Loading...
05-19-2016 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2016 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2015 Maurice Combs 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 8-2015 Burnett Family Trust 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 FINAL STAGE Site Plan PZ 73-2016 Faden Enterprises 2. Special Use Permit PZ 68-2016 Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Site Plan PZ 54-2016 Big Bay Lodging, LLC (Hilton Home2 Suites) 12. Special Use Permit PZ 143-2016 Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2 through 9 Site Plan PZ 127-2016 Frank & Kathi Miller 21. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-35 Site Plan PZ 128-2016 Anthony Muscatello 22. Tax Map No. 289.18-1-30 Site Plan PZ 131-2016 Great Meadow Federal Credit Union 24. FWW Permit PZ 132-2016 Tax Map No. 296.20-1-10 Site Plan PZ 140-2016 Joseph P. Gross 25. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING "1 SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE FERONE DAVID DEEB STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE 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 Thursday, May 19, 2016. All of our items this evening are under Old Business. There's not a lot of members of the audience, but just for point of reference, the following four projects will be tabled, Maurice Combs which will be tabled until August; Burnett Family Trust which will be tabled until June; Frank & Kathi Miller will be tabled until August; and the Great Meadow Federal Credit Union will be tabled until September, and we'll pass specific resolutions as they come up on the agenda, but if you're here for any of those projects, they will be tabled. So the first one is Subdivision 6-2015, Preliminary and Final Stage. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE TYPE I — ZBA CONSENTED TO PB 3/18/2015 MAURICE H. COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) MAURICE COMBS ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.24 ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.01 TO 1.45 ACRES. SUBDIVISION: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2015; WATER DIST. EXT. LOT SIZE 9.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-As I mentioned, it was not approved by the Zoning Board last night and so we will table that until August. Does it matter which meeting, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It would be the second August meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would be the 23rd MRS. MOORE-The 23rd MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing and we will table the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-If anyone wants to make a motion to table it. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel into 7 lots ranging in size from 1.01 to 1.45 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Jamie White who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled to the August 23, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And the next project on the agenda is Subdivision 8-2015. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) DEBORAH SLEZAK — COIFFI, SLEZAK AND WILDGRUBE, P.C. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 1.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 28,639 SQ. FT. & 28,754 SQ. FT. SUBDIVISION WILL PLACE EXISTING HOUSES ON SEPARATE PARCELS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-15, BP 04-677 (2 DOCKS) WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA, OTHER LGPC, CEA LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-We are going to table that as well. Why is that one only tabled until June? MRS. MOORE-I'm anticipating the Zoning Board to make a decision next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So it may not appear at all before the Planning Board, pending the Zoning Board's decision. MR. HUNSINGER-So does it matter which June meeting we table it to? MRS. MOORE-It will not matter. You can table it to the first one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If anyone would like to make that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB 8-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 1.32 acre parcel into two lots of 28,639 sq. ft. & 28,754 sq. ft. Subdivision will place existing houses on separate parcels. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance Subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the June 21, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Continuing on the agenda, the next project is Site Plan PZ 73-2016. SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016; SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THREE MAIN BUILDINGS, SHED AND SOME SITE GRADING TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW BUILDINGS IN THREE PHASES. PROJECT REVISED: FIRST PHASE A PORTION OF AN 8,200 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO BE 4,300 +/- SQ. FT. WITH PARKING FROM MAIN ST. TO PINE ST. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING PARCELS CREATING TWO PARCELS. FIRST BUILDING FOR FOOD SERVICE AND RETAIL. SECOND/THIRD PHASE TO BE REMAINDER OF FIRST BUILDING 4,200 +/- SQ. FT. THEN SECOND/THIRD PHASE IS A TWO STORY BUILDING 2,700 SQ. FT. FOOT PRINT (5400 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA) WITH A DRIVE THROUGH (500 SQ. FT. +/-). PROJECT INCLUDES LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING IN PHASES ALSO. STORMWATER TO BE COMPLETED FOR WHOLE SITE IN PHASE ONE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON MAIN STREET SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 91252 SEWAGE ALT.; 2005-221 SIGN PERMIT; 2002-0208 WALL SIGN WARREN CO. REFERRAL m:]H FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24, 0.42, .046, TOTAL 1.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10- 1-47, 48, 49 09.10- 1-47, 48, 49 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-7-030 , 179-7-070, 179-10-040, 140-7 SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to remove a pre-existing building, a shed and some site grading and completely construct two new buildings in three phases. The first phase is a portion of the building, 4,300 with parking for Main Street to Pine Street. The project includes merging parcels to create two parcels out of three, and the first building that's proposed, 4,300, that's to be food service and retail, and I have some information that says the second and third phase is to be the remainder of the first building to be built out to 4,200. So that total building is to be 8,200 in total. The other part of the second and third phase is a two story building. The building is 2,700. The floor area is 5,400, potentially with a drive through bank. The covered area of that is about 500 square feet plus or minus. The project includes lighting and landscaping. Stormwater to be completed in the Phase One portion of the project, and I've identified some information towards the end of the summary confirming building height, and so the two story building is essentially 28 feet, and then I have the first building, the one story building to be at 17 feet. There's not information at this time about roof mechanicals, information about the window transparency has been provided. Window type has been provided. In reference to the second two story, the applicant has indicated that that two story building will be similar to the first building, it's one story potentially with less windows but the design of that architecture should be similar to that first building. As part of the new Zoning Code, they ask when someone comes through with a drive through they're supposed to provide a traffic study describing peak hours of operations and volumes. At this time the applicant hasn't provided that. So I would suggest that, if you're moving forward, that that be included as a condition, and I believe the applicant can provide information about trip generations for the bank, but again, that information should be as part of an analysis and should be provided as part of the review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. I'm also here tonight with the applicant for the project, Mr. Russell Faden. I think that was a very good summary of the overall project. Basically this project was presented to this Board as a concept many, many months ago. In my opinion I think it was received well by this Board. Since that meeting we did go away. We went to the Zoning Board and pursued several variances for the project. Obviously as the Board's aware the zoning did change. So we were only required to obtain one variance, and that was the Sign Variance, and we were successful in obtaining that variance last night, but there were a couple of other changes on the plan as a result of our discussions with the Zoning Board. First and foremost would be the elimination of one of the buildings. We did originally have three buildings on the parcel. Behind the building, I'm sorry, the building on the left hand side, there was a building in the back portion of that parcel. The Zoning Board felt that, in accordance with the Main Street zone, they felt that there should be a two story structure in the front portion and they felt it was more in tune with the Main Street zone, so the applicant did adhere to their request and we did modify the plans so that the building on the corner of both Pine Street and Main Street is now a two story building with the first floor being a bank with a drive through on the back. The second floor would be anticipated to be office space. Another change we did make is we did move the building away from Pine Street. Originally we had requested a zero foot setback from the Pine Street property line. We did move that back to 10 plus feet. As far as layout configuration, it's essentially the same since the last time the Board has seen the project. As far as the traffic, we do feel that the bank would be more of a pass by type of use. We do not feel that the bank would be a destination. As far as parking on the site, we do meet the parking