Loading...
05-17-2016 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2016 Site Plan No. 29-2015 Garvey KIA 1. 18 MONTH EXTENSION Tax Map No. 303.6-1-4 Site Plan PZ 127-2016 Frank & Kathi Miller 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.6-1-15 Site Plan PZ 128-2016 Anthony Muscatello 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.18-1-30 Site Plan PZ 131-2016 Great Meadow Federal Credit Union 11. Freshwater Wetlands PZ 132-2016 Tax Map No. 296.20-1-10 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan PZ 140-2016 Joseph P. Gross 12. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2 Site Plan PZ 91-2016 Spruce Hospitality Group, LLC 14. Special Use Permit PZ 90-2016 Tax Map No. 309.14-1-89.1 & 86.11 Site Plan PZ 0044-2015 Performing Asset Strategies 26. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-37 Site Plan PZ 123-2016 North Country Imports, Inc. 30. Tax Map No. 303.10-1-12 Subdivision PZ 129-2016 Philip & Laura Mitchell 26. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 278.20-1-1 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. ,r (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, May 17, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table if we didn't run out, and there's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of our items later on do have public hearings scheduled and when we get to the first public hearing we'll go into details on how the public hearings will be addressed. The first order of business is approval of minutes from March 15th and March 22nd, 2016. If anyone would like to move those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 15, 2016 March 22, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 15TH & MARCH 22, 2016, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded David Deeb: Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items on the agenda for Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first one is Site Plan PZ 127-2016 for Frank and Kathi Miller. MRS. MOORE-Actually before you do that there's an Administrative Item. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 29-2015 GARVEY KIA 18 MONTH EXTENSION TO DECEMBER 2017 MRS. MOORE-I apologize. They requested an 18 month extension to December 2017. So that would be the 19th of December. Do you want me to read that in? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please. 2 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MRS. MOORE-So it is request of the Zoning Administrator that says due to unforeseen complications with the KIA Gallery program, I'm respectfully requesting an 18 month extension to the Planning Board approval of Garvey KIA Site Plan 29-2015. They are currently resolving the issues with KIA corporate and an 18 month extension will help that. MOTION TO APPROVE AN EIGHTEEN MONTH EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 29-2015 GARVEY KIA., Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we'll hear PZ 127-2016. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN PZ 127-2016 SEAR TYPE II FRANK & KATHI MILLER AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 22 NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOME AND OTHER BUILDINGS ON SITE. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF NEW SEPTIC AND WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACKS, FAR, AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2014-204 DOCK, AV PZ 67-2016 TEAR DOWN & CONST. OF SFD WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE .32 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.6- 1-35 SECTION 179-6-060 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; FRANK & KATHI MILLER, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and other buildings on the site for the construction of a new 3,925 sq. ft. home. This is the floor area of that home. Project includes installation of new septic and well, and for site plan is within 50 feet of 15% slopes. The nature of the variance: The applicant requests relief for side setbacks where 20 ft. is required and 12 ft. 7 in. is proposed on the North and 9 ft. 9 in. on the south. Relief is also requested for permeability where 75% is required and 64.4% is proposed. In addition Floor area ratio relief is requested where 22% is the maximum and the applicant proposes 27%. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Frank and Kathi Miller, the owners of the property. The property is 22 Nacy Road. It is on the west shore of Glen Lake. The drawing that's the first one on the board here is the existing layout conditions. The red line indicates the setback line for the property. I did not do the property lines proper themselves, and the blue outlines are the current buildings that are on the lot. Currently there's an existing two story wood frame house down here and a two story wood frame house on the back of the lot. These were two separate lots that were at one point combined into one. The Millers, the buildings were originally built somewhere around 1900. The building up front is currently used by the Millers as their seasonal residence. The one in the back has a garage with a small apartment above it. The plan here is to demolish all the buildings that are on the lot and construct a year round residence for them to live in. The second drawing that I have, still the red shows the required setback. The green line on the outside is the setbacks that are to the existing buildings as they stand right now, and again, the blue outline is the outline of the proposed structure so you can see that we're inside what's there now, but we do spill over into the outside lot. The total width of the lot within is 626 feet. So it would be within, the house is very narrow and would have to be very long to make that work. The outline that we show, the brown that's on here is the current non-permeable surfaces, the driveways, the walkways, the paths, the things of that nature. We're increasing permeability with our proposed, the current green space permeable area is 54.1%, and we're increasing that with this plan up to 64.4%. We're still below the 75 that's required, but this is as close as we could get on the lot and still get a driveway in and still get the building where we have it. 3 (Queensbury IPllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. FORD-And a building of that size. MR. HALL-And a building of that size. We've kept everything on one floor. There is a basement underneath. That kept us to our, below our 28 foot so we didn't need the height variance. So I was trying to minimize as many variances as we could keep it down to and the height was the big. So we wanted to keep under the 28 feet. The proposed layout of the floor plan of the building, this shows you the layout of the building itself, the garage and the layout of the bedrooms and everything on the one floor with the basement unfinished, and the elevations of the building show as such. This is from Nacy Road. It's a very small. It looks like a one story from Nacy Road, and then the ones on the lakeside show the two story, and you can see how it gets built back up into the bank. We'll do that with a series of small retaining structures and we're going to keep the building back away from the lake as best we could. We tried to keep it back a little farther, but we don't have enough room to put in a septic system and still get the building in. One note that has been brought up, the Sicard subdivision that was done in 2013 1 believe, I was contacted by Tom Jarrett who was the engineer for that subdivision, and he asked that we take a look at their Lot Number One. So the drawing that is here, this is, he sent me over the location of the well that's on Lot Number One, and the four orange bands that appear there are the laterals for our proposed leach field, and you can see by the blue circle that we do infringe on that. So I went back today and designed an Eljen bed system, and that's represented by the red shaded area. So we could put that Eljen bed system in as opposed to the stone and trench pipe that we would have been proposing, but we can get a compliant system in and stay outside the 100 foot buffer for that well. We weren't aware that that subdivision had been approved since nothing's happened with it in four years, three years or whatever. I was just taking care of that because I knew that there was somebody that brought that up. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. HALL-No, I think that'll cover it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-How many feet are you back from the lake? MR. HALL-The proposed building? The proposed building is 53 feet 7 inches back from the lake, where 50 feet is required. MRS. MOORE-Adjoining lots, it actually creates a different. MR. HALL-Correct. MRS. MOORE-In this case it actually has to be further back because of the two adjoining buildings. MR. HALL-But we're back into that, the two adjoining lots beside us are farther away from the lake than the 50 feet. So because it's on the waterfront it's not the 50 foot that's our minimum. It's the average of the two adjoining lots that's our minimum. So that's why we did the front. MR. MAGOWAN-But with that new septic system you'd be able to bump it back a little. MR. HALL-With the small, well, we're right on the edge of where, we're right on the edge. We may be able to move it back a few feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Because what's the existing off the lake now? MR. HALL-The existing off the lake right now is 60 feet 7 inches. MR. MAGOWAN-So 60 feet 7 inches. So you're coming down seven feet. MR. HALL-Closer to the lake on our front corner. It's just really the layout of, the way the lot is skewed to the lake. We're just kind of squaring this off, and by squaring it off it's actually pushing us closer. Can I get the seven feet back by putting this back, by putting in this type of a bed system? We could probably slide it back a little bit, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I guess, you know, in all fairness, I mean, you're trying to stay within the footprints and I'm looking at, you know, the red line and then the green lines and everything else and, I mean, like you said you're asking for setbacks on the side and the front, and even though those two houses add up to quite a bit of square footage. 4 (Queensbury IPllannling IBoard 05/17/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-But I'm wondering if we can maybe, since you're encroaching so much of the sides, is give a little more on the front now that you can. MR. HALL-We can pull the footprint back, yes. MR. FORD-Good. That's my concern, proximity to the lake. MR. HALL-Sure. Yes, we can increase that, pull it back. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, I don't have a problem if we can stay, you know, what you have now, with the existing, you know. MR. HALL-If I can pull it back the seven feet and still have this remain outside that 100 foot buffer for that adjoining well. That's the key is I'll pull it back as far as I can until I hit that point. It looks like on here, yes, this is an inch to a foot, it's got about an inch there. so I think I can probably slide it back the seven feet, sure we can do that. MR. FORD-And I appreciate the fact that you're going to an Eljen system and eliminating those laterals on the leach field. MR. HALL-Yes, it's a little bit different system but I think it's going to allow us to use a bed system as opposed to the pipe and trench system. MR. MAGOWAN-I've done both. Is there really a? MR. HALL-There's not a huge difference between them. The Romans used pipe and stone. That's kind of why I like to stay with them. If it's not broke, don't fix it, but the Eljen system has been around quite some time and in the soils that they've got up there, they should work fine. I mean, they've got really nice well drained sands over there. So it's not like we're in a clay situation or we're not going to have to import material to do a replacement bed. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that's all I have to say. MR. SHAFER-1 have a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. SHAFER-Did you consider a smaller footprint on the lot so that the setback requests for variances and FAR weren't quite as severe? MR. HALL-We've looked at trying to downsize the size of the building and we've really got this down to what they need for, they're moving out of a house over on Queens Lane, over on the West Mountain side. MR. SHAFER-3900 feet seems large for that size lot. MR. HALL-And, yes, and it's a little deceptive because it's the floor area ratio considering all of the basement space, and this basement is unfinished for storage for them, but obviously that's part of our calculation of what we have to do for the Floor Area Ratio. MRS. MILLER-What is our upstairs living space? MR. HALL-Off the top of my head. MR. HUNSINGER-2604? MR. HALL-2604, yes. MR. FORD-What's the potential for making that lowest level living space instead of just storage? MR. HALL-What's the potential for it? There's no intention of finishing it. MR. FORD-1 didn't ask for intention. I asked for potential. MR. HALL-Yes, it certainly could be finished space at some point in the future, yes. 5 (Queensbury IPllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MRS. MILLER-We use that back building as storage for all of our boating and kayaks and to lose that and not have to take up that space in the garage, that's kind of what that basement area is going to be for, kind of taking the place of that back building that we only use for storage now. MR. TRAVER-What's the ceiling height in the basement? MR. HALL-It's eight feet. MR. TRAVER-Eight feet? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. FORD-We've seen other storage areas that suddenly develop kitchen space and bed space and so forth. MR. FERONE-Ethan, there's a number of notes from Chazen about, you know, stormwater. MR. HALL-Yes, stormwater management. MR. FERONE-Have all of those been addressed yet? MR. HALL-Yes, I've looked through it. I just got the list on Monday I guess it was. It's really stormwater management coming around the sides of the building. We've got eaves trenches on both sides picking up everything coming off of the roof. We've got grass swales running down along, this does go right down to the lake. They're asking for some stone basins at the bottoms of these. It's just to prevent them from eroding. We'll also use the enviro mat to get it laid down to get the grass established so that there's not any, during construction there's not erosion, and we'll put the silt fence obviously all the way down along the front edge during the construction process. So, yes, I read through all of their comments. There wasn't anything earth shattering. The one thing that they did mention is we're going to have to pull the well back from the lake. It's a 25 foot minimum setback. So we're going to have to pull that back a little bit, but we're still within, we're still outside of our setback to our septic and to the other septic. So it was good to get that information from Tom Jarrett, to see where that was. MR. MAGOWAN-1 also don't see any planting of that, for the front. MR. HALL-Any planting? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the buffers. MR. HALL-Yes, this is all landscaped and planted now, and it's going to stay just like it is. This is the lower terrace, down here. This comes down to a flat piece. These stairs that are in there. This is all landscaped lawn down here and this is all landscaped down around the front here. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're just going to pretty much keep what's there already. MR. HALL-Yes. There's no intent to change any of the landscaping or cut anything down. There's really no tree line out on the front. Everything is on the adjoining property for the most part. MR. MAGOWAN-And since you're going to crunch back that seven feet there. MR. HALL-Yes, we'll take that back into account. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? Any specific concerns with the variance requests? The two side setback and permeability and Floor Area Ratio are the four variance requests. MR. SHAFER-1 have some concern about those dimensions, Mr. Chairman. Whether there has been some analysis of a different shape of the house, going further back up the lot more in keeping with the shape of the lot and maybe even using some of that basement as living area in order to take in the overall footprint of the house. Has that been looked at carefully? MR. HALL-We did look at it. What it creates, because of the 25 foot or the 26 foot width, it really creates a shotgun house where we have to line stuff up down the length of the house and it would require us to come back farther into the bank which is going to increase our height, and 6 (Queensbury IPllannling IBoard 05/17/2016) I'm afraid that, because we're based on existing height at the finished floor and proposed ridge height, to keep that within the 28 feet I think is going to be a challenge. That's why we looked at trying to keep within the bounds of what's already there. We know that we're over the allowed setback and we tried to crunch in on what's already there. So we tried to minimize that width as best we could and I was able to get three feet out of the building to keep it inside what's already there, because that was our big challenge. MR. FORD-When we say minimize as best you could, that still is outside the parameters of what's allowed. MR. HALL-Outside the parameter of what's allowed. Twenty-six feet is narrow to do what they're trying to do. They're trying to maintain all their living on one floor level for the most part and to keep the downstairs portion of it as they said for storage of lakefront stuff and when they're there for using the lake, coming up in that spot underneath the patio, underneath the deck as a covered space, but to try and keep that part for guests and the upper part for themselves. MR. FERONE-The other variance for permeability. Is there anything, I mean, you're 10% off. MR. HALL-Yes. I've looked at, you know, we used the stepping stone walkway coming down around to try and minimize as much as we could. We pulled up a significant amount, you know, the permeability is not on the existing, at 54%, and the way this driveway right now is kind of off camber, I didn't even count that because it's not really on our lot. So that's obviously all coming out on the adjoining lot. So we've tried to take up as much of the blacktop and as much of the concrete walkways and things as we could, and just made it a straight shot in. Obviously now if we're going to pull ourselves back seven feet, that's going to take seven feet off of the driveway. So that's seven feet less by the width of the paving, the 22 feet of width of paving. So we're taking out 150 square feet of paving. MR. DEEB-You're going to increase the permeability from what's there already. So you already made improvements in that area because of the size of the lot. MR. HALL-Yes, on the lakeside. Yes. MR. FORD-So both front and back are going to be improvements. MR. HALL-Yes. We're taking away from the back. We're taking the hard surfacing away from behind the house and we're adding green space to the front of the house. So it'll be a win on both sides. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you back up just a second. You said some of the pavement that's coming off is actually on the neighbor's property. MR. HALL-Yes, this driveway that's here, Chris, it comes down along the side, it actually angles out and this was all put in prior to them getting the property, but actually the property line bisects that drive and paving or drive and parking area. So just the way it sets up, when it was initially put in it was probably done without the aid of having a survey done, and it was obviously some time before you guys purchased the property. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you plan to remove the pavement that's on the neighbor's property? MRS. MILLER-It's not pavement. MR. HALL-It's a gravel, it's a crushed stone driveway, but per your Code it's hard surface, but, yes, all that's coming out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Are the neighbors on each side aware of this design? MR. HALL-I believe so. I think this is just a, this is a seasonal cabin. MRS. MILLER-Actually that's one of Sicard's rentals. Somebody does live there. I actually did meet a neighbor the other day, I was over at the house and we got talking and I asked her did you receive anything from the Town about the public hearing that's coming up actually tomorrow night? And she said, yes, and everything looks really nice. So we haven't had any negative feedback from the neighbors. 7 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. HALL-I would think that taking down a two story building that's about four feet from Nacy Road is going to be an improvement for everybody involved. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say it's right on top of it. I'm surprised the plows don't hit it. MR. HALL-Yes. The property line is actually out almost into the middle of Nacy Road. The guys plowing must have a time coming down through there. MRS. MILLER-When I saw where they put the little pink ribbons for the lot after it was surveyed, I couldn't believe. I was like, our property line goes halfway into Nacy Road. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that a Town road or a private road? MRS. MILLER-It's a Town road now. MR. MAGOWAN-You're paying tax on that, aren't you? MRS. MILLER-Yes, we are. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? MR. FORD-While we're on that driveway section, it's crushed stone or gravel? MR. HALL-The existing? Yes. This is crushed stone down through here. This is crushed stone here. Everything else is hard surface concrete paved all the way through. MR. FORD-And the new surface will be paved? MR. HALL-The new driveway will be paved. MR. FORD-So my previous observation about increasing permeability there is not accurate, is it? MR. HALL-How so? MR. FORD-Well, if you're going from gravel to paved surface. MRS. MILLER-We're going to stay with gravel. MR. HALL-You are? MRS. MILLER-Yes, we are not going to do anything with the driveway. We're going to just leave it the gravel surface. MR. HALL-The gravel surface. By your Code, the gravel, the crushed stone surface is considered non-permeable, unfortunately. I agree with you. I think water does drain through it significantly, but. MR. MAGOWAN-And on a grade, you know. MR. HALL-Yes, this grade is not bad. It's a one on three. Actually I think it's a little less than that. It's about one on six. I think they made that driveway so that it's planed off coming down through there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments from the Board? Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? There's a sample resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 67-2016 FRANK & KATHI MILLER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing home and other buildings on site for construction of a new 2,604 sq. ft. (footprint), 3,925 sq. ft. (floor area) single family home. Project includes installation of new septic and well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from setbacks, FAR, and permeability. 8 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) 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 AV PZ 67-2016 FRANK & KATHI MILLER, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board based on a limited review has identified the following area of concern: (Shoreline setback and permeability) — Where the applicant agrees to move the house back the 6 foot 7 to 7 feet to stay within the original footprint of the front house (increasing the permeability by reducing the amount of the driveway) and will be changing the septic from a trench to a bed, and the paved driveway will be going to a crushed stone. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-The Planning Board based on a limited review has not identified any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. MRS. MOORE-1 guess you did identify a concern. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-And the applicant has responded to it. So you should identify that so that when they come before the Zoning Board. The applicant has addressed your concern about pulling the building back so you should address that in your recommendation. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. The Planning Board based on a limited review has identified the following area of concern: Moving the house back the 6 foot 7 to 7 feet to stay within the original footprint of the front house and will be changing the septic from a trench to a bed. MR. HALL-And we'll be changing the paved driveway from a and a paved driveway as depicted on the plan, too, to a crushed stone drive. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and the paved driveway will be going to a crushed stone. MRS. MOORE-In regards to the permeability. So the applicant has indicated that they're going to increase their permeability. That figure will be calculated at some point, but. MR. HUNSINGER-We don't have it right now. MRS. MOORE-Right, but you may want to identify that. MR. HALL-I'll have it to you by Thursday. MR. SHAFER-1 have a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. SHAFER-On May 11 we received a copy of a letter from the Town Engineer. Have all of those comments been responded to and accommodated? MRS. MOORE-And what happens is that applicant has received that information and once the Planning Board reviews this information again, the Planning Board has the option to either condition it pending final signoff from the engineer or tabling the application until the applicant has satisfied the engineering comments to give an opportunity for the Board to review that when it comes back before you. MR. HALL-Yes, and I talked to, that's, George brought that up as well. A lot of them were pretty much their standard comments dealing with stormwater. It dealt mostly with the drainage coming around the building and how we were going to handle stormwater runoff. MR. DEEB-We normally condition it on engineering signoff anyway. 9 (Queensbury Rlannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's usually a standard condition. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. MILLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. The next item on the agenda is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN PZ 128-2016 SEAR TYPE II ANTHONY MUSCATELLO AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 91 MANNIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 936 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH TWO BAYS AND A WORKSHOP. EXISTING HOME WITH 702 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV PZ 135-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION WETLAND LOT SIZE 7.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-30 SECTION 179-6-060 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 936 sq. ft. detached garage with two bays and a workshop. The existing home currently has a 702 sq. ft. attached garage to remain with no changes. The application appears before the Planning Board because it's within 50 feet of 15% slopes. The nature of the area variance is the applicant requests relief for a second garage. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I'm Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering, here on behalf of property owner Anthony Muscatello. Anthony resides at 91 Mannis Road and they have presently a two bay drive under the basement, I call it an under the basement garage. It's very limited. There's very limited height clearance, and what he proposes to do is to construct a 936 sq. ft. detached two car garage with a small little workshop area and it would be detached. He would keep the, basically keep the doors that go into the basement. So we would be requesting a second, a variance for a second garage. The parcel is nine acres. We will be meeting all setbacks of the RR zone which is 100 foot front, 75 side, 100 foot rear. So the only relief we're requesting is the second garage, and so with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. We'd seek your support certainly for a visit to the Zoning Board tomorrow night and we would be back here, if that were successful we would be back here Thursday night, and the owner will be with me that night to answer any questions you have specific to him. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-The workshop is just a personal workshop? It's not something where he's doing work there commercial or anything like that? MR. HUTCHINS-It's a personal workshop. MR. HUNSINGER-Since he's putting in a workshop, is he going to be heating the garage? MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know the answer to that. I'll find out, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I didn't think of it until just now, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know. I don't believe so. MR. MAGOWAN-What is he going with a monolithic pour? MR. HUTCHINS-No, it's a full frost wall and then a slab. 10 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but I mean, that's right underneath. I would imagine he'd put some form of heat in it. Otherwise it would still heave in the middle, you know? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, if we've got perimeter frostwall. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but there's no heat. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-That cold air is just going to cool off that garage. I know my garage is pretty cold until that warm car gets in there. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, cold garages are cold. I don't know the answer to the heat question, but I'll find out. Okay. I don't believe it's being heated because it's a standard Curtis, it's a standard Curtis lumber package garage and it would take considerable modifications to insulate it. I don't believe that's the case, but I'll confirm that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Will he continue to use the under house garage as a garage? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. He wants to keep the doors on it. It may be lawnmowers and tools and such. It may not be cars every single day because the trucks don't fit in it, but, yes, he wants to continue that as a garage. He wants to keep the doors on it. MR. FORD-What will be the height of the garage? MR. HUTCHINS-The proposed garage? 16 feet? There is a plan in there. I don't recall. MR. FORD-1 thought it was pretty good and high. MR. HUTCHINS-Pretty high? MR. FORD-Do you have any living space on the second floor? MR. HUTCHINS-No, it's not going to have living space. MR. HUNSINGER-It's on the elevation drawings. MR. HUTCHINS-It's 16 feet. And it's kind of tucked into a bank so it will actually appear much less than 16 feet. Because it's tucked into a bank area, but, yes, it's 16 feet, ridge to flow. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it looks like a standard truss there, and the height of the truss from the ceiling is five foot four, and that's to the top of the ridge. So you take out the two by six, you know, five foot. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns specific to the variance request? MR. MAGOWAN-You've got plenty of property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no further questions or comments, would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 135-2016 ANTHONY MUSCATELLO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 936 sq. ft. detached garage with two bays and a workshop. Existing home with 702 sq. ft. attached garage to remain with no changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slope shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for second garage. 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; ,r ,r (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) 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 135-2016 ANTHONY MUSCATELLO: Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Can we just clarify the site plan number, Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Site Plan number is 128, but the variance is what's referenced. MR. HUNSINGER-135. Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. The next application is still a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN PZ 131-2016 & FWW PERMIT PZ 132-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED GREAT MEADOW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE ZONING CI LOCATION MEADOWBROOK RD. NW OF QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 1,915 SQ. FT. BANK BUILDING INCLUDING A DRIVE THRU. BUILDING TO HAVE 24 X 24 SQ. FT. UPSTAIRS PORTION. SITE CONTAINS WETLANDS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE A NEW COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR BUILDING SETBACKS AND SHORELINE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 7-08 CONST. OF 2,886 SQ. FT. OFFICE BLDG. 5/6/08 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2016 SITE INFORMATION WETLAND LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-10 SECTION 179-3-040 & FWW PERMIT CHAPTER 94 MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This application is being tabled. I received the correspondence from the applicant, and I'd like to have you table it to the September meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Did they specify which September meeting? MRS. MOORE-We can do the first one because it would be considered a Planning Board recommendation at that time, and that would be September 20th MR. FORD-Did they give a rationale for that? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they have to work with New York State DEC. MR. FORD-1 thought they may have. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We might not see them in September either. Would anyone like to put forward that resolution? RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 131-2016 & FWW PERMIT PZ 132-2016 GREAT MEADOW 12 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of 1,915 sq. ft. bank building including a drive thru. Building to have 24 x 24 sq. ft. upstairs portion. Site contains wetlands. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance a new commercial structure and work within 100 ft. of a wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for building setbacks and shoreline setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 131-2016 & FWW PERMIT PZ 132-2016 GREAT MEADOW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the September 20, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 17`" day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have one more recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN PZ 140-2016 SEAR TYPE II JOSEPH P. GROSS AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) JOSEPH P. GROSS ZONING CLI LOCATION 27 SILVER CIRCLE - OFF BIG BAY ROAD — SUBDIVISION OF FRANK KINEKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY 5.,040 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 69,095 SQ. FT. GROSS ELECTRIC OFFICE BUILDING. VARIANCE: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-9-120, EXISTING BUILDINGS AND SITE CONDITIONS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES; ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND PREVIOUS SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV PZ-0138-2016; SP 14-15; SP 18-09; SP 6-04, SP 62- 13; SB 11-2002 FRANK KINEKE 2-LOTINDUS. SUBD; MULTIPLE BUILDING PERMITS WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2016 LOT SIZE 3.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1- 17.2 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-9-120 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a two story, this is a 2,520 sq. ft. footprint. The floor area is 5,040 square feet, and this is an addition to an existing office building that is part of a larger complex for Gross Electric building facility, and the existing building and site conditions to remain unchanged, and the variance is requested for shoreline. MR. DEEB-I was questioning that. I didn't know what the shoreline meant. MRS. MOORE-1 don't, either. It's a side setback and 30 feet is required and 11.83 feet is proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Again, for the record, Ethan Hall principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight representing Joe Gross and Gross Electric. What Joe's looking for is his office is expanding. He's taking on some new clientele that's going to require him to expand the office and his idea is to take the office and tie it in to the existing office on that side. We looked at a couple of different areas to put it within the site. Unfortunately we can't go on the other end of the building. That's where the septic system is for the existing office building. We can't take up that space. His only other option is to go on that end where we're going. He does own the adjoining lot. So we figured if he's asking for a variance, might as well ask for a variance from himself. That's where we are with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did he consider a lot line adjustment? MR. HALL-We did. We looked at doing a lot line adjustment, but by doing that, because it's on the cul de sac, it reduces our frontage to down, and it's a 33 acre lot, I mean, that lot that's on that corner is a big lot, and if we reduced the frontage down, it makes it a nonconforming lot. So he can't really move that property line. 13 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. MAGOWAN-Is this the lot that he's clearing that he's removing some trees? MR. HALL-Yes, the lot that he's clearing, removing, yes, doing some cutting, yes. That is the adjoining property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-As long as you've got a cooperative neighbor, it works. MR. DEEB-I think he does. MR. HUNSINGER-1 said it before at the last meeting when he was here, it's really a nice looking industrial park he has going on down there. MR. HALL-For the type of work they do and the contracting and the commercial aspect that they do, they keep that dirt, that front part of it, very, very nice, and it's a very well kept, you know, the landscaping is going to remain exactly the same as what it is. He's got the same company that he's going to keep and just continue that right around, and the actual, the look of the building we're doing that so that it blends right in with that building that's there. MR. FORD-It's clean. MR. HALL-Yes. He really wishes he'd done two stories on the building that he's in now. When he talked about it in the beginning, he said, no, I'm never going to need a whole second story out of this whole thing. Well, here we are. MR. HUNSINGER-Never say never, right? MR. HALL-I mean, now he needs the second floor, but it's tough to put a second floor on the existing building, and still operate on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-Yes, that's the tough part. MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe he ought to think a second floor on the addition. MR. HALL-The addition is a two story. Yes, we've already crossed that. Otherwise we would have had to make the building that much bigger. So we've shrunk the building down and made it two story. MR. FORD-So once you got the two story building, you're back to a couple of years to put the second story on the first building. MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional comments, concerns from the Board? Any concerns relative to the variance requests? Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION RE: AV PZ 138-2016 JOSEPH GROSS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a two-story 5,040 sq. ft. addition to the existing 5,420 sq. ft. Office that is part of the existing 69, 095 sq. ft. Gross Electric building facility. Variance: Pursuant to 179-3-040; 179-9-120, existing buildings and site conditions to remain with no changes; alterations to an existing building and previous site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for setbacks. 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 138-2016 JOSEPH P. 14 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) GROSS: 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 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-The applicant for Performing Asset Strategies is on their way, and I've already communicated with the next applicant to let them know they can be next on the agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We can be flexible. So we'll divert from the formal agenda and we'll listen to Site Plan PZ 91-2016 for Spruce Hospitality Group, LLC. SITE PLAN PZ 91-2016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 90-2016 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC SEAR TYPE UNLISTED AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) BIG BOOM REALTY, LLC ZONING CI-18 LOCATION BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 43,150 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA), 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; PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-10-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MOTELS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 12/10/13 FLAG — NO. LOT GARAGE TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ANY BP'S. WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 18.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-89.1 & -86.11 SECTION 179-3-040179-10-010 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ED MOORE, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant is proposing construction of a 43,150 sq. ft. floor area three story, 45 ft. in height 79 room hotel with associated site work that includes installation of a parking area, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management and preparation for future development with some tree clearing. There is a reconfiguration of the two lots to accommodate 18.44 acre and 1.68 acre parcel. In view of the zoning change in that area, the hotel also has to have a Special Use Permit. Prior to that it was under a Special Use Permit due to the Main Street zoning. The applicant already addressed the Special Use Permit. The applicant has also complied with information about traffic analysis and in your e-mails today you received information about the traffic analysis from our Town Engineer and their comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with Ed Moore and Tyler Herrick of Spruce Hospitality, and this application was submitted back in February, I believe and it was actually submitted as a Site Plan app and an Area Variance app and we all know there's been changes in zoning, and with the changes in the zone in the area, the Area Variances are no longer required. We have updated the plans to reflect the new zone, and they were submitted recently, and it really didn't change the technicals at all. What it did was take the zoning information and what we were requesting and we believe we are wholly compliant with the new CI-18 zone. We've looked ata number of options for configuration on this site. We're actually taking, reconfiguring a portion, one of the parcels that you folks are under contract for is split by the new portion of Big Boom Road, and we're going to combine the portion of that parcel that is on the east side of Big Boom with the larger parcel. It cleans up the properties a little bit, and again, we looked at orientation in terms of, as we showed it we looked at a side orientation. We looked at different configurations. We find this to be the best, this is the best configuration for the hotel on that site. It is a much larger parcel. We have no plan for the remainder of the property at this point in time. Obviously perhaps someday. We did go stand in the driveway back behind the hotel to show that we do have room to do something like that should the 15 (Queensbury IPllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) opportunity come up in the future. Again, we'd just like to get it before this Board and get your thoughts and if there's anything to add, guys. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. FORD-1 think it's a real improvement in the configuration and placement. MR. FERONE-Can you talk about signage and lighting? MR. HUTCH INS-Lighting, we did submit a lighting plan. I mean, it's a hotel parking lot. It's got to be reasonably well lit and it would be within compliant levels and I believe our lighting plan is pretty close there. Signage, there'll be a Marriott, it's a Fairfield Marriott brand of hotel and we really haven't gotten to the details of signage yet, but the intention would be to be wholly compliant with the sign language which will be a building mounted sign and a pedestal sign. MR. FERONE-So where it says Fairfield on the building and it's represented there in the rendering, is that lit up from inside or is that just lights shining on that, the sign as those letters are affixed to the building in that spot? MR. HUTCHINS-1 believe it's backlit, but do you know, Tyler? TYLER HERRICK MR. HERRICK-1 believe the one on the building is backlit, but the pedestal sign is up lighted. MR. FERONE-And the pedestal sign will be on Big Boom Road? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. MOORE-If there was an opportunity that we could put a sign out by the road I'm sure that we would like to investigate that. It would be in our best interest in the success of the hotel. So if the opportunity is there further down the road I guess we'll look for that opportunity. Kind of like a sign, here's the Marriott or something like that. MR. FORD-Maybe something at the exit, too. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they're going to have to be putting something up there that, with all the hotels and motels coming that, you know, where you come up there's so many gas stations coming up, so many restaurants, you know, hotels. MR. HUNSINGER-So how far from Main Street will the building be? It was kind of deceiving looking at the. MR. HUTCHINS-It's approximately 300 feet we were just looking at, approximately 300 feet from the center of the building to Main Street. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And that's obviously plus or minus. I don't have a straight scale, and that also correlates with the length of the sewer that, part of this application is they've agreed to install the extension of the Queensbury Sewer District that the Town has actually had designed, and we submitted the plans that the Town had done for that sewer work and they've agreed to install that 320, 1 believe it was 320 foot portion of force main up Big Boom Road to cross in front of their project. MR. DEEB-You read the traffic study? MR. HUTCHINS-1 did. MR. DEEB-The comment on there's going to be shared costs. I'm just wondering how do you ascertain who pays what? MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know. MR. DEEB-It's a concern of mine. You leave it up in the air and then all of a sudden you've got three hotels going, well, that's not my cost, that's not my cost, that's somebody else's cost. MR. MOORE-This is the first I've heard there's a shared cost. MR. DEEB-You didn't know that? 16 (Queensbury IPllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. HUTCH INS-There's been discussion of it, but I wasn't at the discussions, and I think Tyler and Zach were. My understanding what it was rather general. MR. DEEB-It is. MR. HUTCH INS-Conceptual. MR. DEEB-It's not conceptual. I believe it's there, and maybe you want to look at this. MR. MOORE-Does anybody know what the costs were? MR. DEEB-No, a projected increased cost of traffic that has to be taken care of with the roads, and the three hotels agreed, like if you have more development on another project up the road, their percentage of that increase in traffic would have to be taken care of by them. Where if there's any increase with yours, then you'd have to figure out who's going to put in what, and this has been left up in the air. MR. HERRICK-If I may, though, the traffic study that we had done, that we submitted, and I know that the Town had another one that they had been working on, but our traffic study said that just the hotel parcel itself would not, maybe I read it incorrectly, but would not increase the traffic flow anymore at that intersection at Big Boom. MR. DEEB-The hotels, the three hotels MR. HERRICK-Just our hotel. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, see that's where it gets confusing. You're right. Your particular project, no. Their particular project no, and their particular project no, but all three combined is a yes. MR. DEEB-Cumulatively is going to be a yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're looking at the study. It's just for your particular project, and if they actually did the study for all three of them, and with the future expansion of, you know, you have more lot behind you, you know, something in the future, you don't know. So this is where it's confusing. MR. HUTCHINS-And the study that the Transportation Council had done, just for some round numbers here, they projected peak hour traffic from our sites of approximately 400 cars an hour, peak hour, it was 390 something, but what the hotel uses is more in the range of 40. So we're a 10% slice of what was projected in that, in the Transportation Council's study, looking at the future. MRS. MOORE-So, in reference to traffic studies and analysis and what contribution the applicant would be subject to, that's part of the makeup of the developer's agreement, and recently you've worked with the Holiday Inn, with Switchco, and you explained to them in the resolution that they would be part of putting together a developer's agreement between the Town and the applicant, and that a development of cost sharing would be developed from that. In this case, we have, in this case for this particular applicant you'd also be adding information in your resolution about putting together the developer's agreement, so that that cost share analysis would be accounted for, whether you talk about trip generation or whether that's a percentage of the cost overall. If you're saying 40 and we anticipate 400 it's at 10%. So it would be a percentage of that cost, and whether that's a fee that we set aside or whether that's an infrastructure improvement, that's part of the developer's agreement. MR. DEEB-You're talking about future, no future development,just right now. MRS. MOORE-Today. Right. So the applicant would be, as part of the application process, we would, the Town and the developer would be developing this developer's agreement. MR. DEEB-We want to make sure you're aware of that. MR. FERONE-1 was going to say, that statement needs to be in the resolution, that working out that agreement is between the Town and the developers. MR. DEEB-The developers, but it is in the other two resolutions. ,17 (Queensbury IPllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MRS. MOORE-It is in the other, right now it's in the resolution for, it's in the SEQR resolution for Big Bay. It is in the resolution, in the SEQR resolution, for Holiday Inn, and the resolution for the approval of the Holiday Inn, about the developer's agreement. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could be devil's advocate for a second, though, and I'm sure the developer in this case is going to make the same arguments, might anticipate the question. The traffic improvements are on the other side of the Northway, the left hand turn, the right hand turn, the new signal. What are the proposed traffic improvements here? MRS. MOORE-There are, they've been accounted for. So there's, turning lane is the primary one. So they're accounted in that study. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-On the east side? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there were some on the east side. MR. DEEB-A turning lane on the east side. MRS. MOORE-There's a percentage that this applicant would have a contribution of, not the full cost, obviously, but there could be a percentage of that. MR. DEEB-I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. MR. SHAFER-If I could use an example. Your ultimate buildout plan calls for five lanes on the intersection of this road and Main Street. Two left, one straight, and two right. It's five lanes, in the ultimate buildout for Big Boom Road. MRS. MOORE-So there's an alternate figure that, turn lanes, so there's two proposals in there that have to be evaluated. MR. FORD-And who is coordinating this and coming up with this agreement? MRS. MOORE-Between the Town and the. MR. FORD-And the developers. MR. DEEB-And the developers. MR. HUTCHINS-Would that be done out of your office? MRS. MOORE-In combination with our office. Because the way the new Code reads it outlines that it should be accomplished and it's up to the Board to implement, saying that a developer's agreement will be developed. MR. FORD-Do we have any sense of the timing of that, those meetings? MRS. MOORE-It would be part of the resolution. So they wouldn't get final signoff until that developer's agreement is in place. MR. FORD-1 understand that, but do we know when this developer's agreement is going to be developed? MRS. MOORE-It's a case by case basis. Simply because there's certain elements that the applicant is responsible for and we need to determine the percentage cost that that applicant would be responsible for because they're not implementing the entire thing because they're not generating the trip, the full trip, the full count. MR. FORD-But it is going to have to be a percentage, on a percentage basis. Somebody determining, it isn't probably going to come out to a third here and a third there. MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes, and that's outlined. MR. FERONE-That's not going to be in our resolution. That's going to be in the agreement. 18 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. FORD-1 understand that, but jus on behalf of the applicant I'm trying to get some sense of when this is going to come together. MR. HERRICK-So in regards to looking at the hotel development on its own, this this hotel, the existing traffic pattern, according to all the reports that we've had done, say that this building will not affect anything. So why, or that the existing pattern can support this 79 room hotel. So couldn't any future development that we want to do at the 18 acres be subject to that type of agreement whereas this hotel is not going to take it to a threshold that would have any negative impact on the traffic pattern now. MRS. MOORE-But cumulatively there's three hotels at that. MR. HERRICK-But on the east side. MRS. MOORE-It's cumulatively part of an entire study. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, everyone's made the same agreement you've made, all right. MR. HERRICK-1 know, but we don't have to, to get, to go to the traffic pattern, that's already there. Those other ones, they have to create it. They have to, the other project for the Holiday Inn, they have to make a three way intersection into a four way intersection. They have to do all those types of things which our turning lanes were already there. They were put in when UPS and other development went back there, and so what we're trying to say is that just this standalone hotel, yes, if you look at the 18 acres and you say, you know, 10 years from now, if we develop the back, if we develop the front or do any other things, we would need to add those other extra, you know, infrastructure, but right now we just don't feel that that's necessary. MR. TRAVER-Well, if you're a party to a developer's agreement, perhaps that developer's agreement will say your development is zero. Hypothetically. MR. HERRICK-We'd agree with that. MR. DEEB-That's not up to us. Believe me, that's not going to be up to us. MR. TRAVER-That's not up to us. I guess what I'm saying is it's not up to us to decide what the percentages are. It sounds as though, you know, we're advocating and requiring that you participate in some kind of agreement. What that ends up looking like is going to be a discussion that you participate in with the other developers. As long as the Town is satisfied that whatever costs are accounted for, I think you're fine. So we're not requiring a percentage. We're just simply requiring your participation in agreement. MR. FERONE-And the volume is not, I don't think, just being looked at for what is on Big Boom Road. Yes, that will be minimum, but if the overall impact to that whole area, the whole Exit 18 corridor, both west side, east side, everything, and that's what I think is being looked at in terms of the traffic study. MR. FORD-Because everything is contributing. MR. MOORE-But, you know, it might be, just playing devil's advocate, if there's a 400 car threshold, and if we're 50 and they're 50 and they're 50, you've got 150, and it doesn't exceed the threshold, I mean, that's the argument you're saying we have to make with the Town? MR. FORD-Yes. It's the degree of impact and who's responsible. MR. HUNSINGER-How do we deal with SEQR if we don't? MRS. MOORE-You identified it last time. MR. HUNSINGER-We identified the specific studies. MRS. MOORE-Right. So you identified in the Part I the specific question, and you identified, the project identified an Exit 18 re-zone, and you clearly said there could be an impact and you indicated that due to the Exit 18 re-zoning and the items that were identified. MR. HUNSINGER-You actually gave us language, yes. I thought I'd seen it in the draft resolution. 19 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. FERONE-Some other things. There's some notes on Staff Notes. Have you been approached or thought about people who are staying at the hotel in terms of getting to Main Street for food and a sidewalk, instead of having people walk along the road? You've got a Pizza Hut, a Subway. What else is over there? A couple of things down there, but, I mean, people might walk down to grab food. Any thought on that? MR. MOORE-We haven't thought about it. We've broached it over the last couple of days, but we haven't been thinking hard about it. MR. HUTCHINS-1 think we agree it makes sense that it were that, for the guests. It certainly makes sense, and should probably, we're going to explore a means that it could be done. MR. FORD-It also will impact the vehicular traffic. MR. HUTCHINS-It likely would, yes. MR. FERONE-But again, I'm trying to remember how your property is, but we might be asking you to put a sidewalk on property that wasn't even yours. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it would be in the Town right of way, that the Town right of way is wide enough in that area, and I don't have good detailed information on that right here, but provided the Town right of way is wide enough to get a sidewalk outside of the travel lane, that's a great solution, because it would really be a benefit. MR. MOORE-And we've had discussion and agreed that if it's feasible and we can get the Town to, but it only came in the last couple of days. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-1 guess the only thing we didn't talk about that's on the Staff Notes is landscaping. It said something about lawn and existing vegetation on the property. MR. HUTCHINS-The property is pretty well disturbed. Where are we talking on that, Laura? The history of the property is it's been disturbed for years. MRS. MOORE-It's primarily on the south side of that lot. MR. HUTCHINS-Along the low, the low area there. Yes, we're looking into just how classified that low area is, because we're exploring what the options are there. One of the options was we could leave it absolutely alone and I guess I don't have all the answers for you. Right now we're avoiding it, and we're looking into what the options are going to be. MR. FORD-It will be looked at. MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, I don't think I've ever heard your tongue so twisted. MR. HUTCHINS-If I don't know I do say I don't. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else that we failed to address? We haven't talked about the color scheme. Any thoughts, comments on the color scheme? MR. MAGOWAN-Is there a standard color that the Fairfield wants? MR. HERRICK-The picture right there at the top, you know, that's their Gen 4 model, that rendering right there on that front. When we get into that part of the design, there'll be, you know, a couple of options, but it'll be very similar to what you see. It's not going to be a custom build or anything. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, personally I like the design. I like the use of the different materials and the different elevations and staggering the fagade. MR. FORD-It's attractive. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-No other comments? 20 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. DEEB-Well, I just want to make sure everybody's okay with everything that was thrown out tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MOORE-I'm glad you brought that up. MR. DEEB-I don't want to leave any question marks. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. MR. MOORE-I was starting to choke a bit with the sidewalks, sewers, traffic study. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the interesting thing is that, you know, the sidewalk question, your frontage on the street isn't very large. MR. HUTCHINS-On Main Street. MR. HUNSINGER-On Big Boom. MR. MOORE-No, not there, but to take it all the way to the corner. MR. DEEB-You're talking 300 feet. That's City, right, the Town, I mean. Town property, but 300 feet's still a long way. MR. HUTCHINS-But it's 300 feet from Main Street, well, to the center of ours to Main Street. MR. MOORE-That's a long way. MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking just for your own property. MR. DEEB-Would the Town be responsible for the rest of it? I've got a lot of nods over here, at this end. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess it's open for discussion. If there's no other questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I saw at least one hand go up earlier. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments to the Board. I would ask anyone that wishes to address the Board to speak their name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes. It's also available on the Town website so that anyone can go to the Town website to listen to the meeting proceedings. Who would like to be first? Sir, did you have some comments? Come to the microphone, please. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PARESH PATEL MR. PATEL-Good evening. My name is Paresh. I'm the owner of the property on Big Boom Road. I have some questions about the project he's applying for on Big Boom Road, east side and west side. Do we need the rooms in this area? Do we need more property in this area? MR. DEEB-That's not for us to answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PATEL-I don't know what is going on about gentlemen, and I'm sorry about the costs, if they're talking about 10% goes to this property. What about the impact on existing business? I'm here for 12 years. I've owned a business for the last 12 years in this area on Big Boom Road. The business clientele has fallen off day by day and the business year round is only for three or four months. Right now we are doing around 25% of occupancy. Do we need more properties? I don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's really not for us to decide. MR. PATEL-I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 21 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. PATEL-Second thing, there are more rooms coming in this area, or more properties coming in this area. Right now there are many properties that are closed, shut down for the winter. I'm here for 12 years. I know how hard a time I'm getting in the winter. If we get more properties, is it better for us, better for existing business or no? It's really hard. Try to think about the effect on existing business more and more before you approve new projects. I'm here for 12 years. Winter time is so tough. Right now we are running on 10, 20%, sometimes zero room occupied in December, January time. What do you guys think, what is the Town Board thinking about if more properties come in? It definitely impacts on existing business. Am I right? Generally. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, again, that's not part of our review. MR. DEEB-Do you have the Super 8? MR. PATEL-I'm Days Inn on Big Boom. MR. DEEB-Days Inn on Big Boom. MR. PATEL-I'm here for 12 years. It's really, really tough. MR. DEEB-I understand that. I was in the motel business for a lot of years, and one of the things I find when you get competition, sometimes it brings more people into the area, and I've got to believe that room rates might be a little bit higher at some of these bigger hotels, which might generate some business for you. People don't want to pay those rates. They might end up going to you. This could enhance your business. MR. PATEL-People have choices. In this area there are, same people are coming in this area. I don't think more and more people are coming to this area every year. So what I'm thinking, our business, or I'm talking about generally existing business, and it is pay bills in December and January. Our taxes are going up and up. How can we support it? December and January I'm talking about winter time, it is really, really tough. Hard to pay bills. There's no business on one end and electricity and bills go up on the other end. It's kind of tough. If we get more rooms, more properties, definitely it will impact on existing business. So think about more property coming in this area. We have to think twice about the impact on the existing business. The second thing is on the ramp. There are two lanes going to the left, center lines, I'm sorry, one lane goes on the left, one lane goes on the right and the centerline goes on the straight plus left. So think about how many people are going right on Big Boom Road, plus there is more properties. I'm only one right now, maybe more. On this site there are two more applications. I understand. I know that, but think about it. Right now there are many, many properties that shutdown in the Lake George area. Why? No business. So think about it. New properties apply. Of course everybody has money. Think about one time about new properties, but think twice about existing properties. It is very, very tough for property tax, school tax going up every time, business going down. I'm here for 12 years. So think about, do we need more rooms in this area or not? That is my first simple question. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PATEL-No problem. Thank you so much. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No one else wishes to address the Board? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If the applicant wants to come back to the table. Were there any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-Can I ask a question about SEAR? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FERONE-On your SEQR form, the question about archeological, and we checked yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Is it a sensitive area? MR. FERONE-Yes. 22 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, when we're doing these forms now there's an EAF mapper that DEC actually does part of the form for you, and I'm finding, because we've looked at a number of these over there, anywhere in that area close to the river it comes up in what they call the gray area. So yes it's in an archeologically sensitive area. So an inquiry goes off to SHPO and in this case the site's disturbed. I don't have the answer yet, but the site's been completely disturbed. We'll find out if further study is required, but that's in the works. MR. FERONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good catch. MR. DEEB-I've noticed most of them are checked yes on almost all the SEQR's. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, well, if you get near the Hudson River or between Lake George and Fort Edward anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Board feel like we have enough information to move forward, or are there still outstanding questions? MR. FORD-I'm comfortable going ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We started to talk about SEAR. We do have a draft SEQR resolution that was prepared by Staff. Are there any items that the Board feel may create a potentially large to significant impact? MR. TRAVER-Well, again, the only question that I have is when you talk about the developer's agreement, is the applicant on the record agreeing to participate in that agreement? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Well, depending on the resolution. MRS. MOORE-Correct. Currently the proposed SEQR resolution has it as, the second page in the SEQR does, and then you'll follow up saying in the draft resolution in the Site Plan. There's two places it's showing up. It should definitely be addressed in SEQR because you have a study in front of you. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We can't ignore the information that we have in front of us. Not a good practice. Would anyone like to put forward the SEQR resolution? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP PZ 91-2016; SUP PZ 90- 2016 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY The applicant proposes construction of a 43,150 sq. ft. (floor area), 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. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-10-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels shall be subject to Site Plan and Special Use Permits for 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; 23 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 91-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 90-2016 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; 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. During the environmental review of the short form under question 5 the board indicated there would be no or small impact may occur because the applicant agreed to enter into a Developer's Agreement establishing the timing and cost contribution to traffic mitigation measures identified in the Exit 18 Rezone study included for the Big Boom Rd/Main Street intersection. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We also have a draft resolution. I was just reviewing it again myself. Were there any questions or comments from the Board that we haven't already discussed? MR. MAGOWAN-Obviously the developer agreement, and what did we decide on sidewalks? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was on the second page of the draft resolution. Developer's agreement's in Item J. The sidewalk is in K. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So are you looking for a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, unless there's discussion first. MR. DEEB-Tom, did you see K? MR. HUTCHINS-1 did not. I don't have your resolution, no. MR. MAGOWAN-J is Traffic analysis — developers agreement outlining timing and cost contribution for installation of traffic mitigation measures as outlined in the Exit 18 Rezone Study. And the other one, K, is Pedestrian — sidewalk from property to connect to Main Street. MR. HUTCH INS-They're separate items, though. MR. MAGOWAN-They are, J and K. MR. HUTCHINS-In the developers agreement, he's agreeing to participate. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-In the developer's agreement. The sidewalk one sounds like we're agreeing to sidewalks. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Like we're agreeing to provide sidewalks. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Basically you're agreeing to a discussion with the Town. 2 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. MOORE-Is it open for discussion or does it mean we're agreeing to do it? MR. DEEB-That's the traffic analysis. That's not the sidewalk. MRS. MOORE-Correct. The sidewalk question that he's asking, I think, is important to discuss at the Planning Board because there may be an issue where a portion of that sidewalk is on property that is owned by the Town, and there are instances where communities have asked the applicant to install sidewalks from their property along town right of way, and that's something that, I'm not sure if the applicant's ready to do that, but at least ensure that the sidewalk is part of this discussion. I don't know how the Board wants to proceed with it. MR. MOORE-Well, I'm just saying, I'm asking the question, is this resolution in fact mandating that we do that or like we talked before is it open for discussion to see if the Town will do that or whatever? MR. DEEB-You're just talking about the sidewalks? MR. MOORE-Just the sidewalks. The other stuff I know. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. MOORE-1 mean, this appears to me that we're agreeing to go from Main Street. MR. TRAVER-That's the way the resolution currently reads. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I wanted to talk about it first. MR. HUTCHINS-It would have to be, obviously that would be something that we'd have to work with the Town to make work because it would be in the Town right of way. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCH INS-Because we can't run it on other people's property. MR. MOORE-It does say that we agree to it. MR. TRAVER-That's the way it currently reads. MR. MOORE-What are we going to do? MR. MAGOWAN-Pedestrian sidewalk to connect from the property to Main Street. I mean, it's all in interpretation of how you read it. MR. MOORE-I'm being honest. It seems to me like we're saying we're willing to put it in. MRS. MOORE-1 was going to say, it's a draft resolution. So the Board, you know, if necessary the language could be amended to say applicant agrees to install sidewalk. MR. DEEB-In negotiations with the Town. MRS. MOORE-Per agreement with, in compliance with the Town requirements. I'm trying to come up with better language. It's not coming easily today, just so that I understand the applicant's statement that you're asking me to install a sidewalk from my site to the Main Street and that the length of sidewalk, I'm sure he'll do it along his property line. MR. FERONE-Right. I think this needs to be modified. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I asked the question earlier about the distance to Main Street. Because in the past when we've asked developer's to put in sidewalks it was only on their portion of the right of way. MR. FORD-1 think the agreement should be to enter into a discussion with the Town relative to the installation of the sidewalk. MR. DEEB-Well, responsibility for sidewalks on your property, and then in discussions with the Town for continuation of the sidewalk to Main Street. MR. TRAVER-That works. 25 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I like that. MR. DEEB-Okay. Responsibility for sidewalks on your property. Continued discussions with the Town for continuation of the sidewalk to Main Street. MR. FERONE-Now say it as part of the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess you're reading the resolution, since you've got the language there. Well, before we do that, are there any other items in the resolution that need discussion? I think everything else is pretty straightforward. Those were the two big ones was the traffic and the sidewalk. MR. DEEB-To be fair with everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 91-2016; SUP PZ 90-2016 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes construction of a 43,150 sq. ft. (floor area), 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. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-10- 010 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels shall be subject to Site Plan and Special Use Permits for Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/17/2016 and continued the public hearing to 5/17/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 5/17/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 91-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 90-2016 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1`�, granted/denied; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 26 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) Traffic analysis —applicant to enter into a developers agreement outlining timing and cost contribution for installation of traffic mitigation measures as outlined in the Exit 18 Rezone Study k) Pedestrian —sidewalk from property to connect to Main Street. Developer will be responsible for sidewalk on his own property and to get into discussions with the Town for continuation of the sidewalk to Main Street. 1) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-There were no waivers requested for this application. MR. DEEB-No waivers requested for this application. So scratch number one. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. MOORE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Is Performing Assets here, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they are. MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to go back in the agenda for Site Plan PZ-0044-2015 & Special Use Permit PZ-0050-2015 Performing Asset Strategies. 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 ONE COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE CURB CUT. BUILDING PROPOSED TO BE TWO STORY 76' X 48 , 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. 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 STEVE ETHIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? 27 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MRS. MOORE-This applicant has made revisions to his application materials. We've received those. This is now to construct one two-story commercial building with the existing curb cut. The building is 3,648 square feet, and the floor area is 7,296. This includes potentially a restaurant, coffee shop, deli, wine store, medical office and it's to promote pedestrian and mixed use business. We went through items the last time and the applicant has addressed those in reference to color scheme and transparency. The only thing that's outstanding, which is understandable, is the engineering comments, and the applicant is in the process of revising his application materials to address the stormwater concerns that were identified by Chazen with the new building structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ETHIER-Hi, good evening. Steve Ethier here from Performing Assets. Since our last meeting we did some revisions. To make it a little bit simpler, we eliminated the back, the second building or the potential for the second building. To make it a little simpler for everybody to digest, and the building and the frontage, the two stories. There's a couple of items with the engineering going back and forth. It doesn't seem like there's going to be any complications to address the stormwater. The soils are phenomenal there, and we're encouraged that that can be resolved over the next week or two. So we're here tonight hopefully to move forward with a Special Use Permit and a Site Plan approval, contingent on the technicalities of the engineer, and knowing that we have to come back once we have a tenant for signage and for lighting. So I'm here to answer any questions. We have glass proposed from Jim's Glass on Main Street. He's pretty familiar, so far, with what Main Street requires. As far as transparency, we see no problem meeting that, and we're just to signage and lighting, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-Your project looks much better. MR. DEEB-It looks really good. MR. ETHIER-Thanks. I tried to make it simpler for everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-I still like the design. MR. ETHIER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any outstanding issues that the Board feels haven't been addressed? MR. DEEB-As long as the engineering signoff is required. Everything looks fine. MR. FERONE-I'm waiting for my esteemed colleague to say this but he seems to be a little behind tonight. Impervious pavement, and pervious concrete, I thought you'd want to congratulate him on that. I jumped in there for you. MR. FORD-Thank you. I appreciate that. Thumbs up on that. MR. ETHIER-Great spot for, the soils are phenomenal. MR. FERONE-You check the topsoil and it's like a beach under there. MR. ETHIER-We did test about 17 feet. MR. DEEB-And this is our projection for Main Street. It's starting to take shape the way we want it to take shape, and this is going to be a nice addition. MR. ETHIER-You did a great job. Everything's, you know, with all the National Grid and the sidewalks, in terms of, that's a real help. MR. DEEB-I appreciate your patience. MR. ETHIER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The only real question I have is more for Staff, on the Special Use Permit. Since we don't have specific answers we don't have specific uses. So I'm not sure how we address that? 28 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. Those uses are already allowed in those zones. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So you're approving a site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-It's sort of like a business complex where. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's understood that it has to be one of the approved uses. MRS. MOORE-One of the approved uses, yes, and if it's something else, then that applicant would be, and he's already explained that, the applicant would be coming in either for signage or for that use. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. That works for me. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project this evening. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is one written comment. This was back in March, and I think this has been addressed, but I'll read it into the record. This is addressed to myself. This is, "My husband and I have been out in our back yard looking over the 87 Main property with the details of what you showed us this morning in mind. We have no problem with the 24' of lawn and yew bush plantings along the north side of that property. We just would like more yew bushes planted than what was indicated (I believe it was 15) on the landscape plans. That would make the barrier of bushes more dense so as to shield our back yard a little more. I also had a question. if the developer is only proposing to build one building at the present time, will the whole parking lot be finished as depicted now? And what will be where the second building is proposed? Will that square footage be more parking lot, bare dirt, ????? The plans show it nice and neat with two buildings — I didn't see any plans of what it would look like with only the one building. Perhaps I missed those this morning? I just thought I should email you in case I missed this evening's planning board meeting. Thank you, Lois Hammond 16 Pine St. Queensbury" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I believe the revised drawings do address those specific questions. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEAR. We do have a draft SEQR resolution in our package, if anyone would like to put forward the negative declaration. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE DEC. SP PZ-0044-2015 & SUP PZ-0050-2015 PERFORMING ASSET STRATEGIES The applicant proposes to construct one commercial building with an existing single curb cut. Building proposed to be two story 76' x 48', uses may include restaurant/food service, or medical office intending 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. 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; 29 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) 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-0044-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ-0050-2016 PERFORMING ASSET STRATEGIES, 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. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ-0044-2015 & SUP PZ-0050-2015 PERFORMING ASSET The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: The applicant proposes to construct one commercial building with an existing single curb cut. Building proposed to be two story 76' x 48', uses may include restaurant/food service, or medical office intending 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. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/5/2015, 3/15/2016 and continued the public hearing to 5/17/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 5/17/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ-0044-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ-0050-2015 PERFORMING ASSET STRATEGIES; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; vegetative buffer between uses 30 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. ETHIER-Great. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 123-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, INC. AGENT(S) JARED LENDRUM OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 616 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 120 FT. X 36 FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 10,864 SQ. FT. AUTO SALES & SERVICE BUILDING WITH TWO CUSTOMER DRIVE-IN BAYS AND ADDITIONAL BAYS FOR SERVICE, WITH AN ADDITIONAL OFFICE AREA. A SEPARATE ADDITION OF 280 SQ. FT. BOILER AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND PREVIOUS SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 18-2011 NEW FACADE & 8' X 8' SIGN TOWER; OTHER SIGN BUILDING PERMITS, SV PZ 141-2016 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2016 SITE INFORMATION WETLAND LOT SIZE 4.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 3093.10-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-9-120 JARED LENDRUM & KEN LENDRUM, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? 31 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MRS. MOORE-Okay. This project applicant proposes a 120 ft. x 36 ft. addition to an existing 10,864 sq. ft. auto sales and service building. This allows for two customer drive-in bays and additional bays for service, and rearrangement of the office area, and a separate building for a 280 sq. ft. boiler area. Project is subject to Planning Board review and approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. J. LENDRUM-Good evening, gentlemen. I'm Jared Lendrum. This is my father Ken and Lee Horning. We've been in business in Queensbury since 1976. We've been in this location since I was born. So we've been serving this Town with Saab's and Subaru's this whole time. Mainly our goal has been to take care of customers as well as we can. Dad told us a long time ago that's it's easier to get a customer to come back five times than it is to get five customers to come back one time. So it's always been our goal to take care of people as well as possible, make them happy, and that's pretty much how we got here today. Our goal is to make sure we have the best possible customer satisfaction. We've grown to the extent of our building and although I don't think this addition will actually create business, it'll help us take care of the people that we have better. Subaru has made some recommendations and they're in light of different expectations that people have these days. Back in the day, if you just didn't gouge somebody it was good customer service, but now days if we want to be cutting edge, we have to use all the ideas presented to us. One of which is a service job. The primary goal of this addition is to let customers pull in to the building in inclement weather, whether it's rain, snow, heat or cold and get out of their car in a comfortable setting where they can be greeted by our employees and then we can take care of the customer and give them an individualized walk through. So that's the three bays in the center of the building. It's just to take better care of our customers, and to give them, actually some of the parking spaces for incoming customers are inside now. In doing so, we wanted to make some state of the art offices, cleaner appearance with newer finishes where our riders can see them and the cars, a short walk from the car, just to make things nicer for the customer. As well as Subaru has recommended that we wash every single car. So we have expanded upon our detail department to help cover that. Just to make every customer happier now we're going to go as far as walking around the cars, giving them the car back, washing their cars so they have a clean car back and this all takes infrastructure. The other end of it is the boiler room. We have to come up with a way to heat this building. I like the idea of a waste oil boiler. Last year we didn't spend a single dollar on fuel oil to heat our service department, and I'd like to continue with that idea and with the boiler I can shift the heat up to the new room and heat the room without a series of furnaces just pumping hot water, and if I get lucky and have enough left over, I may be able to heat the rest of the building, and that's kind of a green concept, even though it's waste oil. We're not burning fuel oil. So that's the justification for that room in the back corner, and I'd also like to get the waste oil tanks in their own sealed room away from any potential hazards where cars could bump into them or tools could pierce them or anything like that. So the boiler room in the back entrance that explains itself. So that's how we get to where we are today. MR. FORD-A question about the waste oil fuel tanks, what will they be made of? MR. J. LENDRUM-The waste oil tanks are already there. We had an inspection by the DEC, and we are now in compliance, fully in compliance with what they expect. They are a, tank made by Watertown. They are a stainless steel tank with a plastic liner. So they have a tank with secondary containment with, they have signals that if the tank is leaking they pump out the top so that they don't leak. There's pretty good fancy stuff, but I still wouldn't like them, I don't like having cars driving around. MR. K. LENDRUM-What you want to do is you want to put them into an area out of the main shop which would also free up some work space around where these are, because they actually don't take up as much space as you think, but it would allow us to put them around the current space we have. MR. FORD-The whole concept is laudable and the fact that you have such sophistication. MR. K. LENDRUM-We had double wall steel tanks for two decades, but we had them made by Mullen Ironworks and they didn't have a little stamp on them and they went out of business. MR. DEEB-Mr. Chairman, I need to make a statement before we start. I've done business with them before, since 1976 since. In full disclosure I want to make sure that this Board knows and that it's on record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. 