Loading...
05-02-2017 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 2, 2017 INDEX Site Plan No. 27-2017 Seaton Property Holdings 1. Special Use Permit 7-2017 Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61 Site Plan No. 24-2017 David P. Discenza 3. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-18 Site Plan No. 25-2017 Chris Carte 5. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-5 Site Plan No. 26-2017 DDDJ Enterprises 8. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.13, 308.12-1-7.2, 308.12-1-7.12 Site Plan No. 29-2017 James R. Glendening 13. Tax Map No. 297.18-1-1 Site Plan No. 30-2017 Stewart's Shops Corp. 19. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-11 Site Plan No. 31-2017 Robert Fulmer 29. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) SPECIAL MEETING MAY 2, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Planning Board meeting for the Town of Queensbury New York. This is the first meeting for the month of May and the ninth meeting for 2017. We have, we'll start off with approval of minutes from the month of March. We have minutes from the March 21St and March 28th Planning Board meetings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, 2017 March 28, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21ST & MARCH 28TH, 2017, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-All right. We also have an Administrative Item which is not on the printed agenda for this evening, and by the way that reminds me, for members of the public, there should be some agendas at the table in the rear of the room if you'd like to monitor our agenda this evening, and don't forget, like me, to turn the ringer off on your cell phone please. All right. We have one more Administrative item, and that is a tabling resolution for Site Plan 27-2017 and Special Use Permit 7-2017 for Seaton Property Holdings. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM TABLING OF SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS TO JULY 25, 2017 (PUBLIC HEARING TO BE OPENED AND REMAIN OPEN) MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have some background on that? MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board tabled it at their meeting for additional information on the type of activity that was occurring on the site, as far as actual storing of logs and the actual processing of the wood products. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Interesting. All right. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we know if they, if there's any federal permits or any DEC permits that have to go along with this, too? MRS. MOORE-I'm not aware of any. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. TRAVER-1 don't think so. MR. MAGOWAN-Because it was brought to my attention that there was. MRS. MOORE-Not under our Code. It's not identified under our Code. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-The only possible exception, Brad, I can think of is I know that some of these places when they process they sell firewood. There might be a regulation in there that they have to certify that it's been heated in the kiln for a certain period of time, and DEC does have strict regulations on invasive species and they require firewood to be sold. So there might be something with that. They might have to certify their processer that it heats to a certain temperature for a certain period of time. Something like that, but I don't have any personal knowledge of that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 see a head nodding in the audience. MR. TRAVER-There we go. ETHAN HALL MR. HALL-That is exactly, you are correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that the only one? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm going to Google it. MR. HALL-Go ahead. MR. HALL-Yes, the only one, you're correct. It's a DEC, it has to do with selling fire wood in the Park, that they don't want any invasive species being brought in. You have to have the kiln certified and the kiln has to be inspected I think it's every three years or something. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and as I recall, just anecdotally when we heard this application, I believe that the applicant stated they had all the required permits and so on. They may not be able to get that one until they actually have the kilns up and running. MR. HALL-Until they actually have the kilns in place, that's right. MR. TRAVER-So. Any other questions on the tabling motion? MRS. MOORE-Are you also going to open the public hearing and leave that open? MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there folks in the audience that are here to speak to us about the Seaton Property Holdings application this evening? No? Okay. Well, we will open the public hearing, then, and we will leave it open pending this being heard again, and I understand that the plan is to table this to the July 25th meeting? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we have a motion in our packet to that effect. MR. FERONE-Are you ready? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 27-2017 & SUP 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford; Tabled until the July 25, 2017 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-AII right. Very good. Next we move to the next section of the agenda which is Old Business, the first application being David Discenza, Site Plan 24-2017 at 3 Stevens Road. SITE PLAN NO 24-2017 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID P. DISCENZA OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 STEVENS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WHERE 3 UNITS RECEIVED APPROVAL. PREVIOUS APPROVAL IN 1991 FOR A DUPLEX AND IN 1992 FOR A THIRD UNIT. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THE SITE OR BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REQUEST TO MAINTAIN A 4T" APARTMENT UNIT TO EXISTING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 35-1991, SP 4-1992, AV 23-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 2.