requirements for the building, can adequately park the customers for the bank and the retail uses we are proposing. As far as the drive thru itself, the drawing that is up on the board that does show the queuing behind the drive through lane, we do have two lanes, as well as an escape lane. So if somebody did not want to wait in line, they could drive around the two lanes, but on both of those lanes, we are showing an area for three cars to be stacked at each one of those lanes. So we could have a total of six cars available to be stacked on these drive through lanes. We feel that that's more than adequate in our opinion in this day and age with modern technology. We don't feel as though the people are using the drive through facilities. We think six cars getting through that area is more than adequate for the site. We do understand there was a request for some trip generation numbers and if that is a condition of the Board, we'd like to have approval of that as a condition. That's essentially it. I'm here tonight for questions and comments from the Board. We'd request the Board's consideration for approval of the site plan. Thank you very much. r41 MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-1 want to thank you for hanging in with us here, going through a few different designs, and I like the coloring. The only one I have a question on is I know the banks require a certain amount of lighting, and I just want to make sure, it looks like we have ample enough planting along the back. A lot of times they have to be super bright 24/7. MR. LANSING-In our experience with banks, we've done several banks. The lighting is required around the drive through area. So it would be required along the two lanes as well as the escape lane. The drive through is, in our opinion, far to the south. Beyond that you have a parking area, another drive aisle, another parking area, and then beyond that we have, we're proposing a stockade fence there as well. So we feel with all the distance and the plantings in front that would be more than adequate to mitigate any light that is required for this. MR. DEEB-Russ, do you have a bank lined up? MR. FADEN-I don't at this point. MR. DEEB-Have you had any inquiries? MR. FADEN-Not yet, no. MR. FERONE-My question was going to be the same thing, in phase one, the one that is definitely going up, if you didn't get a bank, for whatever reason, lined up, would you, A, not build that building at all, or would you build it not for a bank, so you wouldn't need the drive throughs and that and just turn it into a commercial, you know, professional building? MR. FADEN-That's a possibility. I mean our first choice would be a bank, but if somebody came along and had a different use that made sense, we would go with that as well. MR. SHAFER-You outlined the phasing. Do you have any idea as to the timing? MR. FADEN-I don't. At this point we just know we're definitely doing phase one, and we're actively, it's on the market, actively looking for tenants. So it's kind of, I think once we actually start construction I think you'll see more interest in the property. MR. MAGOWAN-Because you still have to, do you have someone next door to you? MR. FADEN-Not yet. MR. SHAFER-With a signal at Pine, what would be your expectation with traffic coming to the site, whether they be Pine Street or the direct access off of Main Street? There is a left turn at Pine. MR. FADEN-Yes, I would say probably the people that know the area may use Pine Street more, and a lot of the regulars and people coming off Exit 18, you know, into the Town would probably use Main Street the most. MR. MAGOWAN-You'll be pulling from the backside. MR. FADEN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So pretty much it would probably be even. MR. FADEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So you haven't provided any elevation drawings. MR. LANSING-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you talk about the mechanicals that will be on the roof? MR. FADEN-There's going to be on, on Phase One we're going to have a total of three 5 ton units on the roof, and they'll be positioned on the building so you're not going to be able to see it from the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, that's why I always ask about that, and, Laura, you said they already provided the information on the windows? 5 MRS. MOORE-They provided information on the windows. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and you're satisfied with it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So it would just be the traffic generation that we would need? MRS. MOORE-That one and then I would believe that we would need the elevation drawing of the second building. MR. DEEB-What if it were not a bank, would he still need to do a traffic generation? MRS. MOORE-It's the drive through that is requesting the traffic generation. That's how the Town Board reviewed it. MR. DEEB-If something else went in there, he wouldn't need one. MRS. MOORE-If the drive through was not there, I don't foresee that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean, if he doesn't get the bank and he doesn't need the drive through. MR. TRAVER-But the application is before us. MS. WHITE-Well, I'd just like to add my appreciation. I just think this is a much cleaner application. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments to the Board. I would ask that you address the Board with your comments. I would also ask that you state your name for the record. We do tape the meeting so speak clearly into the microphone. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes and it's also available on the Town's website. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DOREEN WALL MS. WALL-Okay. My name is Doreen Wall, and I reside and own 19 Pine Street, which is directly next to this project. I did attend a first meeting, wanted to just return. I apologize. I was a little late to this so I'm not sure if there were any changes that they had talked about previously. One of my main concerns when I was here initially was the additional traffic up and down Pine Street. The traffic now it's a cut through, you know, the traffic runs faster than it should. So my concern is the additional trafficking up and down through there. I didn't mention this before, but I'm not sure who I would speak to or propose possibly some type of a speed bump type of a situation, maybe possibly in front of my residence that would kind of maybe slow that traffic down coming through to that site. My next concern is it's going to engulf my property. I'm assuming that's a fence that they've got shown. MR. HUNSINGER-A fence and hedge. MS. WALL-Hedge. Okay. I proposed fencing because I am residential. I have children, grandchildren, animals. I'm not sure which phase he's talking about, but the retail here on the far side, is the parking planning on going all the way to the fence to the cemetery? No? Okay. But there is going to be parking planned for there in the back? MR. FADEN-No, what you see there is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's shown right there. MS. WALL-Okay. So that's going to come along my fence line, parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, three spaces. MS. WALL-So I would like to propose fencing. I'd like a privacy type fence. I don't feel like that's too much to ask of them. I'm very for this project. The area there has been an eyesore for a long time. This is a family home. It goes back to the 50's, 60's. So, you know, I think it's going to be a great addition to the area, and I'm all for it. I just have some concerns as far as me still maintaining my residential privacy. That's my big concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. WALL-All right. Was there anyone else that wished to address the Board? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There's one written comment. This was dated back on March 16, 2016. It's addressed to the Planning Board. "Due to prior commitments we are unable to attend tonight's planning board meeting. As property owners in the area we would like our opinions heard. We feel that setback relief should not be granted for the sign proposed, (and again that's for the Sign Variance). This intersection is one of the busiest in the area and the sign could pose a traffic hazard. In regards to the building project, we feel that this project will create traffic hazards on an already congested road. To have a drive thru bank entering or exiting on Main Street would be a major hazard and could turn the turning lane into a traveled lane posing more chance for traffic accidents. We have seen traffic accidents occur in the Broad Street area where the bank is located and feel that this relief should not be granted. A project of this size would be better served on the other side of the Northway where the traffic is less congested. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Philip Steves Tina Steves" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I don't know if you have any comments based on the comments from the neighbor? MR. LANSING-Yes, absolutely. On the northern boundary where we are showing the planted hedgerow, we are also showing a stockade fence, we can build it in that area to address that comment. MR. MAGOWAN-And it does return back on those three spaces? MR. LANSING-Correct, yes, the fence does. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you have any objection to maybe going a little further down and, you know, down past those parking spots? MR. LANSING-Actually the fence does go all the way around. So it does go. MR. MAGOWAN-It goes all the way down and around the property? MR. LANSING-It goes up towards the cemetery and then follows the cemetery line and stops on the northeast corners. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're saying it goes all the way around the green space? It goes all the way around here? MR. LANSING-It stops on the northeast corner. MR. DEEB-Could you show us on this one? MR. LANSING-Yes. MR. LANSING-It starts here, goes around, and comes up, over and stops right there. