Loading...
11-15-2016 IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/:01 5) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2016 INDEX Site Plan No. 71-2014 David Hartman 1. One Year Extension Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Site Plan PZ 248-2016 Lake George RV Park 2. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-9.1 Site Plan PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 7. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-48, 49, 54, 55, 60 Site Plan PZ 243-2016 Queensbury Storage, LLC 18. Special Use Permit PZ 242-2016 Tax Map No. 301.8-1-18/301.8-1-17 Discussion — PZ 245-2016 DDDJ Enterprises 25. Discussion Item Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.12, 308.12-1-7.13, 308.12-1-7.2 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. I IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD GEORGE FERONE BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, November 15, 2016. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have public hearings scheduled for most of the items. I'd like to remind people to silence their phones so they don't disrupt the meeting. Last meeting mine disrupted everybody. So it will be a while before I live that down. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from September 20th, 2016. If anyone would like to make a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 20, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2016, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 71-2014 DAVID HARTMAN, EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR TO NOVEMBER 2017 MR. HUNSINGER-He has requested an extension for one year to November 2017. Any additional information, Laura? MRS. MOORE-He provided a letter that explained that he's just hired an architect or a person to draw up his plans and so they just met and are going over those plan sets and he just wants a little more time to get that done. MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns, comments from the Board? Would anyone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP 71-2014 DAVID HARTMAN MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 71-2014 DAVID HARTMAN. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y I/15/k'H)1 5) Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-If it pleases the Board, the applicant for Legacy Land Holdings has requested they go last. If there's any objections from the Board. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, they are here. MR. HUNSINGER-They are here. MRS. MOORE-So if they can go second. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I got confused. MRS. MOORE-I know. I did not expect. MR. HUNSINGER-We've got this one loaded. So we're going to do this one first. MRS. MOORE-If we could. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. So we will go out of order a little bit. We will listen to the Lake George RV Park first. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN PZ 248-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LAKE GEORGE RV PARK AGENT(S) CLA SITE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT CONTACT: DAVE KING ZONING RC LOCATION 74 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING POOL AREA. THIS INCLUDES TWO NEW BUILDINGS: #1) 1,269 SQ. FT. WITH MECHANICAL LOWER LEVEL AND PAVILION MAIN LEVEL; #2) 1,764 SQ. FT. MAIN LEVEL BATHROOMS AND LOWER LEVEL MECHANICAL. NEW POOL AREA ELEMENTS — ZERO ENTRY POOL, SPLASH PAD AND WARMING TUBS. ALSO, A NEW 221 SQ. FT. ENTRYWAY AT THE EXISTING INDOOR POOL AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, POOL IMPROVEMENTS WITH ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 56-14 3,600 SF MAINT. BLDG.; SP 26-13 1,728 SF PAVILION/DOG WASH/DOG PARK; 2015-025 1,770 SF STORAGE BLDG.; 2014-244 REPLACEMENT SIGN WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2016 LOT SIZE 123.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-9.1 SECTION 179- 3-040 SCOTT MILLER & PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to alter the existing pool area. This includes two new buildings. One building will be 1,269 square feet with mechanical lower level and the upper level is pavilion. The second building is 1,764 square feet. The main level will be bathrooms and a sitting area and the lower level is mechanical. The new pool area elements include a zero entry pool, splash pad and warming tubs. In addition there's an existing structure there that houses the indoor pool area. This includes a 221 square foot entryway and then exterior renovations to that particular building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Scott Miller representing the CLA Site. MR. LOYOLA-Peter Loyola, CLA Site. DAVE KING MR. KING-And Dave King, President of Lake George RV. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. 3 IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/':X)1 5) MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, Planning Board members, we're here today to seek Site Plan approval for proposed renovations to the east side pool area in the Lake George RV Park. We currently have the existing conditions. Just to give you some context, I know that there has been some folks out visiting the site, and some of you guys are probably quite familiar with it. Laura pretty much covered the majority of the things that I was going to mention, but I'll add a few more. Architectural drawings were submitted and the colors are going to be very similar to the dog park that was previously in front of the Board a couple of years ago. So the architectural style is going to remain the same. Regarding stormwater, we did receive a waiver from the New York State DEC. We do not have to submit a SWPPP Permit and get coverage under the general permit. We are disturbing 1.4 acres, but because the site's self-contained and we're going to continue to retain the stormwater on the site, they gave us the waiver. So we didn't have to go through that process. As far as utilities, the existing water wells will serve the project. We are proposing a new septic system to handle the bathroom facilities, and these are going a little slow. I apologize, but that should be up in a minute, but there is a new septic system being proposed and that will be approved and reviewed by the Department of Health. That will handle the bathroom in Mechanical Building Number Two, which is the building just south of the proposed pool. There are two drywells that handle the backwash. Is there a laser on this? MRS. MOORE-There is, if you hit the center button. MR. MILLER-Perfect. Sorry, folks. Mechanical Building Number Two, the septic system that serves that building is located just to the south, are two drywells that are located across the access drive that will serve for the pool backwash, to infiltration that into the surrounding soils. The only piece of equipment in the building that needs to utilize that as well is the utility sink, and that'll drain into that as well. There will be a new electrical line brought in from 149 to service the project. Currently the RV Park is set up with one phase electric, but because of the equipment, they'll need three phase. So there'll be a line that's brought in from the main road. The site will be completely handicap accessible. There'll be a ramp coming up here to this facility. We aren't proposing any new curb cuts. The existing access drive to the RV Park will continue to be utilized and one of the things we wanted to stress, these improvements will not be open to the general public. It'll just be for the use of the patrons of the RV Park. So you won't see any increased traffic coming in and out of, on and off of Route 149 for the use of this. This'll be strictly for the use of the people that are staying at the camp, and just a couple of more things to add and then we can open it up to questions. We are proposing lighting for the project, and there's two levels of lighting that we're looking at doing. The Department of Health requires that the pool be illuminated to 30 foot candles if the pool will be open after dark. We're proposing seven light fixtures around the perimeter here. They're spotlights. They are pole mounted and they are mounted at a height of 35 feet. The reason they're mounted at that height was to get them up in the air and to get them angled down to the pool so we avoid any light trespassing, you know, out of the property and definitely you didn't want to have any light trespassing along Route 149. The second level of lighting will be a series of light fixtures around the pool, mounted at a seven foot height, and this is more pedestrian lighting to illuminate the area to approximately one foot candle, a little bit less around the perimeters, and this'll just be used for ambient lighting. Dave does plan on keeping this open in the evening for people using the pavilion. There's a fire pit and there's also a fireplace within the pavilion area as well. So there is a natural buffer of planting along Route 149. There's also some additional planting internal to the site that's going to remain, and we are proposing a pretty robust planting plan around the perimeter to help mitigate any potential, you know, visual impacts that may occur from the project. I think that's about it. Laura covered everything else. If there's any additional questions, we'll be happy to answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-Yes. At 35 feet, what assurance do we have that there isn't going to be spillage when those lights hit that height? MR. MILLER-We did supply a lighting plan in our package and we had the light company run a foot candle model, and I can try to get to it. It might take a little bit, but let's try to fast forward it. The plan has the foot candle levels listed on the drawing, and you can see that around the perimeter it's down to zero. So the model shows that we won't have any light trespassing beyond the, pretty much the project area, and then certainly not beyond the bounds of the Lake George RV Park. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. FERONE-Are the plans for this pool area to be accessible 24/7 during the season of the RV Park or does it close at a certain hour? IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. MILLER-Yes. Typical operation will be from dawn to dusk, and then the pool closes in the evening. The reason for the overhead lighting is towards the end of the summer when it starts to get dark a little bit earlier there may be times where Dave wants to keep the pool open a little bit later and the other reason for the spotlights, too, is maintenance. If there's any maintenance that needs to be done, they can turn those lights on as well if it has to be done in the evening. MR. KING-Yes. Sometimes we have to do our maintenance after it gets dark on the decks and so forth because we don't want to interrupt the guest use hours, but I would imagine those lights would be used very infrequently, maybe during Indian summers, you know, late September, early October. We close mid-October typically. Those would probably be the times when the outdoor temperatures warrant swimming activity and therefore we'd want more use after dark, but the entire operating season it would probably be less than probably two or three weeks. MR. FORD-So night after night they're not going to be on. MR. KING-Hardly ever. In the summertime, you know, we'll be closing at 9:30, once it gets dark. MR. TRAVER-So they won't be on a sensor or on a timer? MR. KING-Only if we had a period, like I say, we could user timers if we need from Labor Day to Columbus day if we were using it between those hours, but most likely they would be manually operated just when needed, because the ambient lighting, that other layer of lighting, that will be on timers and on all the time just, you know, from opening to closing. MR. DEEB-Is the pool heated? MR. KING-All the pools will be heated, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've got to ask you this just because I read the diagram for a change. The guy that owns the property next to you, Sullivan. MR. KING-On the Glen Lake side? Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. Is that Sully from Schenectady that we? MR. KING-No, I don't think it is, no. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I knew he was a friend of your dad's. MR. KING-No, this fellow, I don't know a lot of his history, but he resides down in Florida most of the year. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-I noticed the kid's playground. The spray area and things. That's pretty nice. So obviously you have to have your lifeguards there, especially when you've got the kids there. So I'm sure you're all set with that. MR. KING-We'll be meeting all of the New York State Department requirements for supervision in that area. Yes. MR. FORD-It looks like a natural and quality extension of an already superb facility in our community. MR. KING-Trying to stay ahead of the expectations. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's one of the best looking parks I've ever seen. MR. KING-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, 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? I don't see any hands. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 5 IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/':X)1 5) MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-No written comments. Well, I will open the public hearing, and if there are no comments, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted SEAR. Were there any questions, comments or concerns on the SEQR form that was submitted? If not, would anyone like to put forward a resolution? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 248-2016 LAKE GEORGE RV PARK The applicant proposes alterations to an existing pool area. This includes two new buildings: #1) 1,269 sq. ft. with mechanical lower level and pavilion main level; #2) 1,764 sq. ft. main level bathrooms and lower level mechanical. New pool area elements — zero entry pool, splash pad and warming tubs. Also, a new 221 sq. ft. entryway at the existing indoor pool area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, pool improvements with accessory buildings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short/ EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 248-2016 LAKE GEORGE RV PARK, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part 11 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. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant did request waivers from traffic, commercial alterations and construction details. Were there any issues with any of the waivers requested? Any other questions or comments from the Board? Are you ready? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 248-2016 LAKE GEORGE RV PARK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for alterations to an existing pool area. This includes two new buildings: #1) 1,269 sq. ft. with mechanical lower level and pavilion main level; #2) 1,764 sq. ft. main level bathrooms and lower level mechanical. New pool area elements — zero entry pool, splash pad and warming tubs. Also, a new 221 sq. ft. entryway at the existing indoor pool area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, pool improvements with accessory buildings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 6 IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/':X)1 5) 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 11/15/2016 and continued the public hearing to 11/15/2016, 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 11/15/2016; 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 248-2016 LAKE GEORGE RV PARK, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. 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 Motion was seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y I/15/k'H)1 5) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. KING-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Dave, do we get to look at it when it's done? MR. KING-Absolutely. You're always welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Going back to our agenda, we'll return to tabled items. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O LOCATION BAYBRIDGE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A PARTIAL 3 STORY, 27 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR PARKING, STORMWATER CONTROL AND LANDSCAPING. PROJECT INVOLVES LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS FOR LOTS 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14. REVISED: A PORTION OF THE EXISTING PATHWAY IS TO BE INCREASED IN WIDTH AND TO BE PAVED WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE STREAM FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SENIOR HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AND FILL OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF A STREAM SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PROJECT INCLUDES SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS FOR CURRENT SITE PLAN AND SP 4- 2011. CROSS REFERENCE BAYBRIDGE SUBDIVISION SUB 15-2006, SP 4-2011, SP 4- 2008 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2016 SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS LOT SIZE .84 ACRE; .61 ACRE; .89 ACRE; .70 ACRE; 1.23 ACRE. PORTION OF SOME LOTS TO BE MERGED - 3.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-48, 49, 54, 55, 60 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-6-050 TOM JARRETT & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This application was tabled at last month's meeting because we identified a safety issue with the Fire Marshal and the Building and Codes Director with the access and the width of the access drive. What happened was it triggered an additional review with hard surfacing within so many feet of the wetland, and so now we're back before the Board. The applicant does propose a partial three story. This is a 27 unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and landscaping. In addition, this project is a subdivision modification, and I've included a chart in the Staff Notes. I can go through that, but if you've read that, that should be part of the resolution. That's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. I'm Michael Borgos for the applicant. I'm also here with Tom Jarrett who's the engineer for the project, and Dan Valente on behalf of Legacy Land Holdings. We have a very highly engineered project for you, and when I say that, I mean that it was well thought out. This has been something that you've seen before. You've seen Dan and Tom come before you and present for various projects over the years, certainly going back to 2008 when we did the Fairfield Professional Park, and then Cottage Hill came later and we had all of our neighbors from Baybridge each of those times. So we've gotten to build a relationship with them, and we have tried very hard to address the concerns not only of the neighbors, but also of the Town. In these last few years, the Town Board has changed the setback from Bay Road that prohibits residential occupation to 600 feet. That just came through recently. So this plan was formulated to accommodate that, and that's why we have so many different things going on with the application tonight. If you look at the overview of the project on your coversheet, you'll see the layout of the Fairfield Professional Park as its original design. The 600 foot line from Bay Road was established and we looked very hard to see what the density calculations would reveal for putting in senior housing beyond that 600 foot mark, and in doing so, you'll see that we put together a plan that requests modification of those lot lines to flex a little bit with that original design which was done with I think a 300 foot line at the original time. We are taking Lots One, Two, Three, Seven, Eight, Nine, Thirteen and Fourteen and moving that line a little bit, but when you understand it's premised off that 600 foot setback from the road, I think it 8 IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) makes perfect sense as to what's going on. The structure that's been designed can be located in the northwestern quadrant of Professional Park, and will beyond those principle lots, One, Two. MR. JARRETT-The Buildings are One, Two, Seven and Eight. MR. BORGOS-Laura, do you have that coversheet available to put up? MR. JARRETT-She's working on it. MR. BORGOS-Well, when it comes up you'll see a heavy gray, a darker shaded gray area, and a lighter shade, and that is the delineation of the 600 feet. The darker shaded area is the developable area for residential use, and without any variances, it allows for the 27 proposed units that we have. I won't go through all of the details that are within the application. You have all the materials. You've seen them, but I just want to hit on a few highlights. The project is being designed with a landscaping plan that's going to add 16 deciduous trees, five evergreens and some other shorter shrubs and plantings. Again, the Board is benefited, I think, in this application because you're familiar with the developer. You've seen his work product on that site. Dr. Parsons who's an oral surgeon, are the first two occupants of the Park. Unfortunately we haven't had any buyers in over five years for any of the individual professional office concepts. That market seems to have passed us by. So we're looking at this alternative. You can see these buildings in the upper left hand corner where Tom's indicating with the laser, and the multi-use path that Laura was just mentioning would be paved for emergency access to the rear of the building. So that's an existing pathway that was built as part of the original professional park development and continues to exist throughout. Since it will be paved, it will be cleared of snow and ice in the winter, and have some more utility than it currently does on a seasonal basis. The rest of the pathways are left natural during the wintertime. Are there any questions that I can answer from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are there hydrants? MR. BORGOS-Are there hydrants? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Back there. MR. JARRETT-Yes, there are several hydrants throughout this subdivision. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So what was the question, Laura, about the Fire Marshal wanted 60 feet? MRS. MOORE-He wanted a drive aisle that was wide enough for the truck to station there and drive around. That's correct. MR. JARRETT-Essentially correct. We've designed traffic flow to be counterclockwise through the site here and exit in this driveway here. The Fire Marshal, well, let me back up. Originally we planned on paving these two parking pods originally and leaving these two unpaved and only developed if absolutely necessary. That meant that this drive aisle here was paved but out here was not paved and the Fire Marshal asked us to pave the entire length of the building to provide fire access and also asked us to pave this multi-use path and widen it. So we have excellent fire access on both sides of the building, and there are hydrants on both ends. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I thought that maybe they'd have to draft, but they don't. MR. JARRETT-The water main loops through the property here to serve all the businesses and provide excellent fire protection for all of the development. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I got it. MR. HUNSINGER-1 wasn't here at the last meeting. So this might have been asked and answered. Is the current multi-use path, will that be a driveway? MR. JARRETT-We did not present last month. So you haven't missed anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it was tabled. MR. JARRETT-The multi-use path extends from here on Walker Lane along Baybridge and then exits again on Walker here. We are now upgrading this path, widening it and paving it here. It IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) is not a driveway. We will have bollards on either end that have, the fire company will have access to them. No one else will. So it's only for fire access and recreational use. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. JARRETT-I can continue through some technical real briefly if you want. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. JARRETT-Lighting will be continued. The theme that's been developed for that subdivision is going to be on this property, the same light poles, the same downcast fixtures now with LED instead of high pressure sodium. We've upgraded that. I think that has worked well so far and that will continue through this project. From a water supply perspective we just mentioned that. We have water supply throughout. It's a looped water main. So we have excellent service there. Wastewater is served by a pressure system throughout the subdivision that connects at Walker Lane, and each building in here has their own separate grinder pump to connect to that low pressure main. This project will have two grinder pump systems, one at the north end and one at the south end for redundancy. Stormwater management, the entire subdivision was provided with a wet pond system at the south end which was permitted through the Town and through DEC 10 years ago. The next impervious now that is required with the modifications from the Fire Marshal improve, excuse me, increase the impervious area just above what we originally designed in the subdivision, but we had enough contingency in the original design to cover the extra impervious area, and as belt and suspenders we provided additional stormwater management in the islands between these bays in any event as under drains, bio retention systems that drain into that same stormwater management system. So we have redundancy there as well. Traffic we mentioned. That's a counterclockwise circulation through these parking pods, and as you remember the theme, some of you remember the theme from the original subdivision. This is all shared parking through here, right down the spine of the subdivision behind the buildings, and anyone in the subdivision, any one of the businesses can park anywhere in there. So we think it works very well. That's a brief overview. I can answer any particular questions you have. MR. DEEB-I know you're not crazy about paving, then. I think you would rather have kept it. MR. JARRETT-We designed it as narrow as possible and without as much asphalt on purpose. MR. DEEB-You did what you were told. MR. JARRETT-We did what we were told. MR. FERONE-1 just had a question about parking. So you have a 27 unit facility and you're putting in it looks like 32 parking spaces but did I hear you say that there are other spaces that could be utilized then? MR. JARRETT-This gets a little complicated. The requirement under zoning is actually 13 spaces. We felt that wasn't adequate for a building of this nature and this many units. We wanted to provide more than that, essentially one per unit is what we were targeting. These two pods right here have 30 spaces in them, but because of zoning requirements, let me back up. The 600 foot setback goes right through these parking areas. We can't count those parking spaces that are inside the 600 foot setback. So we have to typically build parking down here outside 600 feet to comply with zoning. No one's going to use those spaces, but we have to build them. We're going to build these two pods and that's where everyone will park. MR. FERONE-So, I mean, even in the senior community, I mean, most people, you know, in a couple have two cars. It just seems like it's not enough parking to accommodate the number of people who are going to be in that building. MR. JARRETT-Well, we do have these areas that we can pave if we need to. We're asking for approval to pave those when and if needed. We also have the spine of the system here that will be paved when these lots develop and seniors can park there, too. So we have plenty of flexibility here in the system. We think it works very well. These are 32 in addition to the 30 in addition to these 18 down here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It depends on the definition of seniors. Some of them, or a lot of them in some of our senior projects don't have cars at all. MR. JARRETT-It varies, yes. 10 IFl h.Y I�:;��:ra it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/'4`:X)1 5) <�irnirnuiru..., MR. FERONE-What's the condition of the land going to be where these future parking are going. Is it going to be grassed area? MR. JARRETT-It's going to be grassed area. Hopefully in perpetuity green area. MR. HUNSINGER-So the parking spaces that you're building down on Lot 13. MR. JARRETT-Down here. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we really have to do that? MR. JARRETT-I would hope the Board would tell us we don't have to do it, but I think Laura's going to tell you you don't have that flexibility. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I was asking Staff. MR. MAGOWAN-Where about, since you're already are planning on parking lots for the future expansion, across the way where you pointed, you know. MR. JARRETT-Right here? MR. MAGOWAN-No. Right there. MR. VALENTE-It's outside. MR. JARRETT-It's inside the 600 foot setback. We can't count those toward our project. That's the way the new Zoning Code reads for the Town. MR. VALENTE-The Town Board's changing those rules and regs. So we can't get within that 600 feet. If we're building a building it would be outside of the 600 feet. MR. JARRETT-What I'd love to have you tell us is that we don't have to build that. We have it as contingency if we need it, but we'd rather not build it. We think it's a waste of impervious area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think we can. MR. JARRETT-I don't think you can either, but I'd love you to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So why did you bring it up? MR. JARRETT-We just went through a week of upheaval. We can certainly challenge the parking reg. MR. MAGOWAN-You have it set up asking for future parking on either side. Correct? MR. JARRETT-I'm sorry? Ask that again? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-How about the building, the future. MR. JARRETT-We're asking for approval now, when and if needed. Those two pods. MR. MAGOWAN-Because that bottom one out there at east Asia bunk dunk out there, nobody's going to park over there. MR. JARRETT-No, no one will park there. It actually could be vandalized fairly easily if somebody sees it there. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, why can't you build one of the future ones now? MR. JARRETT-It's in the 600 foot setback. The 600 foot setback is right there. We cannot build anything to the right of it and count it toward our project. MR. VALENTE-We're anticipating the changes coming down the line. They haven't officially been made but we know they're coming. So in time to save visiting the folks. II IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. MAGOWAN-Why do you have to be so difficult? MR. VALENTE-I'm not trying to be difficult. Talk to your Town Board. They make these rules and we have to meet them. MR. FORD-Let me approach that future parking from a different angle. Do you anticipate expansion of this facility that we then would be playing into for future parking? MR. JARRETT-We can't expand on these lots because these are at max density now. MRS. MOORE-Max density. MR. JARRETT-The density on these lots will be maximized and the setback line is right there so we cannot build to the east. MR. FORD-How about up? MR. JARRETT-I don't think so. I think we're right at the, or very close to the limit, the Town limit. MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'll never get an ambulance to take them from the parking lot to the door. MR. MAGOWAN-Twenty-seven units, right? MR. VALE NTE-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And you have 30 car spots? MR. VALENTE-Well, in total, if we needed the others basically we have 60, in excess of 60 on the plan. Correct, Tom? MR. JARRETT-We have 78 1 think total showing. MR. VALENTE-Shown. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I mean right now just for the proposed, the front of the building. MR. JARRETT-There's actually 30 in these two pods that we would build, that we think are functional for the project. MR. TRAVER-Some of those 30 you say are within the 600 feet? MR. JARRETT-The 600 foot setback is right through that, right through this area. If you look at Drawing Number Two in your package you'll see the dark gray, versus light gray. Could you go to the next drawing, Laura? See that line where the dark gray separates? That's where the setback line is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So would it not be possible to make the number of spaces that you have to the south by building part of the overflow basically you have up to the north? MR. JARRETT-We would not have even the 13 that we need. We'd be closer. MR. VALE NTE-Unfortunately we're pigeon-holed to meet the requirement. As ridiculous as it is, mean, we're forced to meet that requirement. MR. FERONE-So out of the 30 only eight count toward this project? MR. VALENTE-The current building, correct. Hence the other. MR. JARRETT-Actually right now six count toward the project. MR. FERONE-Because those two spaces are dedicated to handicap. IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. DEEB-That's right. You've got seven below, then. MR. JARRETT-Well, we have credit for six right here, and we have to build the additional required down here. MR. DEEB-Have you addressed this with the Town Board? MR. JARRETT-No, we haven't. We're here first. MR. VALENTE-Some battles are worth fighting. MR. FORD-What scenario would you be responding to possibly in order to implement the future parking? MR. JARRETT-Future parking here? MR. FORD-Either. MR. JARRETT-If there's a lot more automobile usage in this facility than we expect. MR. FORD-How about responding to a resident's saying if you put a parking spot or two or three or four closer to that south entrance or the north entrance, it'll be a lot closer to my accessing my apartment? MR. JARRETT-Well, they could ask, but it would only count like two spaces or three spaces on either one. We're not going to get the 13. I mean you're right. Those spaces would technically be closer to the end door so people could get in a little bit more, they'd be parked more closely to their unit. You're right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're going to have to have a lottery, depending on where the people live. They're all going to want to be in one of the two future lots. MRS. MOORE-Isn't there one main entrance? MR. JARRETT-Yes, there is just a main entrance in front. MR. VALENTE-And we may see the need. If everybody's going to have two vehicles, you know, you're pushing 60 vehicles. MR. DEEB-I don't think you'll see two vehicles in every. MR. VALENTE-If we see the need then we can go down that road. We don't necessarily have to have, you don't necessarily have to pave the entire pod, either. MR. JARRETT-To answer a number of questions, if we put a building right here, we may build this pod right here first before that, because that would serve both units, and we have to evaluate that business need when the time comes, what kind of business it is. MR. VALENTE-The initial idea with the park concept was shared parking, a common drive through loop and the buildings all have common themes as far as style and architecture and homes. We want to carry that through so it's still part of the Park. MR. FERONE-But do you perceive that there may be conflicts between residential parking and commercial businesses when it comes down to sharing spaces? MR. VALENTE-Well, initially we don't have a connection at this point because we have a gap between what's been done and what hasn't. So, you know, we still are planning around parking for each individual. It's in on the occasion if you hit a time of day where somebody doesn't have a spot, they can always run over another area. MR. JARRETT-As you know residential and business typically are diverse. They're at different times of the day. MR. FERONE-Right. MR. JARRETT-This use is a little different because seniors don't follow the same patterns as normal residential use, but there's so few cars that we don't see a problem. 13 IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. DEEB-Well, in theory then you're saying that the businesses up front, if they wanted to park in the parking lot for the senior housing they could? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VALE NTE-Technically, yes. MR. DEEB-Because of the shared parking. MR. JARRETT-There are easements throughout this Park for shared parking. MR. VALENTE-There's an HOA. MR. DEEB-I don't know why they'd want to. MR. FORD-So really the reasoning in using the proposed parking and moving that further out from the senior complex really is to accommodate the potential for business use of some of those. Otherwise you could cut out a number of those and develop a parking for your senior facility at all four sites and have all of them closer to the building. MR. JARRETT-We wouldn't have the required number here. We'd still need that, but you're right. Theoretically we could build parking spaces there and not build these, but we think they also serve these other businesses. Plus that's an efficient way to build a pod. You know, you've got to build a lot of aisle space to serve those spaces that are, you know, spread out over the site. So this is a more efficient way to build this system. Unfortunately it doesn't work with zoning. MR. DEEB-You need 13 spaces within the system. MR. JARRETT-And I think we're required to build those right now, right? The Board can't approve this without them actually being constructed. Right? MR. FERONE-And the positioning of that parking lot on that Lot 13, is that because there would be plans to develop that lot at some point for other use? MR. JARRETT-Well, we situated it there instead of up here because aesthetically we think it's hidden a little bit better, and secondly if this business builds, we might be able to use some of that parking there, and combine that use. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you've got more parking than you need. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we may not have to build the entire parking area here if this is already here. MR. FERONE-It just seems it makes more sense to me that if that lot is associated with that building, it would serve it better if it was closer to Baybridge Drive. MR. JARRETT-We don't think anybody's going to want to use it, even on the other side of the road, in this corner. You know, we think they're all going to want to use here. MR. VALENTE-Well, and I agree with that comment 100%, but the issue is when the lot towards Bay Road that is a commercial use, if we build there, the parking has always been to the back side of that building. So this would be more congruent to that. That is the reason. MR. JARRETT-Which is also in keeping with what the Town wants to see. MR. VALENTE-And that's directed, again, by the Town. We wanted parking in the rear. We don't want it out front. MR. JARRETT-Now we are planning to leave this in gravel, by the way. We're not going to pave it with asphalt. We're build it in gravel. In the future, when this building is built, then we'll decide to pave it, you know, with asphalt. So we're at least conceding that construction. MR. DEEB-But you don't anticipate that being used. MR. JARRETT-We don't anticipate that being used at all. MR. DEEB-But you have to do it because of the Code. 14 IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. JARRETT-I'm a little bit fearful of kids parking back there, you know, if it's hidden at all by weeds I'm a little bit fearful of kids parking back there. MR. DEEB-There's no lights there. Right? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. DEEB-I understand what you're saying. MR. BORGOS-Any other questions that we can answer? MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Isn't planning wonderful. MR. BORGOS-We love it, and I'm glad we have all these students here looking to follow in our footsteps and do this in the future. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I want to share the Water and Wastewater Department comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Please. MRS. MOORE-Because there's been ongoing discussions with the applicant and counsel and our office, and I just wanted to, at the last month's meeting there were comments from the Water Department. So I'll just read through those so you have them, and then I'll explain some of the details that have been discussed during this meeting. So this is from Chris Harrington. This project is located within the Queensbury consolidated water district and sufficient water is available to meet domestic needs. Bullet Two is The water line is to be inspected prior to backfill. Water line is to be polyethylene encased. Bullet Three is Tap Application shall be filled out. Sewer Permit file for. Bullet Four is Sewer Infrastructure as outlined in Queensbury Consolidated Ext# 11 shall be part of a Sewer Works Corporation. To our knowledge that has yet to be done. Five is Wastewater discharge calcs need to be submitted to Wastewater Department along with cut sheet of grinder pump proposed for installation, and the last bullet is Startup shall be signed off by the manufacturer's representative. So I'm just going to go back to the bullet about the Sewer Works Corporation. There's ongoing discussions about whether it needs to be formed or if it can be handled by a current Homeowners Association, and so that's a detail that the applicant is aware that could be a condition of this review process and then they would work that detail out with Chris Harrington as well as our counsel. One of the things that Chris did mention after reviewing additional information, he just identifies that the Planning Board potentially, if they wish to continue they could grant conditional approval for the plan Legacy Land Holdings has before the Board. The Water Department/Wastewater Department would not issue water meters for the structure and would potentially ask that a Certificate of Occupancy not be issued until the items mentioned are addressed. So you've seen that in some, it doesn't often happen from other Departments that are asking for conditions, but that is something that you can consider, and I don't know if the applicant wants to give additional information. MR. BORGOS-Thank you, Laura. I'll just chime in with echoing exactly what Laura has given you as a narrative history. That's all correct. We believe that the existing Fairfield Professional Park Homeowners Association can fulfill any responsibility that the Transportation Corporation would do to ensure that the system is maintained properly. If the Town has an issue, they have somebody they can go to, to make sure they're upholding their responsibilities. It's currently functioning that way with the two offices that are there. It relates back to the DEC approvals we received from the original Park. We provided the Town with copies of those previously, and now there's further questions. So I think it's a fair way to resolve it as a condition that we'll satisfy, similar to engineering signoff in other applications. So we're prepared to respond to Mr. Harrington's request and we'll continue to pursue DEC to get whatever we need to make him satisfied that he has a full DEC signoff on this system. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Just as a quick reminder. This project is part of the Queensbury Consolidated Sewer District. An extension report was done in '07. So this is part of the District, the Town District. This is not an outside user contracting with the Town. This is a part of the District. 15 IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. VALENTE-Do you mind if I add a comment? This goes back to, what we had, when we originally got Fairfield's approval, we were not directed, from my point of view, or at least I'm going to support my engineer, by the predecessor of Chris Harrington. He was Mike Shaw. At the time we were not directed to take this, or we weren't needed to set up this transportation corporation, that the HOA was more than ample to cover this scenario. So as the changing of the guard, we are having to change what we're doing to make everybody happy, which is a little, from my perspective doesn't sit very well. We've been here a long time. This has been underway for a long time. We've had users for a long time. I bought my capacity for many, many years, to the tune of 6400 gallons a day and we're using less than 400 gallons a day there, and then we're dealt these cards. I don't necessarily like the atmosphere that is being dealt to us, and that's not from this Board. It's just from the atmosphere at the Town right now. So it's just me venting a little bit about some of the processes throughout the Town and whether there's more coordination that needs to be made between sewer and water and the Boards, I think that would be appreciated by anybody that comes in for the future. Because this is, it's unsettling it just costs a lot of time and money. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you realize that the issue, of course, is that the Town doesn't own the sewer plant. So we always have to deal with that on a contractual basis. MR. VALENTE-1 just wanted. MR. JARRETT-And that's why capacity was purchased up front. MR. VALENTE-Right. I wrote the check for the capacity. We've done it, we've been using it, and now it's an issue. I kind of, it's not, the process is, something's flawed and I'd like to get it rectified one way or the other. We've always done whatever the Town has asked us to do, we've always done it. If we're directed to do it, we do it. I know Tom'll come to me, hey, this is what they want us to do. Okay. We'll do it. What are we going to do? So if we were directed in that way we would have done it. So we're going back to go forwards and I wish there was some consideration for that. Whether they can do that legally or not, I don't know, but whatever has to be done we can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. MR. FORD-There is a history of responsiveness here that we note. Thank you. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there more, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, there's nothing. MR. HUNSINGER-That was enough, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it was. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board relative to that issue or any of the other site related issues? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. There's a large number of people from the neighborhood. How many people wish to be heard this evening? Anybody? Well, we will open the public hearing. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-1 don't have any written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board? Okay. Hearing none, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted Action. Were there any concerns with any of the items in the SEQR review form that was provided? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-None that we haven't addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable moving forward? 16 IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. FORD-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDING Applicant proposes a partial 3 story, 27 unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and landscaping. Project involves lot line adjustments for lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14. A portion of the existing pathway is to be increased in width and to be paved within 50 ft. of the stream for emergency access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-6- 050 of the Zoning Ordinance, senior housing, multi-family housing and fill or hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a stream shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project includes subdivision modification for lot line adjustments for current site plan and SP 4-2011. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. 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. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess I have a question for Staff on the draft resolution that was prepared. Item 1 B, if applicable the sanitary sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting, and inspection. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that sufficient to cover the discussion that we just had? Or do you think we need more? MRS. MOORE-1 think we should add additional language to that, and give me a second I'll see if I can come up with something that's clearer. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, that's our generic. MRS. MOORE-It is our generic. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, it doesn't address specifically whether or not the transportation corporation is needed, but it does say that it's subject to review by the Wastewater Department. 1.71 IFl I�;��:ra it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/'4`:X)1 5) <�irnirnuiru...,h.Y MR. BORGOS-Laura, if it were to say to receive signoff from the Wastewater Department, would that be sufficient? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BORGOS-1 think that covers it. MRS. MOORE-1 just looked at that and that's the way it's worded for the engineering. So I would just include that language on 1 B that signoff occurs from the Wastewater Department. MR. DEEB-Isn't that what B says? MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, if we didn't have his comment letter we would. MR. DEEB-Submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting, and inspection. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How much more can they do? MR. DEEB-To me that sounds like what we're talking about. MRS. MOORE-Okay. It was discussed and you've identified it as 1B. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. JARRETT-You can certainly enforce it that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other conditions that we need to consider? Beyond the standard conditions. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes a partial 3 story, 27 unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and landscaping. Project involves lot line adjustments for lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14. A portion of the existing pathway is to be increased in width and to be paved within 50 ft. of the stream for emergency access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, senior housing, multi-family housing and fill or hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a stream shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project includes subdivision modification for lot line adjustments for current site plan and SP 4-2011. 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 10/25/2016 and continued the public hearing to 11/15/2016, 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 11/15/2016; 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 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 18 IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y I/15/'H)1 5) 1. 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) 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. Motion was seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 would just take out the word applicable, and in this case it is considered applicable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 1 B, because we know it's applicable. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-I really liked your landscaping plan. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. MR. VALENTE-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. DEEB-Thank you, Dan, and thank you for over engineering it. We really appreciate it. SITE PLAN PZ 243-2016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 242-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED QUEENSBURY STORAGE LLC AGENT(S) MICHAEL S. BORGOS OWNER(S) DONALD & LUCYNA SOKOL D/B/A DLS ENTERPRISES ZONING NC LOCATION 340 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE AN 11,496 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR AN INDOOR STORAGE FACILITY. PROJECT IS FOR 70-72 STORAGE UNITS. PROJECT SPACE IS PART OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX. APPLICANT PROPOSES NO CHANGES TO THE SITE — LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING OR STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-10-070 & 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INDOOR STORAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW I") IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) AND APPROVAL. SP 2-2000 DAYCARE; SUP 64-2010 FOOD SERVICE; AV 58-10; SUP 3- 2011 TAVERN; SEVERAL BLDG. PERMITS WARREN CO. REFERRAL LOT SIZE 0.87 ACRE/1.3 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-18/301.8-1-17 SECTION 179-10-070 & 179-3-040 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MATT SOKOL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to utilize an 11,496 square foot building for an indoor storage facility. This includes a project for 70 to 72 storage units. It is part of an existing commercial complex and as we know it used to be previously a grocery store and since then items have been taken out so it is a vacant space now to utilize, and the applicant did supply information in reference to the interior storage under Special Use criteria and the Town Board had adopted that so that there would be information, the project review included Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos on behalf of the applicant, here with Matt Sokol on behalf of Queensbury Storage LLC. I think all of you are familiar with Sokol's Plaza and market. It's a hometown destination. It's a landmark