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-18 SECTION 179-3- 040 DAVID DISCENZA, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to give us some information? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to maintain a four unit building where three units received approval. The previous approvals, as stated, were in 1991 for a duplex and then 1992 for a third unit, and it was identified during the 1992 project that the applicant had filled out paperwork for a four unit but explained at the meeting that he only wanted three units total. Therefore we're missing a unit that was installed without approvals and the applicant did receive the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I recall that we spoke about this prior to that. MR. DISCENZA-On April 18tH MR. TRAVER-So we made a referral to the Zoning Board. You went there and they granted your variance. MR. DISCENZA-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Were there any, I'm not recalling any conditions. MR. DISCENZA-No, there were no conditions. MR. TRAVER-All right. Obviously no changes. It's been operating this way since the 90's I guess. Right? MR. DISCENZA-Yes, since '93. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you state your name for the record? MR. DISCENZA-Sure. David Discenza. MR. TRAVER-Thanks. All right. Any questions from members of the Planning Board? There is a public hearing on this application. I note that this is SEQR Type II. So we don't need to do a SEQR review. Are there folks in the audience that are here to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Could you give up the table for someone that's making public comment? MR. DISCENZA-Sure. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. TRAVER-1 will open the public hearing. SHELLY SWEET MRS. SWEET-Hi. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MRS. SWEET-I'm Shelly. I live at 18 Stevens Road. We're just concerned with the traffic. It's mostly seniors that live on that road, and a lot of the traffic that goes down goes down to that apartment building. So we're really concerned about the traffic, and also it states here no change in the site or the buildings. So we're kind of wondering how it's going from a three unit to a four unit without relief. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Yes. The answer to that is because in effect it's only going from a three unit to a four unit on paper. It's actually been operating as a four unit for some time, and it was basically just overlooked somehow in the approval process that it was not approved for four, but there have been four apartments there. They have been occupied. So there's no need to change the building and I would not anticipate a change in traffic at this time. MRS. SWEET-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So, again, you're not looking at a change except in the documentation for the use of that particular site, that it's been four all along but it's being acknowledged by the Town through this process this evening and through the ZBA. MRS. SWEET-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You're welcome. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? No? Okay. Then I'll ask the applicant to return. Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And hearing no questions or concerns from members of the Planning Board, I guess we can go ahead and proceed with a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 24-2017 DAVID P. DISCENZA 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 maintain a 4-unit apartment building where 3 units received approval. Previous approval in 1991 for a duplex and in 1992 for a third unit. No changes are proposed to the site or building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, request to maintain a 4th apartment unit to existing structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 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 05/02/2017 and continued the public hearing to 05/022017, 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 05/02/2017; 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) 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 24-2017 DAVID P. DISCENZA; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition and snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. DISCENZA-Okay. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda, also under Old Business, is Chris Carte, Site Plan 25-2017 at 1067 State Route 9. SITE PLAN NO. 25-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CHRIS CARTE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING Cl LOCATION 1067 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW FACADE ON AN EXISTING 6,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A NEW ADDITION OF 125 SQ. FT. AND WIDTH OF 24 INCHES. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PARKING ARRANGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. RE-USE OF EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING, NEW PARKING AND NEW FACADE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SEVERAL SIGNS, INTERIOR ALT., AV 24-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2017 - NCI LOT SIZE .66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS CARTE, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a new fagade on the existing 6,000 square feet existing building for a new addition of 125 sq. ft. The intent here is to match the existing storage, and the application includes new parking arrangement to the front, and he's also identified and I've provided information about the site plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. CARTE-Good evening. Chris Carte here. I own the Wood Carte and now the property directly to the north of the Wood Carte and hope to use it for an expansion of my business. MR. TRAVER-Expansion and kind of a showroom type thing? MR. CARTE-Yes, exactly. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we did review this for purposes of the ZBA and made a recommendation. It looks like they granted the setbacks. So no changes to your proposal since we saw it last. The variance was approved by the ZBA. Questions or comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Chris, I'd like to say, I almost hit a car pulling into your old establishment there because I was checking out the colors of the new one there, but really it looked so much better and I want to thank you for moving over there. It looks great. MR. CARTE-Thank you. I appreciate it. And we're not done. We've got a little bit more to do there to make it better, mostly to put a roof fagade on it to kind of match. That's what the sketches are that you have there. MR. TRAVER-It makes sense that it would be made out of wood. MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. There is a public hearing for this application. Are there members of the audience that are here tonight to address the Planning Board on this application for the Wood Carte? I'm not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-No? Okay. Noting also this is SEQR Unlisted, and we do have a SEQR resolution. I guess we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any concerns regarding the environmental review on this application? MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-It's really kind of an existing facility. MR. MAGOWAN-I think the improvements he's made so far have improved the environment around it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, good point, yes, absolutely. All right. Well, I guess we'll entertain a SEQR resolution then. RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP 25-2017 CHRIS CARTE The applicant proposes a new fagade on an existing 6,000 sq. ft. building for a new addition of 125 sq. ft. and width of 24 inches. Project includes new parking arrangement. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, reuse of existing retail building, new parking and new facade 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; 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) 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 25-2017 CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by George Ferone 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then next we have, unless there are further questions for the applicant, we move on, then, to the Site Plan approval, and we'll entertain that motion. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN #25-2017 CHRIS CARTE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a new fagade on an existing 6,000 sq. ft. building for a new addition of 125 sq. ft. and width of 24 inches. Project includes new parking arrangement. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, reuse of existing retail building, new parking and new facade 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 05/02/2017 and continued the public hearing to 05/02/2017, 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 05/02/2017; 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 25-2017 CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, the applicant has provided a site lighting. So it's not necessary for a waiver for site lighting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we'll strike the waiver for lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wanted to thank you for that because that was the one question I did have, and your drawing answers the concerns. MR. FERONE-The motion is so amended to eliminate site lighting as a waiver. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CARTE-Okay. Thank you, everyone. MR. TRAVER-Continuing with Old Business, our next application is DDDJ Enterprises, Site Plan 26-2017. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DDDJ ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION LOT #3 WEST DRIVE APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,000 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED POLE BARN FOR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL STORAGE FOR CONTRACTORS' YARD. PROJECT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL SITE CLEARING FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE AND A NEW ACCESS ROAD FROM LUZERNE RD. THROUGH AN EASEMENT WITH THE ADJOINING LOTS. PROJECT DISTURBS MORE THAN AN ACRE AND IS SUBJECT TO A SWPPP. PROJECT IS ASSOCIATED WITH SITE PLAN MODIFICATION OF SP 93-2016 PARCEL 1308.12-1-7.2 FOR ACCESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONTRACTORS' YARD AND NEW BUILDING 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; DISC. 2016; AV 25-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 5.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.13, 308.12-1-7.2, 308.12-1-7.12 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you give us a preview? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes approval of construction of an 8,000 square foot enclosed pole barn for equipment and material storage as well as contractor storage yard. This includes additional site clearing for outdoor storage, new access road on Luzerne Road through an easement with the adjoining lots. The project does disturb more than an acre and is subject to a SWPPP. The project has been referred to the Town Engineer for review and comment, which is in your packet, and the applicant did receive the necessary variances for road access and the Zoning Board was specific that it be a permanent non-exclusive easement to allow for all users to be able to have access. MR. TRAVER-To the Luzerne Road. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture, here tonight representing DDDJ. We're back in front of you, we were here earlier, or later last month regarding the new 8,000 square foot pole barn. It'll be for the storage of their equipment. There have been a couple of questions that were brought up. I spoke with my civil engineer today. He spoke with Sean and they're working out all the final details with Chazen's letter of the issues that they had there. There was a question brought up with regard to where the clearing line is. Our limits of clearing are indicated on our drawing. We're leaving a 50 foot buffer to the south of the project, I'm sorry, to the east of the project and to the north edge of it, up to the point where the existing 30 foot buffer is where the road is already cut to the back of the lot. So there'll be no further cutting within that buffer and we will leave the 50 foot buffer where it's indicated on the east side of the lot and the remaining north side. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I see that the variance was conditioned with this permanent non- exclusive easement. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. TRAVER-No issues with that I assume. MR. HALL-No, in fact there's been some further discussions back and forth between the current landowner and the person who had first right of refusal. I believe that that's all squared away. It's just a matter of getting people signing off on it. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that wouldn't have any impact on your site plan other than maybe putting a notation on the plot. Anything else? MR. HALL-No. MR. TRAVER-You don't see any issues with any of the engineering comments? MR. HALL-I spoke with the civil engineer today and he didn't see any problem addressing them. He said they're mostly dealing with stormwater calculations and where he came up with numbers and things like that. It's basically making sure that pre and post runoff are matched and we're taking care of it all. It's fairly well drained out there, very deep sands. The areas that he's using for his infiltration basins will be more than adequate to take up anything that's going to come off. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions from the applicant? MR. HUNSINGER-It's pretty straightforward. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, we looked at it a little bit during the referral. MR. HUNSINGER-The colors of the building? MR. TRAVER-1 don't know that a color has been chosen yet. I'm sure it'll be some kind of a neutral color. MR. HALL-I promise it won't be bright orange. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I wouldn't think for this use it would be too garish. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. HALL-No. I'm assuming it will be some kind of a tan or beige maybe, with some green trim or something. I don't think there's anything. MR. TRAVER-1 suppose we could put a condition on the tentative approval for a neutral color. MR. HUNSINGER-Earth tone colors. MR. HALL-Earth tone. I love earth tone colors because there's every color in the world in the earth. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HALL-A neutral color. MR. HUNSINGER-Neutral earth tones. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, there is a public hearing on this application. Are there, we'll open the public hearing and I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that is here to address this application this evening before the Planning Board? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There was a written comment, and this is in reference to the easement for the right of first refusal. It sounds like that language is being worked out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So, again, I think that that sort of condition or easement language needs to be on the final plans because conditionally it's an easement in their deed, and in this case it would be helpful if it's on the final plans. MR. TRAVER-So if we could add that. Well, that's on theirs, but I think we might want to put something. MR. FERONE-1 know. I'll read it into the motion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That works for me. All right. Very good. Well then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Unlisted, and we do have a resolution prepared for us by Staff. Are there any environmental concerns on this project? It's really part of a larger complex. They're already addressing the engineering comments in regards to stormwater, but I'll ask. Are there any issues that members of the Board want to raise with regard to the environmental impacts? Okay. Then perhaps we can listen to the SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC SP # 26-2017 DDDJ ENTERPRISES The applicant request approval of a contractor storage yard and construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for equipment and material storage for contractors' yard. Project includes additional site clearing for outside storage and a new access road from Luzerne Rd. through an easement with the adjoining lots. Project disturbs more than an acre and is subject to a SWPPP. Project is associated with site plan modification of SP 93-2016 parcel 308.12-1-7.2 for access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, contractors' yard and new building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) 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 26-2017 DDDJ ENTERPRISES, Introduced by George Ferone 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So we're set with SEAR. Then we're ready to look at the Site Plan approval motion. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 26-2017 DDDJ ENTERPRISES The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant requests approval of a contractor storage yard and construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for equipment and material storage for contractors' yard. Project includes additional site clearing for outside storage and a new access road from Luzerne Rd. through an easement with the adjoining lots. Project disturbs more than an acre and is subject to a SWPPP. Project is associated with site plan modification of SP 93-2016 parcel 308.12-1-7.2 for access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, contractors' yard and new building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 05/02/2017 and continued the public hearing to 05/02/2017, 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 05/02/2017; 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 26-2017 DDDJ ENTERPRISES; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers have been requested. 