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And that's a stockade fence? MR. LANSING-Stockade fence, yes. MR. DEEB-Do you know what the height is on that? MR. LANSING-Six feet. MS. WALL-So it will go directly to the cemetery? .7 MR. LANSING-Correct. MS. WALL-Okay. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The only dilemma that I really see is how do we deal with the bank? Because we don't have the traffic and we don't have the elevation. MR. LANSING-If I could, the applicant and I were discussing it. If the Board would consider, we'd like to ask for approval conditioned on, if the applicant does move forward with the bank and applies for a building permit for the bank, at that time that we would provide a traffic study showing that the trip generations for the drive through are appropriate. The reason for that being is obviously the applicant does not have a bank lined up at this time. He is actively pursuing a bank, and whether a bank goes in there or not is not a definite. We feel what we're showing is the highest intensity use, if you will. We feel that's appropriate for the Board to review, but if he should not get a bank tenant, he'd rather not spend several thousand dollars for a traffic study for this, and if it seems like that' the only thing that's triggering this traffic study, if the Board would consider that, we'd like to ask for that condition. MRS. MOORE-The Main Street Code is pretty specific. So it actually has criteria for pretty much each, certain aspects of Main Street, and so when it, the Code is asking for it and having it as a requirement, I'm hesitant to say, you know, pass it off until it happens, because I don't think that's appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was going to be my question. Would be site plan be compliant without that building? MRS. MOORE-Without the building itself? MR. HUNSINGER-Without the proposed bank building. MRS. MOORE-If the applicant chose to remove it from the project at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that's not what I'm asking, though. MRS. MOORE-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-So my thought process is since the bank building's speculative, what if it were not built, is what I'm asking. MRS. MOORE-Then it's not built, but the applicant is proposing a building with a drive through which is triggering this component of the Special Use Permit. I guess I can't get away from that the way the Code is written. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Would you be interested in taking the drive through off and just leaving the building there and come back if you do get a bank? MR. FADEN-1 mean, it's kind of what we were looking to do. So if we were to come back, it would just be a traffic study, and if it justified? And again, when we get a bank, or if we get a bank and it's a certain type of bank, it might need a different look to it. That's why we don't have any elevations, but it would meet all the Code, but we know before we do any building, we're going to have to come back and get approvals for that building, and at that point we would have color renderings and the whole nine yards. Because that's what we did before, we came back with elevations for Building Two and Three, and now we're not using that. There was a lot of money spent for not even needing it. MR. HUNSINGER-It begs the question, you know. MRS. MOORE-I'm under the impression, the way the Code reads, that if you're proposing a two story building, you need the elevations of the two story. If the applicant chooses to remove the drive through, it doesn't alleviate the two story elevation issue. It just alleviates the traffic issue. MR. HUNSINGER-No, what I'm hearing the applicant suggest now is that they come back and show the elevation and show the traffic study before the bank building could be built. 8 MR. TRAVER-But how can we approve what's before us? I mean, the plan that we have to approve shows the drive through. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be a condition, that the elevations and traffic report be submitted for Planning Board review and approval prior to construction of the bank building. It's certainly enforceable, but does it set a bad precedent and put us in? MR. TRAVER-Well, it affects the approval, that's the thing. MRS. MOORE-I guess I'm concerned. MS. WHITE-Because I guess I see where they're coming from as well, to spend that money and there's not a bank coming there. What if the end result is a two story office medical building? MRS. MOORE-I mean, that's fine. It's just Main Street has specific components. So it's definitely different, a different type of zone than any other zone in our community, and that's why, you know, the Town Board and the other committees spent a significant amount of time on doing, developing how Main Street should be developed, and this is why there's specific components. I mean, it's a spreadsheet list of criteria that has to be evaluated each time a project is proposed, and I would be hesitant to say that, you know, do a condition on elevations when it's clearly in your Code are part of the Main Street review. MR. LANSING-If it pleases the Board, perhaps we could add a note to the drawing for that building on the corner of Pine Street and Main Street. Something to the effect that prior to application for a building permit the building we shall have elevations provided in accordance with the Code and the traffic study provided before the bank drive through is provided, and that's something that's on the plan so the Board is not only conditioning it, but it has that note on there. MR. FADEN-And again, I completely appreciate what they're trying to do with the Main Street zoning. 1100% will comply with whatever they want to do, you know, but I'm just asking, until we get to that point, can we get a condition on it? MR. SHAFER-Laura, are there any issues with Building One, visa vie the Main Street Code? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. SHAFER-So it's just Building Two. MRS. MOORE-Building Two, and the information doesn't request color renderings. It asks for elevations. So it's not asking for, it's asking for the architectural component. It's not asking for the proposed, you gave color renderings. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it doesn't require branding that would be dependent upon the potential tenant. Just the structure and the traffic. MRS. MOORE-The other night you looked at Performing Asset Strategies, and that applicant provided you with a two story structure and some information that I'm suggesting is consistent with what we're looking for in this particular project. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what I'm just a little confused, he's not building the building, and he's going to have to come back with all that information to build that building. Why can't we make that a condition, that he cannot pull a weed over there until he comes and sees us? MRS. MOORE-I'm not the Zoning Administrator. I'm just saying the way the Code is prepared, that those specific criteria are on line saying that that information needs to be presented as part of a project for the Main Street Code. MR. DEEB-So if I'm understanding this, even if he pulls the drive through bank, you still need elevations and you still need? To approve it now. So the only other thing is if that building was not part of the site plan, and they'd have to come back later. No? MRS. MOORE-Correct. I mean, the applicant could potentially pull that, but that's, I guess the idea of the Main Street and the discussion that has occurred is that this area is proposed for a two story structure. It's sort of key for the Main Street Code. MR. DEEB-Well, I'm not saying it wouldn't be a two story structure. 9 MRS. MOORE-1 understand what you're trying to say. MR. DEEB-I'm just saying we're trying to resolve the problem is what we're trying to do. We're trying to get to a resolution so that this man can get on, and I'm hoping that we can figure something out. MR. MAGOWAN-When a lot of these Codes were made, there's also been some changes along the way because there's a lot of things that, you know, were not foreseen when coming up with all these codes, and we've made some adjustments. Now he can't market it without some form of approval. So it's kind of a catch-22, you know, for all of us here, you know, we're, you're trying to do something and we have a certain set of codes. So how can we come up with something that would allow him that would appease the Zoning Administrator? MRS. MOORE-I'm looking at elevation drawings, and I understand that there's a cost to it, but that's also, you're re-developing three vacant lots. MR. TRAVER-It looks like the most straightforward way would be to revise the site plan to just reflect Building One, for now, and then come back with a modified site plan for Building Two. MRS. MOORE-As part of the project he does propose installing all that parking and stormwater for the entire site, as part of Phase 1. So that building is sort of tied to this project based on the other things that are occurring on that site. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So if he gives us a building height, elevations, and the changes, he could come back and modify that? MRS. MOORE-Yes, absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, and the drive through, can we put it in the resolution if it's, at that time he comes in with the modification, if he drops off the drive through and just gives us an elevation for the building, and then if he comes back and has to modify that, then he can modify the drive through, and then have the study then. MR. HUNSINGER-We did get an elevation. MRS. MOORE-Of the first story. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Not the two story. MRS. MOORE-1 don't have one for the two story. