things I believe they asked in the report is a right lane on Big Bay. Big Bay Road is, you know, that corner as you can see where the vegetable stand is and I know that gets cut through a lot, too, and things get stacked up and those contractors get a little impatient, but I mean, you know, like I said, we have to address that forward corner and you're going to be participating in using that corner, too. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. BOYEA-1 think that this one's simpler in the fact that I was just talking to Bobick here. When we come back, between now and then, we're going to talk to Mr. Parillo. I don't think there's going to be an issue. Mr. Parillo is an educated developer. He understands this. Bobick although might not be a big contributor to this, Mr. Parillo still owns that land here today. So he's an interested party in this application, and let us talk to him, because I don't see any issues there. I know Frank. He's got a bigger scheme up his mind, you know, he's a thinker, and if he puts anything else on that property I think he needs to be aware that this is coming, and that we need to have him on board with it at this juncture so that he's aware of it and it's part of this SEQR review and it makes sense. It's just that we want to make sure that Frank's involved as he is the land owner today, and he owns all the balance of it. So that he's, want to bring him up to speed. MR. MAGOWAN-1 can see, I mean, I can see you have a low impact, but like I said, we're just trying to, but you're right. Frank would probably be more of a party to hammer down on this one. MR. BOYEA-It makes sense, and we're going to have that conversation, absolutely. MR. FERONE-How would that affect us moving ahead on SEQR, though? If we don't have that commitment at this point, can we move ahead with that? MR. BOYEA-Well, I think, again, that out of all the hotels here, this is the smallest, 89 rooms. This is definitely a small to moderate, small impact. We've had Creighton Manning review this as well from a traffic standpoint. So there is a comfort level and some documents that have been provided. We're thinking that the answer's going to be the same as the last application where the owner's going to commit to be part of future improvements, and we just don't know who that would be, but we're willing to commit to it. We just don't know whether it's going to be Frank or Bobick, you know, because of the small impact Bobick's going to have, he's buying the land from Frank. In that purchase price there may be room for improvements to the overall improvements, we just don't know. I have to have that conversation with Frank. So this, of all the hotels, though, is a very small traffic impact. It has been documented by the traffic engineer that's been hired and retained. MR. FERONE-But I think the way we left it was the last applicant had committed to that, and we had that engineered into the SEQR resolution. Am I correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BOYEA-I'm not sure, though that there's much, I don't know, that's up to you. I mean, your contributions to this should be very small, if any, and that will have to be worked out, but. So if Frank says no, you're going to be on the hook for whatever small impact. It could be a right turn lane. MR. DEEB-I think that was the one thing, the right turning lane. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that would be the one thing that would probably be the most contributable. MR. BOYEA-Yes, and that's probably the least expensive, but as long as you're willing to give them that assurance, and again, we can talk to Frank and Frank might take that over. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments relative to the specific variance requests? Height or access? MR. DEEB-I'm okay with the variance requests. MRS. MOORE-So just to clarify that it's height, access and floor area. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I had, it's really a site plan issue. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, let's do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Related to lighting. There were some areas, particularly underneath the atrium, that were really hot, 32 plus. I h the overall lighting plan I thought was very good. Most of the parking areas, you know, really faded out very nicely, you know, and didn't spill into adjoining properties, but it just looked, I mean, that kind of just stuck out because of it was so low in the parking areas and then so bright under the atrium. So if you could just take a look at that. We can talk about that in site plan. Are there going to be any kind of cross site agreements relative to parking or anything else? MR. BOYEA-Not parking. Parking is self-sufficient. There is cross access agreements that are in place for the road that we're building on Mr. Parillo's piece that will provide the access to this site, and for utilities because we're crossing, we'll bring our sewer line to Corinth Road so there's a cross access utilities agreement. MR. HUNSINGER-And how about pedestrian access? MR. BOYEA-There are no easements or agreements for pedestrians, as far as connectivity. I'm not even sure where we would connect on this one. I suppose it would be the Taco Bell. MR. DEEB-That would be the access is Taco Bell. There's no way they're going to walk to, unless they wanted to walk over to McDonald's. MS. WHITE-Or Stewart's. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, or Stewart's. MS. WHITE-Stewart's is right there on the corner. MR. FERONE-How would DOT get involved in regards to putting crosswalks in these areas for potential traffic? MR. BOYEA-1 cannot speak for DOT, but I can tell you just based on past experience, they would want that to happen at a controlled intersection. So we have two of them, potentially, that are going to be built up here. The one by the interstate is obviously wider and would be pedestrian friendly. Although there are sidewalks up there and they've already done those improvements that are up there. That wouldn't be like mid-point. I doubt it. MRS. MOORE-1 think there's, I was thinking there was one across Big Bay. I'm sure there's one somewhere in here. They're not showing up on the photo. MR. MAGOWAN-Wow. I wouldn't put a crosswalk near that 87 bridge. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? So it's the similar exercise. There's three actions before us this evening. The first is to accept Lead Agency. The second is to conduct the environmental review and then finally to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. If anyone would like to move the resolution to accept Lead Agency status. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP PZ 54-2016 BIG BAY LODGING WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to construct a 15,095 sq. ft. (footprint), four story (66 ft.), Hilton Home2 Suites hotel building with 89 rooms, associated parking and inter-connect between Corinth and Big Bay Roads. Project includes site work for stormwater management and connection to municipal water and sewer. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels 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: 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN PZ 54-2016 BIG BAY LODGING, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any SEQR issues that the Board has identified other than the traffic concern that we touched on? MR. FERONE-Again, they had that question checked yes for archeological sensitivity, the same situation. MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I think most of Queensbury is in an archeologically sensitive area. MR. O'CONNOR-By the Hudson, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you get a signoff from SHPO? MR. BOYEA-On the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-And we want to acknowledge the two traffic letters again. MR. DEEB-I think we have to. MR. HUNSINGER-And identify traffic as a small to moderate impact. So if you want to use a similar language that we had from the last one in the SEQR resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So that was Question 20, again? MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there was no Question 20. The only thing we need to identify is the two letters from the A/CFTC and Chazen. MR. MAGOWAN-And to mediate future improvements. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-I guess I'm concerned with the use of the word future improvements because we're really talking about the project at hand. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So just be cautious about how you word that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MRS. MOORE-I think it's both, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Right hand turn? I mean, to mediate the road improvements needed to address the two traffic lights there? MR. DEEB-Can't we just word is the same way we did the last one? MR. MAGOWAN-I can't remember what I said the last time. Sometimes it just flows. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. BOYEA-Yes, I think that that would be fine, the same wording as the last time. Because it said fair share. MR. MAGOWAN-Fair share, yes. To mediate the fair share of the traffic concerns by the two letters. Are we ready to rock and roll? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION PZ 54-2016 BIG BAY LODGING The applicant proposes to construct a 15,095 sq. ft. (footprint), four story (66 ft.), Hilton Home2 Suites hotel building with 89 rooms, associated parking and inter-connect between Corinth and Big Bay Roads. Project includes site work for stormwater management and connection to municipal water and sewer. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels 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 SP PZ 54-2016, BIG BAY LODGING, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. 3. The two traffic reports from A/CFTC & Chazen concerning the future traffic have been agreed upon to contribute monetarily, as reasonable for each project, and to participate in the mitigation measures. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-In addition that there will be mediated for a fair share of the traffic concerns based on the two traffic letters, or traffic reports. MR. FERONE-Should we specify that it's the Chazen letter and the CHA letter? MR. MAGOWAN-I don't think we did that on the last one. I don't remember saying that. MRS. MOORE-It's the Chazen letter and the A/CFTC letter. You can. So it's clear in the resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. The Chazen letter and the A/CFTC letter. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-And now finally the recommendation to the Zoning Board. It's an easy piece. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: PZ-0074-2016 BIG BAY LODGING The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 15,095 sq. ft. (footprint), four story (66 ft.), Hilton Home2 Suites hotel building with 89 rooms, associated parking and inter-connect between Corinth and Big Bay Roads. Project includes site work for stormwater management and connection to municipal water and sewer. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested from height, FAR, physical access. Planning Board to conduct SEQR and may provide 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 NO. PZ 74-2016 BIG BAY LODGING, LLC: Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BOYEA-Okay. Thank you so much. We hope to see you next week. SITE PLAN PZ-0044-2015, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ-0050-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED PERFORMING ASSET STRATEGIES OWNER(S) PERFORMING ASSET STRATEGIES ZONING MS LOCATION 87 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE CURB CUT. BUILDING ONE PROPOSED TO BE TWO STORY 76' X 48 . A PROPOSED SECOND STORY BUILDING MAY BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FUTURE. POSSIBLE USES INCLUDE RESTAURANT, COFFEE SHOP, DELI, WINE STORE, MEDICAL OFFICE, TO PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN AND MIXED USE BUSINESSES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON MAIN STREET SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. ALSO, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON MAIN STREET SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 72-2000; SP 63-2000 & MOD.; SP 2-2003 & MOD. WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 43,200 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-37 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10- 040 STEVEN ETHIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant is proposing to construct a two story building at 86 feet by 40 feet, and a future potential second building may be constructed here on the property that at this time is not determined whether it will be a two story or a one story. I did identify a few items under the summary,. In reference to the future second building, the proposed height, uses and time of construction; to confirm main building height and in reference to landscaping number of existing trees/plantings to remain and the number of proposed trees and building landscaping details. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) Outdoor space usage for coffee/restaurant usage, this will include outdoor seating type of space; the rooftop mechanicals; building elevations, a side view; a parking summary for the uses anticipated and the proposed; building lighting type; the window transparency at the front along Main Street; window type for the first floor and the second floor to be provided; the building color and in reference to the Special Use Permit criteria to be consistent the Board may request each criteria to be addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ETHIER-Good evening, Steve Ethier, Performing Asset Strategies, 87 Main Street. We're here tonight to move forward on the Special Use Permit so I can start maybe looking for a tenant or a buyer for the site. Just kind of want to get your feedback and move on to a Special Use Permit on the site itself, and come back for one side of zeroed in tenant or buyer, for parking, signage, color, the design review type of thing. It's right now just a Special Use Permit for, so I could attract a tenant. We decided to go two stories. We feel we've met the Main Street design standard to go two stories and we've met with the Town Engineer, the Fire Marshal. We're pretty excited about the two stories. It's going to work out. So, but right now we're just here to try to get the Special Use Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-Your project as it exists now, I know it's going to be two buildings. MR. ETHIER-Yes, eventually, or, you know, of the one. MR. FERONE-First one, and then with an option to do a second one. MR. ETHIER-Right, and the way it looks like things are going, two stories looks like it's going to, you know, the more density looks like it's going to be achievable. When I was here 18 months ago, the market wasn't strong enough to accommodate the second floor. Now it's looking good. Right now I'm just trying to fulfill the needs of the Town, they want that second story, and it'll work, and as we move forward, so to answer your question, just one building, or a separate building with the canopy connection. The Special Use Permit will get me to at least where I can start marketing the property, and if I attract a restaurant or I attract a hardware store or I attract, you know, a certain tenant, I can come back with their parking needs, the window needs, the color, the whole scheme, trying to do it all in one shot and then coming back and trying to change it all with the tenant. So if I can it just to where I can start marketing the property, and then come back with their needs. MR. FERONE-So when you look at the property and you have your buildings kind of lined up on the left side, would you put all of your parking in, or would you just put the parking in on the front and leave the back undeveloped? MR. ETHIER-Right now there's a certain amount of parking there, but we worked the parking all the way back, and if I get a Special Use Permit, I could get approved to get the building permit and get a structure up, depending on the tenant, you know, might be building the whole parking lot. So it all depends on the tenant. It really does. It'll save us all a lot of, your time and my time trying to guess what's going to go there, because now that there's a lot of activity going there, it's going to be exciting. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess I'm a little confused by your comment that you're just looking for the Special Use Permit to be approved. So what exactly are you hoping for with this? MR. ETHIER-Well, a couple of different, like in Saratoga when you develop you go for your Special Use Permits for, from restaurants to hardware store to retail, and then as you zero in on a tenant or a buyer, then you come back for site plan, depending on the needs for parking, and then design review for the aesthetics of the building. So I just didn't want to try to guess who was going to go there and do all this and have to come back to you, you know, it's going to take up a lot of your time. A Special Use Permit, if I could get for a restaurant and things I'm asking for, at least I could try to attract one of those tenants. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I understand now. MR. ETHIER-And then come back and say, look, I have, this is who I have, this is what they need. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. Thank you. I did have a quick comment on your narrative. The pages aren't numbered, but it's actually titled engineering report, engineer's 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) report, dated August 24, 2005, on the third page, at the bottom, where you're talking about the septic system, it says when the new sanitary line was constructed, the new, and it says XX inch lateral was installed. MR. ETHIER-2005? MR. HUNSINGER-2015. I'm sorry. MR. ETHIER-There are claims there's a septic system there. We haven't found any evidence of it, and there are new sewer line laterals coming in to the property. So the site plan that was approved here, and the as built, couldn't find the as built, when I took the building down it was connected to public sewer. There is a lateral coming in off of Main Street. MR. HUNSINGER-So for the size of the lateral you have XX instead of the actual size. MR. ETHIER-It's a six inch lateral. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ETHIER-I'm sorry. Yes, it's a six inch lateral coming in. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess really all we're kind of really zeroing in on this evening are the types of uses that you've identified in your letter, which are restaurant, coffee shop, gourmet deli, wine store, pet grooming, medical office, etc. Any comments from Board members? I mean, personally I think any of those would be adequate. MR. FERONE-That doesn't limit him to an accountant or a lawyer's office or anything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ETHIER-It's very important in the marketplace that they know it's been approved for a restaurant if I'm talking to the tenant, it's already been approved. It's really attractive if it's shovel ready and then they would come in with window designs for your approval, types of things. It really helps me out a lot if I have that ability to market with those uses in place. MR. HUNSINGER-So would you see your Main Street elevation that was submitted, do you see that changing much? MR. ETHIER-No, not really. It's what we'll go with. Once we get a tenant that wants more windows there, they would have to come in for the window facade, and that cement siding, that's what we're going with, and the windows is a high point for your concern. So we'd bring them in for windows, we'd bring them in for parking, bring them in for the lighting, up lighting, parking needs, etc. all during that site plan, and that would help me, too, moving forward, too, because I would know how much capacity, how much parking they would take away. In fact, I was going to try to maybe move forward with the building permit and have that structure and just have that front open so if I get a tenant they could come in with designs for windows on the first floor. MRS. MOORE-1 guess I'm going to interrupt, only because that's not, the reason why there's a list of items here was that for Main Street those criteria need to be presented to the Board in reference to are you going to, how much percentage of the building has transparency because there's certain requirement that says you have to have so much transparency in the front. Not saying that you can't get that information to us, but right now it's not, there's no numerical value on the elevations that tells me that this is the percentage that you're doing for transparency or the type of windows because there's actually specific criteria in the Main Street guidelines that says for the windows they have to be, or they can't be metal frames or something to that effect. I was looking for it, there's no information such as that. That's why it's identified here in those comments. So in reference to the Board looking at the project as a Special Use Permit, it has, in Saratoga that may be the way. In Queensbury you're actually coming in through a Site Plan and Special Use Permit. So those criteria need to be addressed prior to actually making a decision. We can discuss it, no problem with that. MR. ETHIER-Well, that's going to be difficult because with windows if the Town orders that they need a window, you've got to put the window in that they want. I can't guess whatever that restaurant or somebody would want. They're going to have to abide by what the Code is and try to guess who I have coming in there, I'm back to Square One. It's very hard to market a property if you don't have any approvals. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. ETHIER-So over a window, the windows would be addressed when a tenant comes in, and if their windows and transparency doesn't meet the Board's standards or the Town, they don't get approval. MRS. MOORE-Well, in this instance all I'm asking for is that calculation to be prepared so the Board has something to base their decision on. An applicant coming in afterwards, yes, would have to come back before the Board, but you're asking for the shell to be approved, and part of that shell, those calculations should be provided as part of the review process. MR. ETHIER-Okay. So I can get the uses approved, but I couldn't get the shell approved. Is that where we? MRS. MOORE-I'm saying the whole package. MR. ETHIER-I wish I knew that. I wouldn't have wasted everybody's time. MRS. MOORE-No, it's not. MR. ETHIER-I mean, really we're back to Square One because I can't market the property because I don't have any uses, you know, over some windows. It's not a good way to, it's kind of counterproductive because the windows have to be to the Board's standards, and I can't present any windows because I don't know who's going in there. MRS. MOORE-The windows issue is truly a discussion with the Board. If you're proposing the windows that you have in front of that elevation, the calculation of those windows is what should be provided to them. If the applicant, if the future tenant says I'm going to change these windows, they're coming back in for a modification. MR. DEEB-They can do that. MRS. MOORE-And they can do that, and there's not an issue with that. MR. DEEB-It's not you. You've just got to get approved for this. MRS. MOORE-Right, but if the Board says that, is in agreement with the type of windows that you have or the transparency or the arrangement on the site, you know, and that you can have the discussion, it's asking for a certain amount of landscaping that needs to be done. If you're proposing something that's less or more intense in certain areas on the property, the Board has the right to have that discussion with you because you're asking for, either the way the Code's written that discussion could happen with the Planning Board versus the Zoning Board. So, it makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-It shouldn't prohibit you from going ahead. MR. ETHIER-Yes, I'm still, I'm a little, I guess the calculations of the facade I presented, which would be, you'd want the calculation of the windows that was presented there? MRS. MOORE-Right, and that's fine. That's why it