32 (Queensbury IPllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. J. LENDRUM-So where we're really at, if you think about it, the whole idea here is to get the customer to not walk across the snow, parking lots that are frozen. It's a really good customer relations issue because even though, we spend a tremendous amount of time with salt and snow removal, but every winter you're just afraid all day long that somebody is going to slip and fall, and this eliminates probably 70% of our customers from ever stepping outside. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. DEEB-And that's the norm, isn't it, Ken? I mean, that's what's going on with all the dealerships. MR. K. LENDRUM-You know, Subaru's no different than anybody else, in looking around at what Honda and Toyota are doing. The other thing is, I mean, Subaru has all of a sudden in the last five years become known. It's gotten on the list. They've had double digit growth across the country. We've had double digit growth since the last time we were here asking for the fagade. We are more than double where we are. So in order to stay ahead of customer conveniences the service department, because those of you that know me know that I started out changing oil. I still think of our service customers as what makes us as strong as we are. So to stay ahead of that with the car population growth we need a little more space, a couple of more service bays, a couple of more clean up bays, and then to really get on to this wash every car, it's a pretty big task. Because we get about 30 cars a day. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. J. LENDRUM-That's the service cars. We still need to detail cars for delivery. MR. K. LENDRUM-It's a pretty interesting statistic. We did, we may actually do more oil changes than any other dealer in Town. We are very, very close. MR. DEEB-That's where you get your fuel from. MR. K. LENDRUM-We've always taken the attitude that we don't want our customer to have to go somewhere else and pay more money somewhere else. So we've always been competitive with the Warren Tire, and they're very good competition and with Jiffy Lube. They're very good competition, and we do have many, many people that come back for just oil changes. So they're in and out of there all day long. MR. FORD-You're in good company because Dale Earnhardt, Jr. started changing oil. MR. K. LENDRUM-We talked with a young lady the other day to do our public relations, and I said, you know, I started with a loan and a prayer and that's about it. You remember that. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. K. LENDRUM-We really did. We started on Upper Glen Street with a $10,000 loan and everybody that gave me advice said you'll never make it. MR. DEEB-That's the Gambles building you were in. MR. K. LENDRUM-We rented that place for five years and outgrew it. So this is the next step. Jared and his brother are the next generation. I think our transition, the succession plan is great. As you know, these car companies, and I'm sure you've had this stuff before you, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, they're all the same. They all go to the same companies that draw their building proposals to tell them what signs they have to have. Yes, they did it so we've got to do it, too. So the texture of the materials inside the walls, all those finishes, the guests, they're all spec. MR. FERONE-But they have to remain competitive and that's going to make you much more competitive. It's all about customer service experience. MR. K. LENDRUM-When we re-did the building, and that was in 2011, we're more than double what we were then, which is phenomenal. MR. FERONE-But, for the North Country, I mean, to have people to come out of their car and go through the elements, that's big time. MR. DEEB-So if you change the oil, you wash their cars? 33 (Queensbury Pllannling IBoard 05/17/2016) MR. J. LENDRUM-Pretty much if we rate an RO we will wash the car. MR. DEEB-I know where I'm getting an oil change, then. MR. K. LENDRUM-It's not going to be a money maker. MR. J. LENDRUM-We currently make about three dollars on it. MR. DEEB-Volume, lots of volume. MR. K. LENDRUM-But, you know, this brand's on the rise, and I don't think they're wrong on some of this stuff. I mean, you have a credibility issue maybe with some customers and the best way to get over that is to prove that you're as good as the expensive cars, and you take better care of your customers than some of the expensive car franchises, and we do that, and that gets you repeat business. MR. DEEB-And that philosophy's worked. You've been around a long time. MR. FORD-Your commitment to customer satisfaction is commendable. MR. K. LENDRUM-A lot of them are like family. Do you know Marjorie Muller? I was explaining to this young lady that Marjorie Muller has been a customer of mine for 40 years. She must have been six at the time. Well, we have many customers like that, and that's been our goal since Day One. This is part of the growth, part of the evolution, how do we do it. When you get down to the details, we have a fair amount of acreage. We have lots of places for the water to run. We're not going to get close to anything that's scary or dangerous. We're building over blacktop at this point. It's replace customer parking and now they're parking indoors. So it's interesting. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I think it's a great addition. You've got a tremendous contract to do the work. The only thing that worries me, he does it all by himself, but I think the addition of the front is totally going to change the look, just as you did with the fagade. It just really brought that building together, and how you're going to finish this out, and I love the idea with the waste oil. I personally kind of liked the push around cart tanks you had there for room. It's too bad they didn't pass, but that was smart thinking, but now you've got the right tanks. You need them. I think the whole project is really going to brighten up that area on Quaker Road, too. MR. K. LENDRUM-It's going to make it look more mature. MR. DEEB-There's a lot more competition down there now, too. MR. J. LENDRUM-1 don't know how fast cars fly off that lot. We've been trying to figure that out ever since it started up. MR. K. LENDRUM-There seems to be a challenge to see who can have the most cars on their lot. MR. DEEB-It seems to be that way. MR. FORD-We've addressed that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we try to when we can. MR. K. LENDRUM-For the sake of discussion, when we got into available parking spaces, I don't know who drew the lines or whatever. I just bought this property in '81, but the main building is in one parcel. The parking lot on the hill that 1, 1 don't know if you remember, but back about ten years ago I came up here and said we want to level off this ugly thing that we couldn't maintain and we made a parking lot out of it, and that's been about ten years ago, but that parking lot has got a different parcel number than the one that our store's in. Even though it's in the Town of Queensbury, we actually get a different tax bill for that, which I don't understand, but that parcel is in Town of Queensbury, Queensbury school district. The dealership is in Town of Queensbury, Glens Falls school district, and the body shop is in Glens Falls, Glens Falls school district. According to the rules, we couldn't count the parking, which is on the same tax bill, we're on the same deed, which is still in Queensbury. So you know the whole hill, that's in Queensbury on the same deed. So I don't know if it takes a, yes, you should count that note from somebody that, rather than trying to get all our parking spaces on the one parcel. Do you understand what I'm saying? 34 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. K. LENDRUM-We have way more parking and it looks like we're scrunch down when you look at the numbers. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you are showing you have enough parking spaces. MR. J. LENDRUM-Yes, I think we can get enough, but there's just a whole lot of extra. I mean, we haven't even talked about putting parking spaces in the City of Glens Falls, which is 10 feet off the back of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. J. LENDRUM-So there's plenty of room. MR. K. LENDRUM-It's a bizarre piece of property if you look at the property line, because it was obviously parceled out before Quaker Road was ever built. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. J. LENDRUM-Quaker Road comes in at a curve and then these parcels that made sense once upon a time all of a sudden are angled crazy. Then we have rock ledge that we're dealing with near the building. So I guess it gives it character. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was wondering why the building was angled the way it was. MR. J. LENDRUM-1 think it works out at this point because now the way it all comes together it gives service an equal storefront with sales. It's not quite as close to the road as the pylon is necessarily, but it does make the service department entrance nicer, especially the way it's drawn. Rather than being off from behind the building. With Glens Falls Toyota you've got to drive around the building so you can figure out where the service area is. Ours should be nice and clean and understandable. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or concerns from the Board? We have a public hearing scheduled. Did you want to comment? AUDIENCE MEMBER-No. I bought a Saab in '79. MR. K. LENDRUM-It was red, wasn't it? AUDIENCE MEMBER-It was a blue one, and I bought a black one the next year. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we have any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, we did not. I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. We do have a draft SEQR resolution in our package. If anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP PZ 123-2016 NO. COUNTRY IMPORTS The applicant proposes a 120 ft. x 36 ft. addition to an existing 10,864 sq. ft. auto sales & service building with two customer drive-in bays and additional bays for service, with an additional office area. A separate addition of 280 sq. ft. boiler area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 and 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, alterations to an existing building and previous Site Plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 35 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) 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 123-2016 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, INC., Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; 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. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then we have a resolution, if anyone would like to put that forward. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 123-2016 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 120 ft. x 36 ft. addition to an existing 10,864 sq. ft. auto sales & service building with two customer drive-in bays and additional bays for service, with an additional office area. A separate addition of 280 sq. ft. boiler area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, alterations to an existing building and previous Site Plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/17/2016 and continued the public hearing to 5/17/2016 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 5/17/2016; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN PZ 123-2016 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, INC., Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 6 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; b) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; d) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know that they requested any waivers. MRS. MOORE-I didn't identify any waivers. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's no waivers requested. MR. MAGOWAN-We can scratch out the waivers granted. There are no waivers. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DEEB-When are you going to start? MR. J. LENDRUM-As soon as you guys say go. MR. HUNSINGER-We just said go. MR. DEEB-We said go. SUBDIVISION PZ 129-2016 SKETCH PLAN SEAR TYPE UNLISTED PHILIP & LAURA MITCHELL OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION MOON HILL & WALKUP ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 6.75 ACRE PARCEL — ONE PARCEL TO CONTAIN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON MOON HILL ROAD AND SECOND LOT TO CONTAIN EXISTING BARNS AND HAVE ACCESS ON WALKUP ROAD. PARCEL HAS EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AREA AND 20% SLOPES. POTENTIAL DIVISION WOULD HAVE WALKUP ROAD 4.05 ACRES AND MOON HILL ROAD 2.64 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SKETCH PLAN STAGE IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE 2/5/93 SF DWELLING W/GARAGE UNDERNEATH SITE INFORMATION WETLAND LOT SIZE 6.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-1 SECTION 183 PHIL MITCHELL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.75 acre parcel. The zone is in the Rural Residential Three acres. The existing lot contains constraints on it, 20% slopes, in a floodplain area, and the applicant wants to discuss its proposal to maintain the barns off of Walkup and then the existing residence on Moon Hill. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MITCHELL-Hi. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. MITCHELL-My name's Phil Mitchell. MR. HUNSINGER-And was there anything else that you wanted to say about your project? MR. MITCHELL-Well, there's lots of documents here, but it's, just across the street there's a new house going in on about an acre. That subdivision was approved before the three acre 3 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) rural residential went in. So there's going to be, the fact that this is a little bit smaller than the three acres, or quite a bit smaller than the three acres allowed, it's going to fit in. It has the existing barns on it. One of those I might turn into a residence, if I can. That's what I'm looking to do. Exactly why it was divided originally into lots this size I really don't know. It's very narrow. The lots are long, 240 feet wide at one end and 300 feet wide on the other end, but it makes perfect sense to divide them, I think, and have one with the residence on Moon Hill Road and one on Lockhart Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I always assumed those barns went with the blue house right across the street. MR. MITCHELL-Well, they probably did at one time, but then somebody divided it, who knows when and their property line goes down the road. MR. SHAFER-A question is, why did you draw the line where you did so that you ended up with 4.05 and 2.64? In three acre zoning, theoretically it could have been three and three. MR. MITCHELL-Well, that's a curious thing with the zoning. The three acre zoning is supposed to be three acres, as I understand it, three acres of buildable area. MRS. MOORE-Right. So three acres, there's already constraints on the site. Those actually would have to be subtracted out. So he's, the site is already less than the three acre lot because you have to subtract out the 20% slopes and the area, if it was delineated wetlands area, that would all come out where the lot would actually be smaller than the developable area that would be considered smaller. MR. MITCHELL-So this way they both end up being pretty close to the three acre, but not quite. MR. TRAVER-SO I guess the question that I would have is, coming to the Planning Board with Sketch Plan, I mean, this would have to go to the ZBA I assume, right? So how can we? MRS. MOORE-It's Sketch Plan. That's what it's there for. Part of his next step would be pursuing, you know, a variance or delineation of wetlands. The first step he can come to the Board and discuss with you, you know, is this something that, after I subtract everything out, I have a developable site for two homes potentially. Does the area exist? MR. TRAVER-Understanding that it would be also subject to zoning variance. Yes. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So on the one drawing you have proposed barn re-located. MR. MITCHELL-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what you would intend to do is to re-locate the barn and make it into a house? MR. MITCHELL-Yes. That thing is, that barn is right on the road. I don't know if you've driven by it or seen it. You could almost trip over it. So it would be, that needs to have some setback from the road anyway. I'm working on the barn right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Stabilize it. Yes. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. There's a lot of lovely components to it as well. MR. TRAVER-So in the state that it's in, can it be moved? MR. MITCHELL-Yes. I talked to a timber framer friend of mine. He can do it. We'll see. MR. TRAVER-Interesting, and then that would be the subject, potentially, of another residence. MR. MITCHELL-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-It is a cool barn. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-How would you deal with the old foundations? There's also an old foundation there for the old silo. 38 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. MITCHELL-Yes. The 15 feet came out. That puts the front corner of the barn right at the edge of the entry to the old silo. So that could be a feature in the residence. MR. TRAVER-Get a hot tub or something. MR. MITCHELL-A hot tub. I thought of that, too. So that was within 15 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. What do Board members feel about the lot sizes and the general concept of subdivision? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it's the best option if you're going to try to get two lots out of this parcel. The only thing is, again, my concern is you understand that we may think it's great, and then you go to the Zoning Board and they say, I don't think so. In other words, I mean, you're coming to us for comment, but we can only speak for, conceptually, for ourselves, and not address the potential issues that, for whatever reason, members of the Zoning Board might have. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. So I guess I'm trying to follow the procedures and say, you submit a Sketch Plan and then you guys look at it and say, in your best opinion, the next step is. MR. TRAVER-1 understand that. I'm just wanting to understand that you understand that we may think it's great, but we're only half of the, because of the nature of the variance that you're asking, I mean, it typically would come to us for perhaps a recommendation to the ZBA, but, you know, that's all. As long as you understand that there's more approval required ultimately. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. There's, how many steps are there that we go through? Three, twelve, 106? 1 wanted to get some feel from some representatives of the Town of what problems I'm going to have with this at the next step. MR. TRAVER-Well, my own feeling is that if, you know, you're going to divide this property, this seems like the most reasonable way to go about it. MR. MITCHELL-Okay. I know there's some other setback issues from the road, the drain field. MR. TRAVER-And the barn. MR. MITCHELL-And the barn. I mean, I know that's not acceptable if I was building new, but I figure I'm doing better than what it is now. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be an additional potential variance. So that's another, you know, talking about a step, you're first dividing it, and then addressing the site plan issues with the associated variances for potentially each building lot. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if he just secures and fixes the barn, he can leave it where it is, but if he's going to move it. MR. TRAVER-Well, it may not be, I mean, it might not even be considered habitable. I mean, it's literally right. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, now can I divide it and keep the barns and not make it a residence? MR. TRAVER-Well, the first step that you're looking at is, that you're discussing with us tonight, is the subdivision, right? So that doesn't address the site plan side, in terms of, and you have not submitted any plans, Sketch Plans, that say, here is what the house would look like, here is where I would put the barn. So at this stage we're just conceptually talking about taking this lot and subdividing it with the issue of the less than three acre piece, which again is the ZBA. That's what I wanted to make sure that you were aware of. MR. HUNSINGER-This wouldn't come back for site plan, if we were to approve a subdivision, unless we conditioned it. MRS. MOORE-1 was going to say, sometimes constructing a single family home on greater than 15%, or 50 feet within 15% would trigger site plan. So if we're relocating the barn. MR. HUNSINGER-The lower lot wouldn't be, though. The slope is on the Moon Hillside. MR. TRAVER-You've got the existing residence. 39 (Queensbury Pllannling IBoard 05/17/2016) MR. MITCHELL-Yes, the slope's on the Moon Hill side. The Walkup side has wet area. MR. TRAVER-And the barn. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he might be within the floodplain. MRS. MOORE-Right. So filling or hard surfacing within 50 feet of the boundary would trigger the site plan review. I don't know where the wetland boundary is. MR. HUNSINGER-It's possible it wouldn't, though. So to answer your question it's possible that you may not have to come back here if we were to approve the subdivision. It's possible. MR. DEEB-Depending on boundary lines, where everything sites on the property. MR. MITCHELL-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Because we don't review just every house. Like the house that went in across the street, on Walkup Road never came before us. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, you didn't review that because it had already been approved. MR. HUNSINGER-As an existing lot. MR. MITCHELL-Everything was good, but I have special things going on here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I tell you, I would love to see, just for what it's worth, I live around the corner, and I walk my dog down there a lot, and I would love to see you stabilize and secure the barns. MR. MAGOWAN-Because he always crosses the road when he comes to the barns. MR. TRAVER-It would make a neat house. MR. HUNSINGER-It would. MR. MITCHELL-It would. It is a challenge exactly how I'd do that. I've lifted a number of things, I have some ideas, I think they'll work. I'll see some stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course the house across the street, not the blue house but the other one, the salt box, that's just an incredible setting. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The stream and the driveway. MR. FORD-Is that 1.73 acres actually designated wetland? MR. MITCHELL-That's my estimate. What I did is I looked at the few pages down here you can see the aerial view, the last page, Page 15, actually, and where the tan is on that is the old cattails. So you can see from the aerial view where the wet areas are, and so I just put some rough boundaries to figure out, give you folks an idea and myself, how much I would have to take out for the wetland, and now I'll have to get that surveyed to get an accurate number for the next step, but I just thought by this step I'd show you what I estimate. MR. FORD-And when that survey is done, you may be right on and you may find you're a bit off. MR. MITCHELL-Well, yes, but, yes, it's a gamble I think right now, and I thought I'd come see what you folks had to say before I spent the money on the surveys and all of that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, in my mind it kind of makes sense to, you know, with the existing house on Moon Hill Road. The barns really are of no value to that house. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, not much. MR. HUNSINGER-Because you can't even get there because of the slope and then stream. MR. MITCHELL-Well, you can get there fast in the winter. 0 (Queensbury Pllannling Il3oaird 05/17/2016) MR. TRAVER-Yes, if you can make it work, that would be pretty neat. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MITCHELL-Cool. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any concerns or issues that haven't been discussed? Did we give you enough feedback? MR. MITCHELL-I guess so. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any questions for the Board? MR. MITCHELL-No. I guess I just go through the next steps, get a survey, a full application and have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MITCHELL-And see where that goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Thanks for coming in. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else you wanted to add, Laura, from a Staff perspective? MRS. MOORE-With this application? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That the applicant talk to Staff at some point so that we can give direction and probably start with the Army Corps, DEC and have them do the wetlands first before you survey it. MR. MITCHELL-Right. MRS. MOORE-And determine if there's other constraints that they identify so that you're aware. MR. MITCHELL-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, good luck. MR. MITCHELL-Thanks so much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Just before we adjourn, members may have noticed that Paul Schonewolf wasn't here again this evening and he won't be here on Thursday as well. When I spoke to him he asked me, he said he's finding it increasingly difficult to act as Secretary and also to do the other preparation for meetings, and he's asked me if I would ask other members of the Board if anyone were interested in being Secretary so that he could step down. So I'll leave that out for your consideration. MR. DEEB-What are the duties? What does it entail? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, it's interesting because the official duties of the Secretary are to certify the minutes, but we have kind of fallen into this pattern where the Secretary has been the one that reads the resolutions, and it doesn't have to be that way. We can split up doing the resolutions, and, you know, I think we've handled it pretty well the last couple of months when he wasn't here. So there's sort of the official duties and then there's the informal duties. The official duties and the informal duties don't necessarily correspond. Like I said, I remember years ago, long before I was Chairman, that the Chairman would literally pick out members and say, you know, George, you haven't offered a resolution in a while, why don't you make the resolution on this project. MR. DEEB-I don't have a problem with that. MR. FERONE-Now, when Gretchen Steffan was on the Board, was she the Secretary? MR. TRAVER-Yes. 1 (Queensbury Pllannling IBoard 05/17/2016) MR. FERONE-Because I know when I attended the meetings for our Tribune project, she kind of read. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FERONE-So maybe that was around the time. MR. HUNSINGER-That was around the time. One of the official duties of the Secretary used to be to read the SEQR review, and we don't do that anymore. We just have a resolution. So that's one of the official duties that has fallen off. Is there any other like specific duties that I'm missing? I don't have our by-laws in front of me. They are on the Town website. MRS. MOORE-They are on the Town website. I can't think of anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but the by-laws do talk about the duties of the officers. MR. FORD-Maybe we can think about it and get back on Thursday. MR. TRAVER-On Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's why I wanted to bring it up this evening, to give you some time to think about it. MR. FORD-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything? MRS. MOORE-The only other item I had was I discussed with you about updating our applications, and so I'll trying to bring that information with me. Like if you have any concerns about how the applications read now, you know, this is the time to let me know so I can address that. Currently you see a gamut of things. You've seen applications all the way back when I first started that people are still using as their links, to some of them using from 2009 and some are using the most recent one. So it's a gamut of what those applications are. So I'd really like to get it straightened out so that the applicants are using the same applications, but if you have some comments about how it's working or some information that should appear on that cover page. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mentioned to Laura, it surprises me how many applications still come in that have Keith's name on them, because that's been awhile now. MR. DEEB-How many years? MRS. MOORE-Three years. MR. TRAVER-One of the things I wanted to mention is, Laura, I wanted to compliment you and your Staff for getting the Staff Notes out to us in the mail sooner. It's very handy to have them, I mean, it's great having them by e-mail, if you're really concerned about something, but it's, for those of us that really like to have them to write on and highlight and so on, it's great to have them a few days in advance. So I know that's not always easy to get them out that quickly, so I appreciate that very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, thank you, I would agree with Steve. Thanks for bringing that up. MR. DEEB-I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 17, 2016, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 17`" day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. 2 (Queen lbuiry Pllannling I:3oair ' 05/17/2016) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 43