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-What do you think of that? MR. FADEN-So you're proposing do the two story elevation, and not do the traffic study yet? MR. MAGOWAN-You come up with a design for the story on what you kind of think on the two story, without the drive through. MR. DEEB-You can't have the drive through. The drive through generates the traffic study. You can come back and amend it later if you want to get a drive through, you can do a modified site plan. MR. MAGOWAN-And then you come back, like Dave said, and modify it and add on the drive through, then you'd have to do your study then, and you'll say, well, the building I kind of designed up with the tenant I have lined up here, I have to make these changes. MR. FADEN-I guess my question would be, so if I do a two story elevation and it changes, that's not exactly what the new tenant wants and I have to maybe change some windows, it all fits in what the Code is, do I still have to come back and get approvals for, you know, maybe changing some windows or something like that? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, call them site plan modifications. MRS. MOORE-But I don't necessarily know if that will trigger a site plan modification if the applicant proposed a compliant program. If it's just changing a few windows, that's something 10 that you would approach the Zoning Administrator saying, you know, this tenant is maintaining the requirements but he's changing the windows around at the top floor, but the scheme is similar to this first story. The exterior is the same. We're just changing some windows around. MR. DEEB-So there's a chance he might not have to come back. MR. MAGOWAN-But if you add the drive through. MR. DEEB-You'll be back. MR. MAGOWAN-You'd' have to do the study and come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Where'd that come from? ETHAN HALL MR. HALL-Well, I'm seeing something happening here, and I have just spoken to my client. MR. MAGOWAN-What did you do, sneak that one in? MR. HALL-Well, can I approach? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. We had an application before you earlier in the week that we were looking for a reference to the Zoning Board. We ran into a problem with DEC. This is on the Meadowbrook site for Great Meadow Federal Credit Union. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-They're looking at doing that building. We were looking at doing it on Meadowbrook Road. It is a two story with a drive through. You guys are proposing exactly what's up there, and I said to Laura, I had talked to my client since we've been sitting here and he is interested in talking to you. So we may be able to working something out if that's the building that we're talking about. That being said. MR. DEEB-Russ, you've got a smile on your face now, don't you? Wow. MR. HUNSINGER-Sometimes timing is everything. MR. HUNSINGER-But we're back to the traffic study. MR. DEEB-So the traffic study will be generated, which shouldn't be a problem, and everything else fits into the criteria. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Right. I mean, if the Board feels that those conditions are adequate and the applicant agrees with those conditions. I mean, at the moment that particular two story doesn't appear to be consistent with the current single story, but I think those details could potentially be worked out, and if the condition exists that it's consistent, it is two story, and those are presented to our office, if it's a significant change, then it would be back before the Board. MS. WHITE-He's already committed to saying it will be consistent with the existing building, along the lines of the two story building. MR. HUNSINGER-The architecture is a little different than you're building. MR. HALL-That's certainly something we can tweak. MR. HUNSINGER-It just goes to show when you think you've seen it all. MR. DEEB-Yes, you think you've seen it all. Wow. All right. What do we do now, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Of course the footprint has to be the same, or close to the same. MRS. MOORE-Close to the same. It's the issue with the setbacks that the Town Code now has changed so that the setbacks on side streets have to be consistent with the front setback of the building on Main Street. So this applicant proposes a canopy piece that is right on the 11 building footprint. So five feet or, I can't remember off the top of my head, but there's a certain distance from the actual front property line and he's maintained that on Pine Street. MR. DEEB-So that's a good thing. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like 11.59 feet. Yes. MRS. MOORE-The way it's worded is it has to be the same setback as the front building. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. It is. MR. FERONE-So can we move forward with these conditions? MR. FADEN-I think what we're probably going to do is if we were to come back in June with elevations and a traffic study and just roll the dice. I mean, I think that's probably the, I mean, I don't know what else to do. Because in order to market it we're going to need to say there's a drive through approved, you know. MR. MAGOWAN-And I think the dice are already warm. MR. FADEN-Yes, they are. MR. MAGOWAN-So they could roll in your favor. MR. FADEN-Yes, because if we have to come back before you then, postpone it a month, two months, then a bank may not be interested in it at that point. So we'd be able to get back in June. MRS. MOORE-There is room on the June agendas. The deadline has obviously passed. If the applicant could provide information about, you know, right now next week is the last week of the month and most applications have been reviewed and have been referred to our agencies. So I just need to know an idea of the timeframe of when the materials, updated materials could be provided. MR. TRAVER-Yes, how long does a traffic study take? MR. LANSING-1 would estimate we could have that completed in a week. MRS. MOORE-So by the 27th. I mean, that would work. That would be beneficial and that would work for our review process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-If it works. MR. HUNSINGER-So table it to the 23 d meeting, of June? MRS. MOORE-That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-And it would just be for those two items, for elevation drawings of the proposed bank building and the traffic information for the drive through. Is there anything else that we had questions on or need more information on? MR. TRAVER-I don't think so. I didn't have anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 73-2016 & SUP PZ 68-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for demolition of three main buildings, shed and some site grading to construct two new buildings in three phases. Project revised: First phase a portion of an 8,200 sq. ft. building to be 4,300 +/- sq. ft. with parking from Main St. to Pine St. Project includes merging parcels creating two parcels. First Building for food service and retail. Second/Third phase to be remainder of first building 4,200 +/- sq. ft., then Second/Third phase is a two-story building 2,700 sq. ft. foot print (5400 sq. ft. floor area) with a drive through (500 sq. ft. +/-). Project includes lighting and landscaping in phases also. Stormwater to be completed for whole site in Phase one. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial development on Main Street shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 73-2016; SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 68-2016 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled to the June 23, 2016 Planning Board meeting for elevation drawings of the proposed bank building and the traffic study generated by the drive thru. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DEEB-So you're leaving with a smile, Russ. You're leaving with a smile. SITE PLAN PZ 54-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BIG BAY LODGING, LLC (HILTON HOME2 SUITES) AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING MA OWNER(S) FRANK J. PARILLO ZONING CI LOCATION BIG BAY RD., SE CORNER OF CORINTH RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 15,095 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 60,380 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA), FOUR STORY (66 FT.) HILTON HOME2 SUITES HOTEL BUILDING WITH 89 ROOMS, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND INTER-CONNECT BETWEEN CORINTH AND BIG BAY ROADS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 AND 179-10-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MOTELS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 74-2016, SV 53- 11, & SP 54-11 TACO BELL; SP 31-12 & SP 2-13 CLEARING; 9/97 OFF PREMISES SIGN; P23-94 ZONE CHANGE. RECOMMENDED, DENIAL; SP 31-96 PRODUCE STAND; UV 35-97 DENIED MOBILE HOME WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 2.3 ACRES PORTION OF 6.