was included. If the Board wishes to continue with their discussion, those were some of those items that you can talk about, and if the Board feels comfortable, you know, they need to be provided as part of the project. MR. ETHIER-Absolutely. It's something that we could supply the calculation of that facade. Like the special use is going to be contingent upon submitting that. MRS. MOORE-It potentially could. The Board may want to see that calculation. I don't know. So that's the discussion you could have, or move forward and get to the point where we table the application and have it, that information forwarded to us so that can be provided to the Board. MR. ETHIER-Yes, the windows and some landscaping would be nice so I can get it, you know, the Special Use Permit contingent upon getting those calculations for that facade and adding some screening. If there's other items that we need to discuss besides the windows. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, speaking just for myself, I think this is a very attractive building. I don't think I would have any issues if you were to build something there. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think I would have any issues if you were to build something there. Maybe colors or something like that, as long as they're not garish, as long as they're consistent with what's in the Main Street plan, I don't think you'd have any problems getting that facade. MR. ETHIER-We took a lot of time to try and match what we thought the Town was looking for in that district. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but as Laura pointed out, there might be some details that we'd have to talk about like landscaping and parking, you know, a couple of other things, but in terms of the building design. MR. DEEB-You can market it, and if the modifications need to be done then they can come in. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know if that gives you the comfort zone that you're looking for. MR. ETHIER-If I have the uses in hand and then explained, you know, to the tenants what they're going to have to do as far as your approvals, if I can get Special Use to move forward contingent on getting the calculations that were presented there, that would be great. MRS. MOORE-1 did have neighbors come in today. So I didn't know if you wanted to do the public hearing and you can hear from these people that are neighbors to this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, I mean, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. MRS. MOORE-1 didn't know if you had other comments or questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Are they written comments? MRS. MOORE-There was one that was written and I believe one individual is in the audience, too, so if they want me to read it, I can. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we'll open the public hearing. If you could give up the table, please. Do you want to read the letter, first? MRS. MOORE-Did you want me to read it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOIS HAMMOND MRS. HAMMOND-No, I'm here. MR. HUNSINGER-The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to address their concerns to the Board. I would ask that you state your name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meetings. The tape is available on the Town website and the tape is also used to transcribe the minutes of the meeting. MRS. HAMMOND-My name is Lois Hammond and I own the property on the north side of his property. So the back of his parking lot would border against our chain link fence, our backyard, and I came in, you know, as she mentioned, today, my husband and 1, and we looked at the building and we mentioned to her that, you know, we're happy that it's going to be some sort of business really. We're happy that it's not going to be the house that might be run down which we do have some on our street. So, you know, from that point of view we're happy with that. I just was, what I had mentioned in my e-mail to her earlier today, this afternoon was it looked like, and from some of the notes that I had seen, that on the back I think there was like 15 or 12 yew trees. The woods that are there are going to be taken down, I'm assuming, from what the landscape plan looked like, and replaced with grass and then these yew bushes, and so I just, you know, my one concern was that there be enough yew bushes to kind of really be a buffer between the parking lot and our yard, you know, because that would really open it up for people to see in and things like that. So that was my main concern or main question, I guess, you know, because they said, yes, the mature height was 10 to 12 feet and they would grow three to four feet wide, but how many years does that take before those sizes are reached, you know, and one other question I had, and I don't know if this is appropriate, you can tell me if it's 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) not, but one building's being built now and then possibly another depending on, you know, market conditions and so on, who the tenant is, but with that area where the second building's going to be, the parking lot, I mean, until it's built, what would it be, because the plan, unless I didn't see the plan with just one building, the plan that I looked at had two buildings. So what's going to be where the second building is until it's built? Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. So it was her letter that you received? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You can come back to the table. MR. ETHIER-As far as the screening, we'll do a nice, we'll submit that for screening. We're very conscious of neighbors and screening, as far as, there'll be no parking on the area where the second building or the area would be. So that's still to remain vacant grass and no parking on that site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. So I guess I'm a little confused as to what action we might be taking this evening. Am I the only one? MRS. MOORE-Correct. So my suggestion is that the application be tabled to a future time so that the applicant can go through these items one through thirteen and address them to the point where there's, the applicant has specifically identified them. There's future second building proposed height, uses, and time of construction. The applicant at this time has indicated that that future building may not be built or it may be built. We need a little more information than those two things. The next item is confirm the main building final proposed height. I don't have that information on that current elevation. It only goes to, it doesn't go to the top of the roof, it goes to the eaves. Landscaping, we just talked about landscaping. So it needs to be clear on the plan as well as, typically I see the chart that says I'm planting 10 yew trees. In this case we're looking at a site that already has development on it. So we're looking for the existing tree count, including the back buffer, or the tree count that says after, you know, the first phase is this main building and I'm clearing all the trees or something to that effect. So I need a little more information about that. Outdoor spaces usage. The applicant indicated it's possible that there's a coffee facility going to be proposed. So we need to talk about are we going to have an outdoor space with a seating area. That information is identified in the Main Street Code. I don't know if you want me to go through each one of them, but that's, identifying Questions one through thirteen would be a place to start. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did we give you enough feedback to give you some comfort? MR. ETHIER-I'm not happy with it, but if that's what you guys decide to do, that's your decision that's the way it is. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess it's different than in Saratoga. MR. ETHIER-Okay. MR. DEEB-You can meet with Laura and I think once you get those few things under your belt, you should be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ETHIER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So potentially submit information by April 15th to be on, you can make this to the first May meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-So table it to May 17th. It's either the 17th or the 19th. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The 17th is fine. MR. HUNSINGER-If anyone would like to make that motion. So the applicant can address Items One through Thirteen in the Staff Notes. RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 44-2015 & SUP PZ 50-2015 PERFORMING ASSET STRATEGIES 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ-0044-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ-0050-2015 PERFORMING ASSET STRATEGIES, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Tabled to the May 17, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Additional information to be provided by April 15th submission deadline, for further consideration. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: MR. FERONE-Do you need to go through the specifics of what we're looking for? MRS. MOORE-No. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION PZ 79-2016 SKETCH SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN M. HUGHES TRUST AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JOHN M. HUGHES TRUST ZONING RR-3A LOCATION STATE RT. 149 & OXBOW HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 19.86 ACRES TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO FIVE LOTS. ALSO PROPOSED IS A PRIVATE ROAD TO BE ABOUT 700 FEET. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 14-2001 MINING TO EXTRACT SAND WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 19.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1- 7 SECTION 183 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes 19.86 acres to be subdivided into five lots. Also proposed is a private road of about 700 feet in length, and I've identified each of the lot sizes and the lot itself contains steep slopes, and that's probably the primary topography issue that you're going to be looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Good evening. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, representing Mr. John Hughes Trust. Mr. Hughes is in Florida. He'll be back in April, and with us tonight for any further questions is his daughter, Patty Green. As you may know they own and operate the Ledgeview Campground on Route 149 near Oxbow Hill Road, the north side of 149, and they recently purchased this nearly 20 acre parcel on the corner, the south, southerly side of 149 and the west side of Oxbow Hill Road and it backs down to Glen Lake Road, road on three sides of it that's the high plateau area with fairly steep slopes off to the north and to the south to Glen Lake Road and Mr. Hughes has been, I believe he's the longest running contractor in the area. He's been in business since the 50's, and wanted to undertake this new venture. What we're proposing is I would consider a low impact development with a narrower private road, 18 feet wide, approximately 700 feet long. Minimal demand on the Town infrastructure and that sort of thing. So no maintenance by the Town. It's quite similar in design to what we worked with with the Board, I believe two or three years ago off Tee Hill Road known as Mark Drive. That's been built out and two homes in there with a similar kind of thing, and this is the same zone as over on Tee Hill Road, that northerly side, the three acre zone, and it's somewhat difficult to design appreciable, viable projects in the northerly part of the Town with the more restrictive zoning and larger setbacks, that sort of thing and still get a nice project out of it. With this layout, we're able to meet, for the geometry, meet the lot size and the setbacks of the zone. You need a little relief for the lot width, which is 400 feet, which is difficult to do, and obviously since these homes are accessed by the private road and did not meet the Town road requirement of the zoning code, which is a fairly common variance that we do on a lot of private roads and re-development work. Density wise is where we're coming up a little short