that everyone hopefully has frequented as some point over the years. Unfortunately the grocery store wasn't viable any longer. It's been closed for just over three years. At its peak, in the late 80's, they were getting 10,000 visitors a week through there. I know I stopped in many times over the years myself. Matt came to me about a year ago and talked about all of his efforts trying to find a tenant for the place, and the best store solution I guess from many different inputs was the idea for providing for the neighborhood in a new way. It used to be a convenient one stop shop back before Stewarts and all the other convenient stores that came up on the west side of the Northway, and now the concept is well people have too much stuff, they need a place to store it. There's office buildings across the street. The Hudson Headwaters is going in. They don't have enough parking over there they're so busy. They're busting at the seams. The accountant's directly across the street, dentist next door. The neighborhood has evolved and changed but it's certainly densified, and within the Queensbury Code there was only Light Industrial zones that allowed for storage. What Matt was proposing to do was a whole new concept, something that is just starting in other parts of the country in isolated areas, and it's along the sustainability elements. That people are trying to re-purpose, re-use existing structures and not go to green fields and put up new. So this is trying to renovate an existing structure and make use of it with really minimal impact. So I think it is the ultimate in sustainable practice here. So we're not going to change the exterior. We're not going to change the look and feel of the neighborhood that everybody has become accustomed to, but we're just going to change the interior use, and the Town Board was very receptive. We've talked about this in a workshop meeting or two, developed it a little bit further and it got joined up with several other zoning amendments this summer, properly noticed. It took a little longer than we wanted of course but we're pleased to see that it passed and was well received. Along the way there was feedback from the public at the Town Board meetings and we tried to incorporate that into the future business practices as well as the plan that you see before you tonight. As Laura read, this is proposed to be between 70 and 72 storage lockers within the structure. We're maintaining all the existing elements of the site plan itself. As you see in the detailed calculations section, the requirement for parking has dropped substantially with the change in use from grocery store with all the visitors. We don't know how many people are going to visit their stuff, but we don't think there'll be very many on a regular basis. We've actually had some interesting comments and feedbacks along the way from perspective renters. Certainly those offices that we've talked about are expected customers. Something we hadn't considered were the pharmaceutical sales reps. People who are trying to operate from their home and they don't have room there. This would be providing secure storage with their goods. This is something that we've been very careful to make sure we're not going to create any hazardous conditions, but we've got a very long, detailed list of dos and don'ts, rules and regulations associated with anybody renting there. So there won't be any flammable items that would be allowed to be stored there, no fireworks, no explosives, things like that. That would be prohibited. Those can go to the Light Industrial zones within the Town, if they wish. We're not going to take them here. So we think this is going to be a convenient spot and a good re-purposing. If it helps with a little foot traffic for Sokol's Tavern or the other tenants within the plaza, that's great, but we do think it's just a nice way to fill up that building and provide that service, so the Town residents on the west side of Exit 18 don't have to drive to Luzerne Road or other remote locations where the Commercial Light Industrial zones exist. Are there any questions that we can answer for you about the design or the elements of the site plan? It's really the same as it's always been. MR. DEEB-I see the front entrance, right. Are you going to have a back entrance? "0 IFl I�:;��:ra it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/'4`:X)1 5) <�irnirnuiru...,h.Y MR. SOKOL-There's actually two entrances. This is not the, this was a preliminary drawing, okay. The company that we're dealing with would not give us a final drawing until we get final approvals. So what you see on the bottom left corner would be the main entrance. MR. DEEB-That used to be a loading dock? MR. SOKOL-Yes. In the back there, you see where it says two additional units? If you drop down, that's where the back dock is. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. SOKOL-And there's a six by seven opening over there which will be the same. MR. DEEB-And you're going to have both entrances? MR. SOKOL-Yes. And everything will be access controlled. There will be video cameras and surveillance throughout the building. MR. BORGOS-This is the main entrance that you were familiar with as a grocery store. MR. DEEB-Yes. You're going to do it from the front instead of the side? Are you doing it from the front or the side or the front now instead of the side? MR. SOKOL-We're using the existing entrance there. We're also using the back entrance, and then if you see at the top left there's going to be an emergency door. So you've got three ways to get out of that building as well. MR. DEEB-I was going to say, somebody has a lot of big stuff to get in there. You've got to have room for them to get in. MR. SOKOL-Exactly. MR. DEEB-And I'm sure you've thought about the whole plan, but I forgot about the back, that big door. MR. FERONE-On the west side of the building when I drove around yesterday there's some fenced in areas. Is that fence going to stay there or is that coming down? MR. SOKOL-We were going to take it down and make it aesthetically pleasing with some, probably some shrubbery and just make it look pleasing to the eye. I mean, over the years you've seen what we've done to the plaza with the, actually it was initially given to us by the Town to have an entrance and an exit way. So that's why we built that long stone wall there. So you know what we've done in the past and we're going to make it look nice on that side as well. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. DEEB-I think it's a great idea to use an existing building instead of building new. I think it's a great idea. MR. FERONE-And my only other question was on the inside, these areas that you're renting, 10 by 10, 10 by 15, are they going to be actually wall or is there going to be like a fence, gated area? MR. SOKOL-They're metal units, I mean, kind of like we would see on the outdoor units, but they're all interior. They run about eight feet high, and they have a wire mesh over the top of them. So they can only be accessed by the individual owner. They will have their own locks, but the, I can get more details for you guys if you'd like, and drawings. I can e-mail them to you, but the company that we're using has been around for 37 years and the quality of their equipment is outstanding. MR. DEEB-So you're just going to have a wire mesh on top. MR. SOKOL-Just wire mesh up on top. It's going to be the same kind of rolled up doors that you would see. MR. DEEB-Because you've already got a roof over it. IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. SOKOL-Correct. MR. FORD-Is there any concern with the wire mesh and security? MR. SOKOL-I'm sorry? MR. FORD-Wire mesh and security? MR. BORGOS-Well, the wire mesh can be affixed, and there are, there's monitoring by the cameras. MR. FORD-That's right, the cameras. MR. MAGOWAN-The wire mesh it's not a chicken wire. It's a little heavier duty. MR. BORGOS-So we believe it is a secure storage that allows for the free circulation of air, because it is a climate controlled storage, which, again, is a desirable thing compared to traditional exterior storage lockers where you can have extremes of temperature. MR. FERONE-Humidity also. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think it's a great idea, Matt. MR. SOKOL-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know it's been, three years is a long time to be sitting vacant. I think it's going to be great hit. You're not changing anything. You're going to be beautifying more, and the flow of traffic in and out of the storage areas are not nearly as much as what you used to have. MR. DEEB-They're minimal. MR. SOKOL-Correct, and they've come a long way. MR. FORD-1 hope you're as successful, we all hope that. Because if so, then I believe that this'll be the protocol to be followed for a number of other vacant buildings in the Town of Queensbury. I wish you success. MR. BORGOS-And that's what we discussed with the Town Board. MR. SOKOL-Thank you, Tom. I appreciate it. MR. FERONE-Are there any requirements here in relation to these spaces have to be covered with sprinkler systems or anything like that? MR. BORGOS-We're going to follow all the building code and fire code requirements. It's just been upgraded. Matt's working with the Building Department on all of that. So, yes, they're going to comply with everything. MR. DEEB-Wasn't the market sprinkled? MR. SOKOL-It's wasn't sprinkled. It was monitored by our local company Mahoney Alarms, but they did change the Code, but I think it's more applicable to the restaurants because I was just faced with that. So I think you have a capacity of over 100 and then it triggers a sprinkler system. MR. MAGOWAN-It's more people driven, not storage. MR. SOKOL-Correct. Occupancy based. MR. MAGOWAN-And with your strict policies of your dos and your don'ts. I'm a little upset because my fireworks do go dead, you know, out in the cold storage. So I guess I won't be seeing you, Matt. MR. DEEB-Traffic's going to be less. There's not going to be back traffic hardly at all, which is great. IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments or concerns from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, but I do want to make a comment in reference to, and I know it was brought up at the Town Board, about the materials that are stored, and I know that there was a discussion about your management plan of storage, that those that are leasing or renting from you, that you come up with some sort of document that says here's our rules, and I don't know if materials was, there it is. MR. SOKOL-It was actually supposed to be two pages, but a lawyer got a hold of it. MR. DEEB-How will you monitor that, though? I mean, that's a tough one to monitor. MR. SOKOL-That's the whole privacy issue. You really cannot. I mean, all we can do is put up signs and prohibit that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if they violate it you throw them out. Right? MR. SOKOL-Absolutely. MR. DEEB-How do they find out? They can't go into the storage units. MR. SOKOL-And there is verbiage in here that says that if you suspect, you can get a warrant and go into their unit. MR. DEEB-That gives you protection. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you need that as part of the submission? MRS. MOORE-I would ask that it be part of the submission. So there were two other things, when you get to that point, to include as part of the project. There were no written comments, and that was all I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there are no comments, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted SEQR action. Were there any SEQR related concerns that were identified by any of the Board members? MR. FORD-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a SEQR resolution? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP PZ 243-2016 SUP PZ 242-2016 The applicant proposes to utilize an 11,496 sq. ft. building for an indoor storage facility. Project is for 70-72 storage units. Project space is part of an existing commercial complex. Applicant proposes no changes to site — landscaping, lighting or stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 10-070 & 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, indoor storage facilities 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; k':k"3 IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 243-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 242-2016 QUEENSBURY STORAGE, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption. 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. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion on the draft resolution, other than the, how do we refer to them? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What Laura adds to it. MRS. MOORE-So there were three items. The planting plan for the rear part of the building where the fence is to be removed. So there should be some planting information included with the plans that are being submitted for final. The other item was a unit plan for the interior. Once this is approved my understanding is that you'll receive additional information about how that occurs on the inside of the floor plan and the description of how the units actually look, and we don't have that in this submission, but I'm certain they have some images that could be included. MR. BORGOS-We can provide that to you certainly before a CO is issued. MR. HUNSINGER-Wouldn't that be required for a building permit, or no? MRS. MOORE-1 mean, my guess is there's something they can provide as part of the final plan set. I mean, you described it. It's a metal unit with wire mesh on the top. So I'm certain they have some images of that type of unit that we can include in this final set of plans. MR. BORGOS-Sure. We can supply that. MR. DEEB-And, Matt, are you going to get rid of the fence you said? You're going to take the fence down? MR. SOKOL-Yes, there's no need for it. MRS. MOORE-And then the last item was probably a renter or lease management or storage agreement. Is it an agreement? MR. BORGOS-Correct. MRS. MOORE-That they provide a copy of that as part of their final plan set. MR. BORGOS-I'll e-mail that to you tomorrow. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So did anyone keep track of those three items? IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/':X)1 5) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I can paraphrase them. MRS. MOORE-So the other item that comes up with Special Use Permits is you have a term of validity. You don't have to have a term of validity, but that is up to one of the items that you could discuss, and I don't know if the Board feels there is a need to do that. MR. DEEB-I don't see a need. MR. FORD-1 don't believe there's any need. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I don't think there's any need for that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. He's not making any exterior changes. MRS. MOORE-Well, that's why I wanted to make sure you at least understood. If you're choosing not to, then that's. MR. HUNSINGER-And there were waivers requested. Waivers were requested for stormwater, topography and soil logs. Any issues there? MR. FORD-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP PZ 243-2016 & SUP PZ 242-2016 QUEENSBURY STORAGE, 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 utilize an 11,496 sq. ft. building for an indoor storage facility. Project is for 70-72 storage units. Project space is part of an existing commercial complex. Applicant proposes no changes to site — landscaping, lighting or stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-10-070 & 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, indoor storage facilities 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 11/15/2016 and continued the public hearing to 11/15/2016, 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 11/15/2016; 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 243-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 242-2016 QUEENSBURY STORAGE, LLC; Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: IBoa it(:N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y I/15/'H)1 5) 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application wall referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) 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; c) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; d) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; e) 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; f) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. g) Fence is to be removed with indication of plantings in that area. h) Images of the lockers in relation to the floor plan that was submitted. i) A copy of the rent or lease agreement that's going to be used for the business operation. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2016 by the following vote: MR. SCHONEWOLF-Per the draft prepared by Staff and the three items added this evening. The waiver requests have been granted. MR. FORD-Second. MS. GAGLIARDI-It would be helpful if you could maybe list them in the motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I could but I can't remember them but the lady sitting next to you can. MR. FERONE-I think I had them down as, One, fences to be removed with indication of plantings in that area. Number Two, images of the lockers in relation to the floor plan that was submitted. Number Three, a copy of the rent or lease agreement used for the business operations. MR. SCHONEWOLF-With operating instructions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have the amended corrected motion. Is there a second? MR. FORD-I'll second the amended corrected motion. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. SOKOL-Thank you. MR. DEEB-When are you going to start? MR. SOKOL-They will be here the end of February. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a discussion item this evening. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION — PZ 245-2016 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DDDJ ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL — RUCINSKI HALL OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION LOT #3 WEST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 8,000 SQ. FT. POLE BARN ENCLOSED BUILDING (80' X 100') AND EXTERIOR STORAGE FOR A CONTRACTOR YARD. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW ACCESS DRIVE FROM LUZERNE "6 IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/':X)1 5) ROAD. PROJECT DISTURBS GREATER THAN AN ACRE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONTRACTOR'S STORAGE YARDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP PZ 93-2016 4800 SF COLD STORAGE SUB MOD. PZ 110-2016; DKC SUB 4-2012 3 LOTS, LH SUB 18-2005 2 LOTS, SP 10-2004 STORAGE BLDGS., SP 5-2012 MATERIAL STORAGE AREA WARREN CO. REFERRAL LOT SIZE 3.95 ACRE — RIGHT OF WAY ACCESS, 5 ACRES, 6.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.12, 308.12-1-7.13, 308.12-1-7.2 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes an 8,000 square foot enclosed pole barn and an exterior storage area for a contractor's yard. The project is to the rear of an existing storage facility complex and you previously approved a cold storage building behind that as part of that project. So this is off of West Drive and it will also have access off of Luzerne Road through an easement of two adjoining lots, and I've talked to Ethan and the other involved engineers and developers in reference to what also needs to occur if this project moves forward. There's some site plan modifications with Larry Clute's site and a site plan modification for the Luzerne storage facility. There's a couple of things that go on. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski/Hall Architecture. Kind of a unique item. I actually did come here and talk to you before our full submission to you which I actually prefer to do because now I can discuss the project with you prior to making complete application. The application is for Dave Howard and Howard Excavating. They are purchasing the piece of property to the rear. They have purchased the piece of property at the rear of Luzerne Storage. They purchased it from Larry Clute and Matt Steves. I did talk with Matt, Laura, I don't know if he's called you and spoke with you. There was an easement that was granted or an easement that was proposed along Lot Number Two which is the western side of the existing storage buildings to allow access along the side of, between Lot Number Two and the storage building. It then kind of comes kitty corner across behind the recently approved storage building and then accesses this lot in the back. This lot is also accessed along the end of West Drive. We are showing an access road coming in off of West Drive, but in talking with David, they really don't see that being used that often. The main majority of the traffic is going to come in along this back section. It's a little easier access and there's not any disturbance of West Drive. So all of the truck traffic, the trailer traffic, stuff going to the back of the lot, is going to come in off of that proposed access easement along the side there. The building is just an 80 by 100 foot cold storage building for storage of his excavating equipment, for his dump trucks and the loaders and things like that so they can get them in out of the rain, and then the remainder of the lot is for topsoil storage, his stockpile materials when he's on a job and he doesn't have a place to stockpile that stuff he can bring it to his yard, keep it there, keep it in a controlled environment. We are proposing a 30 foot buffer and a 50 foot buffer on the adjoining properties, which would be a no cut buffer along the outside. Obviously we have stormwater issues to deal with. I'm working with Kevin Hastings, Civil Engineer, on doing all that stormwater management, taking care of the areas where that's going to be. We've been out and walked the lot. It's a relatively flat area up front and then it kind of slopes up at the back a little bit. That's where they've got some existing stockpile stored right now. They cleared out 150 by 150. They just cut the trees and left the stumps and they backfilled over the top of it. So that's what they've got out there right now. That's it in a nutshell. MR. HUNSINGER-So who did that in your back? MR. HALL-David did it. He talked with Craig about it and I guess they got that started. MRS. MOORE-It's compliance and coming in to compliance. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. MOORE-By applying. MR. HALL-Yes, that's the whole crux. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this off where his house was? MRS. MOORE-No, it is not. MR. HALL-No, his house was farther down, Dave, Jr.'s house is farther down Luzerne Road. IFl I�:;��:ra it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/'4`:X)1 5) <�irnirnuiru...,h.Y MR. HUNSINGER-I thought so. It just sounded familiar. That's all. MR. HALL-Yes. This is right at the end of the State streets, where that is. MR. MAGOWAN-We just approved Matt Steves to build his building there. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-He ended up buying a building closer to his office which worked out better for him, and I think cheaper. MR. HUNSINGER-So if you don't anticipate the driveway at the end of West Drive, would you build it or not build it? MR. HALL-I think that it's going to be built just for pickup trucks so that the guys, when they come in with their pickup trucks, have a place to park. They can come in off of West Drive, park there, get the big trucks and take the big trucks out the back. They really don't want to have access for, you know, tandems and trucks and trailers coming in on West. It's not conducive. It's a residential street. MR. FERONE-Why have it at all, though? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's kind of what I thought. MR. FERONE-You know, why not just have everything go up that other, because I remember when you came in for that other project that there was a resident there that. MR. HALL-When Matt and Larry were here for the other one? MR. FERONE-Right. Yes. There was a lot of discussion there about what was going on right across the street from this. MR. HALL-I can certainly ask them. I don't know what that does for us as far as frontage off a street goes. I know that's one of Laura's questions. MRS. MOORE-So it may trigger a variance. MR. HALL-Yes, it may trigger a variance by not having a driveway, because without that frontage on West Drive, this basically becomes a landlocked lot. MR. FERONE-What about putting it in, gating it, and still having all the traffic abut the other road? MR. HALL-I think we could certainly, you know, talk about putting a gate on there and that's, you know, it's really for access for the owners. There's not going to be an office or anything back there. So it's not the general public's dragging in and out of this. MR. DEEB-I would suggest you talk to the resident first and see what happens there. I mean that would, to me, if you can get an agreement with him, and you get some kind of assurance that it would just be pickup trucks and drivers coming in, not the big heavy trucks, I think he'd be happy with that. MR. HALL-Sure. Again, we can take a look at that. MR. HUNSINGER-And the right of way between Lot Two and the existing self-storage, would that be accessible to both properties then? MR. HALL-To both Lot Number Two and this property in the back? It certainly will, but it's coming across Lot Number Two. Basically it comes in, it goes right where the existing driveway comes in now, but there's an existing access to get back in to where they've got some stuff stored back here. There is access there now and it's just, instead of it kind of meandering its way through the middle of the lot, which isn't conducive to anybody, you know, developing that lot, they'd just make a straight shot straight up through that will be developed going along that way. IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I remember when we sited the self-storage units and we talked about the access, and having those two accesses so close together, you know, poses a concern, but if there were no other access for Lot Two than what's shown here, then that eliminates some of the concern. MR. HALL-Right, and it's got a pretty good sight line on Luzerne Road. It's got a fairly long site line, and that is where the changeover in speed comes, back up by Stephanie Lane, is the drop down in speed. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. HALL-Laura, one question for you. Can you research whether or not, if we eliminate the access from West Drive, is that, it is going to trigger a variance if we do not have some kind of an access drive? MRS. MOORE-It is going to trigger a variance, from the physical public road, and that's why it ends prior to this lot. MR. HALL-According to Matt, and I talked to him about this. According to Matt, there is an agreement with the Highway Department for an extension because they use that area up there to turn the trucks around. MRS. MOORE-All right. I mean, I'll communicate with Matt and Highway. MR. HALL-Yes. Matt said he would be more than happy to discuss that because they did, when they did the boundary line adjustment to do his unit, that was a question that was brought up at the time. MR. MAGOWAN-Some call that a paper road. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-There's a road there, but it's only on paper. MR. HALL-Right. Well, actually the turnaround is right, this is right where that turnaround is, where the plow truck goes up. It's not really a hammerhead so to speak it's kind of a turn and back up, turn again, back up again and drive back out. So, yes, I mean, there is access back there for sure. MRS. MOORE-So if that does have the physical road frontage, it may be possible that it doesn't need the variance, but that has two access points. So it's something I need to discuss with the Zoning Administrator. MR. HALL-Right. MRS. MOORE-Because if he gates it, we'll talk. MR. FORD-There certainly are other ways of accessing that storage building, other than off West Drive. MR. HALL-The one that's being proposed? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HALL-Yes. Coming in through this back entryway here, that's the best way for all of the vehicles to get in. Again, I'm just not sure that if we don't provide some access there, I think it kicks us into a variance. MRS. MOORE-Right. So you have to maintain a physical, your road frontage has to have physical access on a public road per the lot. MR. HALL-And I guess the question becomes we do have the access, it's just not developed. MRS. MOORE-Right, and that's where I need to communicate with Craig. MR. HALL-And that, I think that's what we need to communicate and find out from Craig. I think if we put a gate there it becomes very similar to some of these other gated areas where, if IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y 5/k':X)1 5) there's a question for firefighter access, if there's a, you know, need to get in we'd have to provide some kind of a knox box at the entryway for them to get in or whatever. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They'll just cut it. MR. HALL-Yes, it's never slowed them down. Those are really big trucks. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So are the cutters. MR. FORD-So they would require a variance, Laura, if they came in off Luzerne, down this right of way, or using the, off the backside of the storage buildings where that graveled parking is and just cut through to that parking area? That would require a variance. MRS. MOORE-It requires a variance. Right, because you have to have physical access. MR. HALL-Tom, you're saying coming in off the building that Matt just recently got approved? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HALL-To come in through that driveway and come up? I think to do that we wind up having to clear a very significant amount of trees on the back of that lot, because it's a good probably 150 feet from where his building is proposed back to where we're proposing. So, I mean, and our entryway, there's a bunch of brush there and a few trees that we would have to cut to get that to happen, but I think we'd have to cut a significant amount going back there, and it kind of bisects that back lot a little bit. I will talk to Dave and find out. If his feeling is that that's the main access way, if we do something with a gate across there and that satisfies, you know, if that satisfies us not having to go get a variance, that's one less step that we want. MR. DEEB-That makes sense. MR. HALL-Laura, can you tell me who the, can you give me the names of people that were there for Matt's? MRS. MOORE-I'll have to look at the minutes from that. MR. HALL-Yes, just so that we can contact them. Just so that we can contact them and have that discussion prior to, it's easier than having them get notified by the Town that, hey, you've got another one coming. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. Always better to be proactive. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments that we can provide? Did we give you enough information? MR. DEEB-Do you feel comfortable with it? MR. HALL-Yes. I believe so. I mean, that's kind of what we were coming for. I mean, I know it's an approved use in the zone, and we just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything that was going to jump up and bite us when we come back. We'll get that stuff pulled together. We started working on the grading plan, we just, we knew we weren't going to have it down for this meeting. So I just wanted to get this in as a discussion item to talk with you about it, let you know that it's coming, and like I say, I feel better being able to do that with you as a Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. HALL-I know on my board I don't like getting ambushed. I like to be able to talk to people about it ahead of time if I have the chance. Very good. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HALL-Have a great Thanksgiving. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. DEEB-Laura, anything? 30 IBoa it(°N irir h:rm:rm li it°n h,Y I I/15/k':X)1 5) MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 31