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2 THROUGH 9 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Under the review, this is an application for a 15,095 sq. ft. footprint of a four story Hilton Home2 Suites hotel. It's going to add 89 rooms and 66 feet in height. The floor area is 60,380, and the reason, it's now added a Special Use Permit information based on the new zoning which is CI-18 zoning district, and I did update the resolution to include reaffirming the SEQR because the zoning has changed. The applicant has complied with the Special Use requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you change the colors? MR. BOYEA-We've been working hard on that. Okay. For the record my name's Chris Boyea. I'm with Bohler Engineering out of Albany, and here with me tonight is Bobick who is going to be the owner/operator of this Hilton hotel property that we're pretty excited to bring to the Town. This brand new four story Hilton brand hotel will be located right at the interchange of Exit 18. We have been before this Board previously a couple of times to talk about this project and we've been through the Zoning Board process as well. For those in the public, it is to be located behind the Taco Bell, and before Curtis Lumber. So it's right in that spot. I have an aerial exhibit here that just kind of shows the Curtis Lumber and the Taco Bell, Stewarts at the corner, and then the hotel would be located right here. This Board has previously reviewed this application and issued a Negative SEQR Declaration. We then went to the Zoning Board, and that's where we've been for the last two or three months. We needed a height variance and we needed a lot coverage Area Variance, and we needed a shared access drive, mainly due to this Board and Staff had recommended that we do some good planning for future traffic and limit the number of curb cuts that were to be placed on the adjacent roads. So instead of every property having a curb cut, we've done some future planning and we have planned so that everybody would use the one that's already existing here for Taco Bell, and then we would create one on 13 Big Bay, and our project, Taco Bell, and any future project in here, would be utilizing those, and it would avoid a whole bunch of curb cuts, and it's good access planning. It makes a lot of sense but it required a variance because our property didn't physically have a driveway to a road. So we're sharing it off of our site. The Zoning Board recognized that last night and thought it was good access planning and they issued our variance for that. MR. SHAFER-You said wouldn't have an access. I don't understand that. MR. BOYEA-Yes. So our lot has the minimum road frontage that's here on Big Bay, but because our driveway isn't here and it's actually shared on another lot, that requires a variance. MR. SHAFER-Is that by choice? MR. BOYEA-No. We would have probably just put a driveway right out here and been done with it, but a part of the Planning Board, the Planning Staff, we've met with them, is trying to limit everybody from having driveways and so they just said, if you can we'd like you to work together and it was fairly easy to do because there is one landowner today, Mr. Parillo. So it wasn't like we had to negotiate with a whole bunch of people. So it was achievable. We just needed to go through the process in order to do that. MR. SHAFER-Thank you. MR. BOYEA-The last piece of the conversation is the Code has changed. So that relieved most of all of our variances because we're zoning compliant with height and area, those types of things. So since the last time you saw me to tonight, with the new Code, hotel uses are now special permit in this district. So it's a fairly new process I believe. So we worked with Laura and the staff to assemble, I think it's a two page document that talks about the criteria for a special permit, does it fit harmoniously in with the neighborhood? Does it have any negative impacts on the neighborhood? Etc., and etc., and we provided the answers to that. So we're here tonight in hopes to review the special permit for the hotel, site plan review, and then we provided the new updated building elevations which are generally the same as what you saw before, but the color schemes, those are actually the same. It's just the material types that have changed a bit. So we're excited, though, I mean, we look at this and we can see it coming up out of the ground very soon. So with that, I'll turn it over to the Board to answer any questions, comments or concerns you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I want to thank you for persevering and making that access a shared access. It really was a nice plan to, like I said minimize the cuts and undisturbed. I'm happy you got your change for your height. I probably should say welcome back. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-We covered it pretty good. MR. DEEB-Yes, the site plan was done well. MR. FERONE-Have you done anything with pedestrian traffic, you know, walking over to the Taco Bell or any other food establishments on Corinth Road? MR. BOYEA-So right now the roadway is wide enough to accommodate pedestrians and vehicles between the two. However, we are not sure what Mr. Parillo is going to do on the balance of the property. We would anticipate and we hope that he is successful soon as the corridor becomes more intensely developed. In fact, that's what the zoning code was just changed to is intense development in this area. So kind of what we hope is there's some casual site down restaurants that will go in that parcel, and then at that point we can have something to connect to, overall scheme to, whether it would be internal sidewalks that would be there or whether he decides to go external, not sure, but we hope that we're the catalyst for that. Once the hotel, maybe they'll be interested in a sit down or something like that, something to support those transit folks that we hope to bring in to the Town. So right now pedestrians are just on the asphalt wide enough access that's been paved for both vehicular and pedestrians. MR. FERONE-That'll be striped so that there's a border for folks to walk on? MR. BOYEA-It could be, if that's something that the Board was interested in, it could be. 4, :a, rrmrrmr�o n;rli:r ii Il:°IIla r°r° i rIl 3r:ra ii rwi MR. DEEB-Well, I think it's important you have delineation so traffic could be seen and to distinguish between the two. MR. BOYEA-Or signage for shared access, you know, shared roadway. That would be something that we could put up. Yes. MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. SHAFER-With regard to the additional properties, how would access be given to those additional properties? MR. BOYEA-Yes, so that's exactly what took us a couple of months to work out. So those properties would get access from the one shared roadway that we're going to construct. So there is currently a driveway next to Taco Bell. That remains, and now we, as part of our project, are going to build a driveway that connects to Big Bay. All other connections are anticipated to be internal. So no more curb cuts onto Big Bay or Corinth Road. MR. SHAFER-So all the traffic from those additional properties would go to that new road? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. SHAFER-And come out between the signal at Big Bay and the interstate? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. SHAFER-Have you talked to DOT about that? MR. BOYEA-Yes. We're fortunate enough to have been the engineering firm that designed Taco Bell and permitted that as well. So this was thought about back when Taco Bell went in, and so if you look at the road here, it's not by chance, but this was DOT's wisdom. So here's a traffic light here at the interstate off ramps and on ramps, and here's a traffic light here. Like I said, it's not by chance that we're smack dab in the middle of those, and that's where DOT wanted that access to be at that time. MR. SHAFER-Do you envision that being signalized at some point? MR. BOYEA-No. And the reason for that is because we have the option to get to a signal here. So people could sit here for five hours if they wanted to, but you do it once and then they're going to realize that they can come over here and get the signal and get away. So there was a lot of thought in these developments as they developed. MR. HUNSINGER-So were those two lights signaled so that there is a pause that would allow? MR. BOYEA-No. MR. MAGOWAN-1 doubt it. That could come with. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they could be re-programmed. MR. MAGOWAN-They could be re-programmed. MR. DEEB-As needed. MR. BOYEA-Yes, so there's probably flexibility there. MR. HUNSINGER-Was that identified in the traffic study? MRS. MOORE-The coordination? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, of those two lights? MRS. MOORE-1 don't recall reading that. MR. DEEB-Yes, I don't, either. MR. HUNSINGER-So there were some Staff comments and some questions that we had from the previous meeting. One of them is on the lighting. Have you taken a second look at the lighting? 15 MR. BOYEA-To make sure that the lighting is adequate. So we had talked about all those Staff comments at the last meeting, and so what we had left last meeting understanding is that our lighting is acceptable because we had talked through it about how when you're off the interstate like this and you're going to have to drive back to this, we want it to be well illuminated at the front and at the canopy, and that's where we have the hotter light spots that are there, and that we want people to, entering a Hilton product, to feel safe and secure, and we, any light spillage has been addressed. We have sharp cut off light fixtures at the property line so we don't believe that there's any impact or variances or requests for spillover or anything of that nature. It's just that think that there was a question about the intensity of the light that was around our porte cochere and those types of things that are there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It looks like the highest reading is 45, and then, you know, within 25, 30 feet you have readings of 1.1. So that's quite a range. MR. BOYEA-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So that was really the concern more than anything is that it's really bright under the porte cochere. It was my comment. I wasn't concerned about the rest of the parking area or anything. It's really just underneath that. I'd asked if you could take a second look at that and see if you could. MR. BOYEA-If you feel like we should tone it down, I think we have some flexibility there. We have talked about it and from a security and brand presence, they want it bright underneath the porte cochre to welcome the travelers different hours of the night and have a safe secure feeling there. However, maybe, we don't want to do something that's not in keeping with what the Town wants. Could we reduce it a little bit? I think we have some flexibility there. We could probably say let's cut it down to 30. We still want it bright. When we asked it was not a mistake. It was something that is designed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, when you look at the lighting plan it goes, I was kind of looking on a diagonal, but two readings right next to each other is 35.5 and it drops off to 1.7. Immediately. I don't know how far apart these numbers are. That's quite a change. Does anyone else have the same concerns? MR. MAGOWAN-The way I look at it it's underneath. It's underneath and I understand that leaving the light on for people that come into the brightness, and it is, you know, sitting back from the road. It spills off quite quickly, but it's concentrated underneath, you know, a roof structure. So that's probably why it drops off so quickly, lower and more intense. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we don't typically see readings that high underneath gas canopies. So, I mean, that was kind of the comparison that I was thinking of. You talk about readings of 20 under gas canopies. Here we are at 45. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but you also have more lights around the gas stations that kind of attract the eye from the road more and different, you know, different colors. If you can drop it down a pinch, that would, but for, you know, to me, I don't, I know the lights at Curtis and everything else going on, it doesn't bother me because it drops off so quickly. It's just bright on the entrance doors. MS. WHITE-Are lighting fixture cut sheets something that will be included? MR. BOYEA-Actually I think they were provided. We handed them out at the other meeting, I believe. It was at the same time we did the Holiday Inn across the street. MR. TRAVER-As we sit here this is 55 foot candles. I don't know about lumens. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't know you could get an app for your phone. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. BOYEA-I thought you found a spot on the plan. I didn't even see you with your phone. MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, did you not receive the cut sheets? MRS. MOORE-I do have cut sheets. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 1('.:r MRS. MOORE-1 think what I was wondering about was the cut sheets, sometimes there's the signage has different lighting fixtures around it than say the canopy lighting or the wall lighting. So it may have been, what I was looking for is there was is that there is lighting on the signage or whether it's internally lit. MR. BOYEA-The answer to that is internal. MR. TRAVER-The only other option I have on a light reading is lux. It says 595 lux as we sit here. MR. HUNSINGER-That helps. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, lux you usually see on sodium bulbs. Chris, can I ask you a question, too? How can you pinpoint that rate down to a 45.2? MR. BOYEA-We can't. It's a lighting program. So it's mathematically generated. When they're in the field they might be 45.2 the first day, but different lens and it dulls a little bit. MR. MAGOWAN-And as it gets older it gets lower. MR. BOYEA-Yes, I don't know as much about LED. I think they hold their color and brightness fairly well, but the lenses will dull a little bit. I guess you could say it's a science to it. So how do I get to .2? That's just a lighting program that you insert a light fixture and then it'll, and the height off the ground, and that it'll give you that reading. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, also, too, what's around it to absorb everything, too. Like I said, so I just know you can put anything you want on paper, but I know there was a program to it, but like I said, you know, you have some plantings up against the building, and depending on your, say you do a dark colored mulch, you know, that's going to absorb some of that. So it was just a question while we were waiting for coming up with the lumens. It's not working? MR. TRAVER-1 don't know have lumens. I have foot candles and I have lux. That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments, concerns from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments, concerns before we consider SEAR? MRS. MOORE-You've already. MR. HUNSINGER-We've already done SEAR. MR. DEEB-Do we have to reaffirm it? MRS. MOORE-In the information I handed out, it identifies that you're reaffirming the SEAR, and simply because there's been Code changes and the revised information that the applicant has submitted is consistent and compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no questions, comments or concerns, would anyone like to put forward a motion? We do have a draft prepared by Staff. MR. FERONE-Two added items. Item I would be Taco Bell to provide striping on the roadway, segregating pedestrian and vehicle traffic. MR. TRAVER-And we've got a Special Use Permit. 17 MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think maybe you're looking at the last draft. MR. FERONE-1 must be looking at the old one, then. Yes, that's what I thought I had. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, that was passed out with the SEAR. MRS. MOORE-The one in the staples. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you passed the new one out this evening. MRS. MOORE-1 passed the new one out tonight. MR. FERONE-Okay. So we go through L. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FERONE-So that would be Item M then for the stripe and segregating vehicle traffic. MR. MAGOWAN-With sign stating? MR. FERONE-What's that? MR. MAGOWAN-We asked for a sign stating a shared roadway. MR. FERONE-Striping, and on lighting the walkway? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'd still like to see them reduce the lumens under the porte cochere. Because I don't think it's compliant the way it is. MR. FERONE-All right. So Item N would be to adjust the intensity of the lighting to be compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that too vague? MRS. MOORE-You want it less than 45. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MRS. MOORE-1 would be that specific. I would say less than 45. MR. FERONE-And for the lighting to be less than 45. MR. HUNSINGER-You could probably reduce the wattage of the fixtures, right? MR. TRAVER-You have the LED's. You can reduce the number of fixtures. Either they're on or they're off. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-The traffic analysis and the developer's agreement, do you remember talking about that? Outlining the timing and the cost of contributions and installation? MR. DEEB-It's J. MR. MAGOWAN-You can sit down with the Town, three hotels and work that out. You remember that? MR. BOYEA-Yes, we did agree to a fair share of the contribution for this project. It was going to be in coordination with our landowner Frank, Mr. Parillo. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BOYEA-1 do have some questions, though, on that motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. BOYEA-One I've got the pedestrian stripe and sign, and then the second one was what was the lumen? 18 MR. FERONE-The lumen was less than 45. MR. BOYEA-Is that what it was? MR. FERONE-Do we want to specify exactly? MR. DEEB-We can go 44.9. I mean, what is compliant? What is our Code compliance on that? MR. BOYEA-1 can make it work. Less than 45 was the lumen? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it shows 45 now. MR. DEEB-That's pretty vague. I'm not real happy with less than 45. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I wish we could be a little more, I think if we say Code compliant that's too vague, too. MR. BOYEA-Can you just pick a number? Because I can make it work. What we were talking about before, I don't want to reduce it too much, but if it's 40, 38 maybe, you know, if we could pick a number to not exceed. MR. TRAVER-How about no more than 40. MR. BOYEA-Under the porte cochre, then we can design it. It'll change fixture count or placement, but, I mean, we can make that work. MRS. MOORE-So I have, I was going to give you some examples. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MRS. MOORE-Commercial parking lot is 2.5, building entrances is 5. So it's significantly less than 40. Automobile lots go to 20. Gas station pump island is 10. Loading or unloading areas goes to 20. So if we consider that canopy a loading or unloading area, then that would be at 20. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why it jumped out at me because I knew it was significantly greater than. MRS. MOORE-It has nothing to do with Main Street. MR. TRAVER-There's no possibility that it's a decimal error is it, that it's 4.5 not 45? MRS. MOORE-It says horizontal lumens, foot candles. MR. HUNSINGER-But the Code talks about an average, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So if you could get the average under the porte cochre to the Code, or even a little above, because right now. MR. BOYEA-So they're saying 20. MR. HUNSINGER-But your average currently might be. MS. WHITE-Because it goes right down to 1.7, 1 think you said. MR. BOYEA-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know. It's a little too busy to read some of the smaller numbers, but. MRS. MOORE-It is up to the Planning Board. They can vary those standards, making them more or less restrictive. MR. DEEB-I'm fine with 40 or less. 19 MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you do have numbers in the 20's. 45.8 was just the highest number. MS. WHITE-So we're looking for the average under the porte cochere to be less than 40? Is it the average you're looking to be under 40 or the highest point under 40? MR. HUNSINGER-It was the highest point that caught my attention. There's a bunch of 30's. There's a bunch of 20's. I mean, if I had to make a wild guess, I would say the average right now was in the low 30's. MR. FERONE-I think the applicant said 38 is something they could live with. Is that still too high for you? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if that's the average, that would be too high. I think the average is probably less than that right now. MR. DEEB-The problem is a hotel is a different use. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, we're talking a 26 by 28 foot area. So we're just talking about underneath the porch. Can you get it down under 40? MR. BOYEA-Absolutely, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, I'm happy with that. MR. DEEB-I'm happy with that, too. A hotel is different. You've got to have good lighting as they're coming in. MR. HUNSINGER-So the highest reading. MR. DEEB-Yes, that would be fine with me. MR. MAGOWAN-But that's just under a 26 by 28 foot almost square. The highest reading. If you can work with that, that would be great. MRS. MOORE-I just want to confirm your wording that you're going to use. MR. HUNSINGER-So if I just may, though, be the devil's advocate. I'm not saying you would do this, but if, based on I guess you could count the fixtures. It looks like there might be 24 fixtures underneath the canopy. So if we say reduce the highest reading to under 40, they could just reduce one fixture, conceivably, and be under 40. MR. TRAVER-It would be easy to plug it in to the computer program. It would tell you. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's not really reducing the whole, underneath the canopy. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-It's reducing the fixture. MR. TRAVER-Potentially, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So that's maybe the risk we're running with that suggestion. MR. BOYEA-And the last piece I just wanted to, because the other condition was striping, and it was worded about a Taco Bell and signage that we could put up. I just want to make it clear that unfortunately we can't do anything on Taco Bell's piece, but what we can do is we can, I just want to be more clear on this so that when it comes time to get a CO and everything else that we have. Taco Bell has a driveway here into there's. We can stripe and sign a pedestrian walkway from our facility to their entrance, and that's what I understood that to be. I can't go any further than that, but that's to get people safely from one property to another. MR. MAGOWAN-That's fine. MR. BOYEA-So we'll stripe and sign that along the Taco Bell side so that they don't have to cross the traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 1.2 " ',B MS. GAGLIARDI-I'm sorry, but there's been a lot of discussion, if you could maybe just do the motion over again. MR. FERONE-Okay. We're going to modify the resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 54-2016 SUP PZ 143-2016 BIG BAY LODGING, 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 to construct a 15,095 sq. ft. (footprint), 60,380 sq. ft. (floor area), four story (66 ft.), Hilton Home2 Suites hotel building with 89 rooms, associated parking and inter-connect between Corinth and Big Bay Roads. Project includes site work for stormwater management and connection to municipal water and sewer. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-10-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, motels shall be subject to Site Plan and Special Use Permit 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 adopted on 3/22/2016 and reaffirmed on 5/19/2016 to include revisions as required by the recent Town Code updates ie Special Use Permit. The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/22/2016, and continued the public hearing to 5/19/2015, 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 5/19/2016; 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 54-2016 BIG BAY LODGING, LLC; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) Traffic analysis —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. 1) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans m) Applicant to provide striping to segregate pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the road to the Taco Bell driveway, and signage. n) Lighting intensity will be adjusted with the highest reading to be under 40 lumens for under the canopy. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So you're specifically identifying the canopy. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Right now that way it's worded it sounds like the whole site. So I would just clarify that it's the canopy only. MR. FERONE-So you want to specify canopy? MRS. MOORE-1 would prefer that you did, yes. MR. FERONE-Okay. Modification, Item N, lighting intensity to be adjusted for the highest reading to be under 40 lumens for under the canopy. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BOYEA-Thank you so much. 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. 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 .31 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-35 SECTION 179-6- 060 MR. HUNSINGER-As I mentioned earlier, this is going to be tabled to an August meeting. Does it matter which meeting in August, Laura? MRS. MOORE-You're going to table it to the second meeting because it has to complete the Zoning Board first. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So that would be August 23,d. If anyone would like to make that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 127-2016 FRANK & KATHI MILLER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 127-2016 FRANK & KATHI MILLER, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled to the August 23, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And we will hold the public hearing open until that date as well. 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. 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-Okay. This applicant proposes a 936 square foot detached garage with two bays and a workshop. They did receive their variance to have a second garage. It's before the Planning Board because it ours within 50 feet of 15% slopes. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, on behalf of Anthony Muscatello. I'll be relatively brief, to answer some questions that came up the other night. The proposed garage will not be heated, will not have water. It will not be used for any commercial purposes, and it's just under 16 feet in height. Before you I've added a couple of photos. The one to your left is the existing garage underneath, in the basement level of the house, and you can see it's very limited in height. It's a little hard to see the doors, but you can see that the pickup truck won't fit in it due to height reasons. The picture on the right is the site of the proposed garage. It's largely in an already disturbed area. The garage will be tucked into that slope. We're here because of the proximity to a greater than 15% slope, which is beyond the grassed area that you see, and fortunately we're not, the way the garage is sited, we're not going to impact that 15% slope at all because we're on the other side of the top of that slope and we've got a gradual slope in the other direction. So if you went in there and looked where a logical place to build a garage would be, I dare say that 95% of the people that looked at it would come to the conclusion that this location is a logical place for a garage. I did make a comment the other night that it will not be visible from the road, and it will likely be partially visible from the road. I looked at it again today, depending on foliage. It was partially screened by a bank but it will be somewhat visible. It complies with all setbacks. It's almost an eight acre parcel, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Tom, who would build a garage that low? Do you think it was dirt and they poured concrete or something? MR. HUTCHINS-Unique architecture. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a low profile garage. MR. HUTCHINS-Obviously not someone with a pickup truck. ',23 MR. MAGOWAN-That's right. When they built it they had Yugo's back then. No, I don't have any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments, but I did receive a phone call from a neighbor in the area, and again, the same thing that occurred last night. The question was is it going to be a residential usage, and I confirmed with the neighbor by phone call that the applicant is proposing only a residential use and she was concerned that it would have a commercial use to it. MR. HUTCHINS-And the applicant was at the Zoning Board last night and clearly went on record that it is a residential use. MR. HUNSINGER-We will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This was a Type II SEAR. I wanted to make sure. I figured it was, but I wanted to make sure. So no SEQR review is necessary, and unless there's anything else from the Board. Just to ask the question. The elevations show two types of siding. Did the applicant decide on what type of siding they're going to use? MR. HUTCHINS-I believe it's a horizontal double side, I believe, but I'm not entirely sure, and I would comment that the building is mirrored from the Curtis garage. They show the workshop as you're looking at it on the left side, but it will be on the right side. His intent was per the plans but when we got it and looked at it it just made a lot more sense to put that up front. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it gives you more room to back up. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve this? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 128-2016 ANTHONY MUSCATELLO 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 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. 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 5/19/2016 and continued the public hearing to 5/19/2016, 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 5/19/2016; 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 128-2016 ANTHONY MUSCATELLO; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1)Waivers request granted/denjed: 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 19th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Are there any waivers requested? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. DEEB-No waivers requested. MS. WHITE-Not from not having the existing garage be turned into? MR. TRAVER-The second garage. MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board did ask that and the applicant indicated that it was going to be still used for. They want to keep the doors on it, but it's used for tractors and things like that, equipment. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So it still would remain as a garage, and I think that was the intent of the applicant, but absolutely the Board can ask that. The Zoning Board asked that same question last night. MR. HUTCHINS-But that's not a waiver. I talked to him at the very beginning and I said you could avoid this process if we just took out the garage doors in the basement and put different doors, but he really wants the doors, but I don't believe it's a waiver because we specifically got the waiver for the second garage. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. 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. 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-We will be tabling this application to September. Does it matter which meeting? MRS. MOORE-It should be, well, this is for the public hearing piece. So it's the second meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-The 27th .215 MR. DEEB-Something may change with that. MS. WHITE-But until that point, we still have to table it. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn't we already table it? MRS. MOORE-You tabled it through the Zoning Board recommendation, to that first meeting for the recommendation, and then this will just table the public hearing until the second meeting. It's a tough, I mean, it's just a procedural thing, simply because it's already been through this Board for the Planning Board recommendation. We didn't review it. So we tabled the Planning Board recommendation. It was advertised for a public hearing. So it's a procedural item. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So we're tabling it until the 27th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just the public hearing. MR. MAGOWAN-So in the resolution you want to say we tabled it to the 27th just for the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SP PZ 131-2016 & FWW PZ 132-2016 GREAT MEADOW FED. CR. UN. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for construction of 1,915 sq. ft. new commercial building for a branch office / credit union and associated site work. Building to also have a 24 ft. by 24 sq. ft. upstairs office area. 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN PZ 131-2016 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT PZ 132-2016 GREAT MEADOW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION , Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Tabled to the September 27, 2016 Planning Board meeting, for a public review. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 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 5,040 square foot addition. This is to an existing office structure, the Gross Electric office facility, multiple buildings, come to 69,095 square feet, and the applicant received a variance last evening from the Zoning Board for the side setback. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall principle in Rucinski Hall Architecture. I'm here tonight representing Joe Gross for the office addition at 27 Silver Circle. We did receive the Area Variance last night for the side yard setback, and Joe is just anticipating trying to bring his people back up here from Albany once we get the office built so he can stop renting space in Albany and keep them under one roof and bring the people back home. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we went over it pretty good there the other night. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Type 11 SEAR? MRS. MOORE-No, you did not complete SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So last, the May 19th Staff Notes says it's an Unlisted but the agenda says Type 11. MRS. MOORE-It's an Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say. Type 11 is only for residential. We do have a draft SEQR resolution. Are there any environmental concerns? Wait a minute, before we do that we have to do a public hearing, even though there's nobody here. Were there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR action. There is a draft resolution in our package. Are there any environmental concerns that any Board member has that we did not discuss? MR. TRAVER-1 have none. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If anyone would like to make the SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP PZ 140-2016 JOSEPH P. GROSS The applicant proposes construction of a two-story 5,040 sq. ft. addition to the existing 69,095 sq. ft. Gross Electric Office building. Existing buildings and site conditions to remain with no changes. Pursuant to 179-3-040; 179-9-120, 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; 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 140-2016 JOSEPH P. GROSS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone; ',27 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 19th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And we do have a draft resolution from Staff, and the applicant did request waivers for lighting, signage, topography, landscaping, land use, traffic, commercial alterations, and construction details. Are there any concerns from any Board members about any of the waivers requested? MR. TRAVER-None. MR. MAGOWAN-No, he does a nice job. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and there is a draft resolution prepared by Staff if anyone would like to move it. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 140-2016 JOSEPH P. GROSS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for construction of a two-story 5,040 sq. ft. addition to the existing 69, 095 sq. ft. Gross Electric Office building. Existing buildings and site conditions to remain with no changes. Pursuant to 179-3-040; 179-9-120, 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 5/19/2016, and continued the public hearing to 5/19/2016, 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 5/19/2016; 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 140-2016 JOSEPH P. GROSS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; "' c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. f) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; g) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; h) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; i) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. j) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I'd also just like to thank you for the opportunity with Faden's project. As I was sitting in the audience and going through that, I didn't mean to overstep any bounds, but I could see a logical connection here with our project for Great Meadow Federal Credit Union. Our big delay is with DEC because that site has a wetland that runs immediately behind Midas, and even though every other property around it has built right up to and into the wetland, DEC for some reason has some big hang up about developing that lot. MR. TRAVER-Faden's a better location anyway. MR. HALL-And ultimately this may work out for both of us. As you were discussing the part with him I'm over here feverishly texting my client, I may have a home for you. MR. DEEB-I really hope it works out because it would be a first. It would work for everybody. MR. HALL-That's why I asked the Board for elevations when you were specifically talking about elevations. I said, wait a minute, I have a bank with two stories and a drive through. I can show you what it looks like. So I do appreciate your working with us on that and I'm hopeful that it comes to fruition. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional business, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 have no additional business. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I had commented at the beginning of the meeting, I will not be here for the June 21St meeting. I didn't think Steve would, but now you think you will be? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, with the prospect of neither of us being here, I'll make a special effort. I'll be out on the lake. So I may not be in a shirt in tie, but I'll be shaved and showered. I will not be here on the 23 d. That one I cannot get out of. `19 MR. DEEB-I don't think I'll be here the 21 St MR. HUNSINGER-The 21St. Okay. MR. DEEB-Probably the second one also. I'm not sure. It depends on how things go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it sounds like we could use both alternates for both meetings. All right. Any other business to come before the Board? MR. FERONE-Just as a backup, what is the protocol if you are not here and for some reason Steve could not make it? MR. HUNSINGER-So Laura and I were talking about that, and my suggestion was to bring it up now so that we could appoint a temporary Chairman for the next meeting. Laura believes that under Roberts Rules of Order, it's from the members that are present at the meeting to elect a temporary Chair, which I think sounds more feasible. MR. TRAVER-Yes, actually in my opinion, my opinion would be that would only happen if you did not appoint someone at this meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And that's just my understanding, but, you know, we'll look into it. MR. FERONE-Again, you don't know. Something might occur that you couldn't make it. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely, and I should be able to let, at least I should be able to let Staff know if for some reason that were to happen, but I'm not, in thinking about it, I wasn't concerned because I just assumed that Chris would be here, but with both of us being gone, I should be able to accommodate that. I think that is a reasonable accommodation. So I will make it happen somehow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Thanks, Steve. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 19, 2016, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 30