on the Code due to the fact we have to deduct the 20% or greater slopes out of our allowable density. By my calculations, we have just under 20 acres of land. So if it was flat, the five lots would be no problem, but when we take the slopes out of it, we're down to about 11.3 acres, what I would call the usable land with the slopes less than 20%, and that land is just, it's excellent. You take 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) a little climb off of Oxbow Hill Road and it's near flat on the plateau. So I'm quite comfortable that there's adequate space for the homes. We're showing anywhere from 180 to 300 feet between the homes. So it gives it a real nice rural feel, and Lots Four and Five are just gorgeous with the views, near panoramic filtered views. We'll have considerably more estate lots at the end of the road, and the impacts to the lake would be minimal. The only chance of seeing anything would be Lot Five, and again, we keep our cutting restrictions tight so we're not putting a ridgeline development by any means. With that, I'll keep it brief and there's no impact, to speak of to the slopes. We're staying off of them. There's no curb cuts or driveway cuts on the Glen Lake Road or 149. So we're kind of a nice little private nestled subdivision up in here and we're looking for the Board's feedback and our goal is to submit in April for preliminary and the Area Variances and we still have some design work to do and we would appreciate the Board's feedback on this. Thank you.. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments? George? MR. FERONE-Definitely the topography is interesting, on the backside, Glen Lake Road, boy it's quite a haul going up there on that. So where that private road goes in, I noticed that there was a gate there and it looked like there was already an existing path. Is that going to be about where that road's going to go in? MR. DOBIE-That's in general alignment with that. It's just about across the road from the driveway to the east. So there is a little old culvert there which we're occupying about three quarters of that. So it's just tickling to the north a hair bit, but basically come through the gate and swinging out towards the south. So we're trying to maintain about a 75 to 100 foot buffer, vegetated buffer along 149 as well. So, yes, that's the general alignment. I suspect it's an old logging road or something in there. Once you do the little climb and punch through the bank off Oxbow Hill it's near flat. It's amazing. MR. FERONE-That would be a heck of a job getting utilities into Lot Five, boy that was a long run. MR. DOBIE-Yes, I suspect they'd come in with power, a primary line, the high voltage to the end of the road and probably run a primary line up the driveway, too. I struggled a little bit with the location of trying to keep it closer to the road as we could to our private road, but that's, I didn't want to ask for more setback variances or that sort of thing. That is a nice little plateau where we show it, being an estate lot that's really a nice little secluded area. That was our thinking behind that location. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any reason why you don't have the topographical lines to the west? MR. DOBIE-I believe, as you made the call, Mr. Chairman, about 10 years ago, we came in with a church project where we were going to take about 10 feet off and flatten things and I believe that's approximately, well, that's where the survey shots ended when they were doing the topo for that, and I think that's where it started to break off significantly down towards the firehouse. So they called that about the top of the usable or feasible topographic area and I counted that area as greater than 20%. So I took that out of our density when we considered that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I would agree with you, I think this is a nice project. One of the concerns that you've already addressed is the length of the driveway out to Lot Five. Is that the one that would be 700 feet? MR. DOBIE-The private road itself is 700 feet to the turnaround, so that driveway is, in round numbers, is 500 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-How did you drive on the way home, just getting off the main road. Mr. DOBIE-We didn't have to worry about snowplowing this year for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think the private road would be paved or would it be dirt? MR. DOBIE-I suspect it would be paved, just for the maintenance and marketability of it, and the narrower road width works quite well in my experience, with the 18 feet and to put little bump outs to 20 feet for fire access, but it's just a low volume we're able to do that roadway reduction with one of the DEC green infrastructure programs. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-And of course you already identified the one concern that I would have and that's the clearing, the type of clearing limits and you already really addressed that by saying that the buffer between the private road and 149 and clearing limits would be limited. I think those are the concerns that I would have. Anyone else have any comments? I think the project on Mark Drive has turned out pretty well. There was an applicant here recently that we commented to about that. I can't remember who it was, but we looked at that as a, it was a layout, a layout of the private driveway. It was suggested that they take a look at that as an example. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. A Town road has become almost economically unviable in a subdivision anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other thoughts or comments? Thank you. MR. DOBIE-We've got some work to do and hopefully we'll see you in May. Thank you so much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? MRS. MOORE-1 have one item that can be taken care of after but it's about the computer system. So I don't know if you want to close your meeting and I can address that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 15. 2016, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 51