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) 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) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) 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. g) 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; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) 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. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 1) The variance was granted on 4/19/17 with the condition as a permanent non-exclusive easement be established for access to Luzerne Road, and that the building to be erected will be in a neutral earth tone color. m) Buffers of 30 feet on the west side and partial north side, and the remaining north side and east would have a 50 foot buffer, according to the submitted plan. n) That the Water Department needs to approve the water connection for the site. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May 2017 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I'm going to identify items that need to be clarified on the plot plan, and if you choose to put them as part of your condition, that's okay. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-1 just want to make sure that it's understood that we're looking for additional information on the site grading, site clearing, the storage area size and use, the waivers for the buffer requirements. I apologize. I didn't quite catch the buffer information that you shared. MR. HALL-So the buffer on the west side and part of the north side is the 30 feet. It's already been cleared. So the west side is already cleared to 30 feet, and this part of the north side is already cleared to 30 feet. That's within the setback. And then we're adding a 50 foot buffer along the remaining north side and all of the east side. MRS. MOORE-Yes, so that would be a waiver that the Board would be granting because the west side borders a residential area, only the corner. So that would be part of your waivers would be that. MR. TRAVER-So we would be granting a waiver for the buffering on the western side? MR. HALL-The western side and part of the northern side. It's already been included. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So as indicated on the plot. MR. FERONE-So we want to modify the motion to include buffers of 30 feet on the west side and the north side? MR. HALL-Partial north side. MR. FERONE-Partial north side. And the remaining north side and east would have a 50 foot buffer. According to the. MRS. MOORE-According to the submitted plan. MR. FERONE-According to the submitted plan. MRS. MOORE-Yes. And then I also included the water connection needs to be resolved with the Water Department, and that's the final item. MR. HALL-I spoke with Chris about that and we've got a solution put together. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we just add the condition that the water connection be resolved. MR. FERONE-Additional modification to the resolution is that the Water Department needs to approve the water connection for the site. AYES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item we have under Old Business is James R. Glendening, Site Plan 29-2017, at 462 Ridge Road. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JAMES R. GLENDENING AGENT(S) ANDREW PARSONS, JMZ ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) GLENDENING REALTY, LLC ZONING MDR LOCATION 462 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 165 SQ. FT. NEW ENTRYWAY ADDITION AND A 465 SQ. FT. NEW COVERED WALKWAY FOR THE ENTRYWAY ACCESS. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SIGNAGE, PARKING ARRANGEMENT, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER, CLEARING, AND OTHER SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FACADE AND NEW ENTRYWAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-88 w/UV; DISC 4-2017; AV 27- 2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2017 - NCI LOT SIZE 2.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes construction of two items to upgrade the site. So there's a 165 sq. ft. new entryway addition and a 465 sq. ft. new covered walkway. The project also includes new signage, parking arrangement, landscaping, stormwater, and clearing for enhancements on the north side of the property, and the applicant was granted a Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance for the setback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Dr. Glendening. Doc as his patients like to call him. We are here for Site Plan Review based on a need to upgrade the fagade and entryway to the Animal Hospital, and coupled with that would be a reconfiguration of the site to add parking to the north, including a new parcel that was yours originally but you've now merged it with the Hospital. Correct? Coupled with that would be some improvements to the landscaping as well as the building fagade. We went through it a little bit last meeting. I don't know if you have any particular questions you want to us to go into a little bit more in-depth discussion. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. TRAVER-Well, one question I would have basically would be as a result of the ZBA review, were there any changes made in what you presented to us originally? MR. JARRETT-No, no. We addressed the Town Engineer questions. In fact I delivered a response at the last meeting, but I have not heard anything back. So I think they were pretty benign questions and straightforward answers, but we've not heard anything back. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MS. WHITE-We looked at this quite a bit. MR. TRAVER-We did. We did. Okay. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address this application with the Planning Board? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-None MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, then I guess we'll open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JARRETT-May I interject one thing? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. JARRETT-Doc would like to make an appeal to you regarding our stormwater design. We've discussed it internally and I think he'd like to carry that discussion to you. MR. TRAVER-Certainly. By all means. JAMES GLENDENING DR. GLEN DEN ING-Well, the concerns and questions that I have are, the arc in the center of the Animal Hospital, that arc has been that way and those seven maples that sit around there have used that as their root placement. MR. TRAVER-And they're well fertilized. DR. GLEN DEN ING-Yes. We have a sprinkler system to kind of dilute that. MR. JARRETT-Maybe over-fertilized. DR. GLENDENING-But anyway, what is being done is that the area in front of the Animal Hospital, some of the blacktop is being removed. There is going to be an area in front in that blacktop that is going to infiltrate some water, and I'm questioning, Tom did what he was supposed to do. He designed a drainage area for that, including putting some kind of a swale in my front yard, and I really would like to have relief from that because we're not putting any new water on that that has not been there for the last 43 years that I know about, and so having to deal with stormwater when we are not changing the amount of water that's landing there. That bothers me some. In fact it annoys me slightly. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think you made mention of that the last time you were here. DR. GLENDENING-1 might have, yes, I might have. MR. TRAVER-Yes, understood. MR. JARRETT-The details of this are shown on C-2 in your packet. MR. TRAVER-1 can tell you that in terms of the aesthetics and the general appearance, you know, we can work with the applicant to address that, but basically what you're talking about, and Tom may possibly have mentioned this to you, you're talking about the engineering aspects of it, and we have delegated that authority, not the authority, but the responsibility to our Town Engineer. So you can propose and make whatever changes to stormwater management on site pretty much that you want, but you need to get the approval of the Town Engineer. So if you can re-configure that or if Tom can re-configure that in such a way that that swale is maybe in another location or side or different type, I don't think, and again I'm just speaking for myself and this point, but I don't think that we would have a problem with that. It just would be a 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) matter of getting that signoff from the Town Engineer, and I understand that we have a number of properties and applications in front of us from time to time that for years have not had any stormwater management, and stormwater management is, I don't want to say that it's a new science, but certainly there are many properties in Queensbury that pre-date that concern significantly, and I'm not saying this is one of them, but it could be that there are stormwater elements that maybe would have been added had the existing regulations or recommendations been in place when the facility was originally constructed that were not. Again, that's an engineering question that I don't feel qualified really to, Tom actually would be more qualified than I to address that. I do feel that I don't think the Board would have an issue with the aesthetics of re-locating the appearance certainly or the functional aspects of the site, provided that the regulations are met and the engineer signs off on it. I don't know if other Board members want to comment on that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think that's well said. MR. TRAVER-So it's really in a way not in our purview. MR. MAGOWAN-Doc, if Tom says it can be done your way, and he's happy with it, I don't have a problem with it. MR. TRAVER-That's right. MR. JARRETT-No pressure now. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's saying in two seconds what I took two or three minutes to say, but it's the same. I mean, I don't think there would be a problem. One issue, however, would be you have submitted a site plan. Should that site plan be approved, and I think we're looking at most likely an approval, then you need to make that modification according to what you said you were going to do. So if you leave here tonight and then decide to make a change, that would be a problem. I don't think that would happen under Tom's support, but. MR. JARRETT-Well, frankly, the area in front we're talking about is site, if any of you have been there, the site slopes from the Hospital towards Ridge Road. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-And there are three landscaping beds right now, isolated oval beds, and what we're planning to do is connect them with a very small shallow berm about maybe a foot high which is landscaped. So it basically would be connecting the landscaping along Ridge Road and trapping runoff behind that berm and letting it seep in. There's really no other location to move that stormwater to and manage it. It really has to be done there at that particular portion of the site. It has to be done right there. I've already asked for relief through the Town Engineer and discussed this with Staff early on and Laura was, she conferred with me, I'll let her speak for herself, we did ask for relief from the 50 year storm event. We went down to a lesser storm event, to manage runoff. MR. TRAVER-Like a 25? MR. JARRETT-Roughly a 25 year storm. We used the same criteria we used in the Lake George basin. As opposed to our standard 50 year criteria for commercial properties. I think Doc is just, maybe it's philosophy. Maybe, I'm not, I don't want to speak for you but there was concerns. MR. BORGOS-Doc, is it too much change? You're just not comfortable with all this change? DR. GLENDENING-No, I'm just not happy to see a bump in the front yard. Don't want to dig down to make a hole because the tree roots are there and I don't want to damage those trees. MR. JARRETT-We don't want to go down. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, is there no alternative that? I mean, have you had any discussions with the Town Engineer about this specific issue? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. VALENTINE-The April 11th letter that they submitted was basically stormwater letter. MR. JARRETT-Correct. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. VALENTINE-There hasn't been any, you haven't addressed those? MR. JARRETT-Yes, we have. The April 11tH MRS. MOORE-1 don't have a response yet with regards to this. MR. JARRETT-Our letter was dated the 17th, the night of the meeting, and we've not heard from them. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and in your letter, did you propose an alternative to this more in line with what Dr. Glendening was seeking? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-1 guess the, I mean, from the standpoint of planning, we're looking at it that there is two additions, there's things happening at the front of that building that stormwater, traditionally we try to capture if it's available, to capture it where it's happening. MR. TRAVER-Sure, right. MRS. MOORE-And this is what has been proposed is that he has a covered walkway, which is definitely new, and then we have a new entryway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, let me ask a question. We do require, and obviously in our resolution is the requirement for an engineer's signoff, but can we give the applicant some latitude just in this specific area to, as long as they submit, say hypothetically Tom works with the Town Engineer and he's able to work out an alternative stormwater management system, I don't know how likely that is, but hypothetically if that were to happen, could they modify that and submit that on the final submitted plan to you with our conditioned approval that it only be that it still has to get approval and it could only be in that specific area? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Well, let me throw the opposite out. What if they can't work something out? MR. MAGOWAN-He's going to have the bump in his front yard. MR. TRAVER-Yes, he's going to have to, I mean, he's got to get the, I mean, we couldn't override the Town Engineer and say that we know more about it or, you know, can approve, I mean, we can't allow a violation of the, I guess it would be Code, right, that requires stormwater management. So we couldn't override the law basically. So we do have to require that engineer's signoff but how they go about it, typically it's presented in the site plan that we review, but in this case I think, I mean, if the other members of the Planning Board would be comfortable, I would be comfortable in saying provided the stormwater is managed and provided the engineering signoff is obtained, I think, and we're only talking about this area, which is not a large percentage of the overall site, and the stormwater management on this area doesn't have an impact on the stormwater management elsewhere on the site, I don't believe. Right? MR. JARRETT-No, the parking areas are being managed towards the rear. MR. TRAVER-Right. So this is what I'm saying. So this is really in isolation. So I would be comfortable in giving you latitude, as long as you meet the engineering signoff, in designing whatever stormwater management system you can meet that will lean toward the appearance that Dr. Glendening is looking for and still meet the requirements in terms of stormwater. MR. JARRETT-Okay. We'll try to keep everybody happy. MR. TRAVER-That would be great, yes, and then you wouldn't even have to come back. You could just submit a final plan to Laura and we'd just ask Laura, if she hears, that she's aware that there is a change, that you were able to make some, come to some agreement, I think that would be terrific. How do other members of the Board feel about that? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. FORD-1 feel that if the engineers can work with the goal of coming as close to what Dr. Glendening wants as possible, if they can get it together, that everybody's happy then I won't be unhappy. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and if that happens, maybe it'll start happening in Washington. Right? MR. FORD-It's got to start some place. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's right. MR. JARRETT-It's a heavier lift all of a sudden. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. So I think we already dealt with the public hearing. I opened it and there were no public comments. There were no written comments. So we'll go ahead and close that. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Unlisted. We do have a SEQR resolution in front of us. I think that, as far as SEQR's concerned, it appears to me that we're actually improving the environmental, reducing the environmental impact by, unfortunately for Dr. Glendening, implementing some stormwater where there was none before, but are there any environmental concerns that members of the Board have before we go to a SEQR resolution? MR. FERONE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can we have that motion then? RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP 29-2017 JAMES R. GLENDENING The applicant proposes construction of a 165 sq. ft. new entryway addition and a 465 sq. ft. new covered walkway for the entryway access. Project includes new signage, parking arrangement, landscaping, stormwater, clearing, and other site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new fagade and new entryway 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 29-2017 JAMES R. GLENDENING, Introduced by George Ferone 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr., Traver 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we can move on to the Site Plan resolution. We talked about conditioning the approval, and the language of this will be important. I guess we're basically saying that, we're giving the applicant latitude to amend the stormwater plan for the circular area in front of the building provided it meets the Town Engineer's requirements. MR. FERONE-Let me just try this before we make it in the motion. So I have down that stormwater design for the ground in front of the building, I didn't know how to identify it any further, may be modified as long as stormwater is managed and approved by the Town Engineers. MR. TRAVER-Even better. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right, and I don't believe we had any other conditions. MR. FERONE-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any comment on that proposed motion or conditions? MR. FORD-No. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 29-2017 JAMES R. GLENDENING The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a 165 sq. ft. new entryway addition and a 465 sq. ft. new covered walkway for the entryway access. Project includes new signage, parking arrangement, landscaping, stormwater, clearing, and other site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new fagade and new entryway 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 05/02/2017 and continued the public hearing to 05/02/2017, 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 05/02/2017; 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 29-2017 JAMES R. GLENDENING; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, floor plans, soil logs, construction demolition and snow removal. 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; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) 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) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) 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. g) 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; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) 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. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 1) Stormwater design for the grounds in front of the building may be modified as long as stormwater is managed and the new plan is approved by the Town Engineer. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. Such as it is. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. DR. GLEN DEN ING-Thank you. We'll work on the Washington thing. MR. TRAVER-Thanks again. All right. The next item on our agenda, also under Old Business, Stewart's Shops Corporation, Site Plan 30-2017, at 977 State Route 149. SITE PLAN NO. 30-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S) CHARLES MARSHALL, STEWART'S OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NC LOCATION 977 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF 2,292 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL TO BUILD A NEW 3,695 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH 2,360 SQ. FT. CANOPY TO HAVE 4 ISLANDS/8 FUELING POSITIONS. FIRST PHASE WILL BE STORE CONSTRUCTION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, THEN DEMOLITION OF PRESENT BUILDING & CANOPY TO INSTALL NEW CANOPY. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE DISTURBANCE GREATER THAN AN ACRE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 176-4-030 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 35-1989 NEW CONSTRUCTION; 2003 MOD. & AV 18-2003 FOR GAS ISLANDS/CANOPIES; 2009 MOD. FOR 600 SF ADDITION; AV 26-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2017 - NCI LOT SIZE 1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040 & 176-4-030 CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to demolish the existing convenience store and fuel area to build a new 3,695 sq. ft. convenience store. The canopy is to be at 2,360 sq. ft. and a four island eight fueling positions. The applicant was granted Area Variances for the canopy and the applicant was given direction that the variance was also to include discussion with the Planning Board regarding fence and plantings along the west property line and light spillage to be minimized to the west and no parking signs to be installed on Route 149 pending DOT and County review for approval for signage, and what Chris is handing you is some of that information. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. POTTER-Good evening. Chris Potter from Stewart's. I'm just handing out some revised plans addressing the conditions from the Zoning Board approval last week. MR. TRAVER-That was quick. MR. POTTER-Yes, it was. We added a fence along the westerly property line boundary. It's 378 feet of six foot high white vinyl stockade fence. We also added arborvitaes on the west side of it to additionally screen from our neighbor. We've also gone through and adjusted our site lighting, which was a condition of our zoning approval. So we lowered the light levels. We took the light pols along the west side from behind the building and we changed those to a back shielded fixture which throws the light out and decreases the light behind the fixture itself, as well as reduce the amount of LED lights that are in, and then the building lights that were mounted on the side of the building that would face the west would also reduce, you know, they're LED, as well as the canopy lights were reduced also. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. POTTER-We've also addressed all of the comments from the Town Engineer. We've been in contact with Chazen regarding that. We haven't submitted any revised plans to them yet due to timing, but we feel that we can come to agreement on all their conditions that they have sent. MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay. MR. POTTER-Also there was a mention of no parking signs. MR. TRAVER-On 149. MR. POTTER-On both roads. MR. TRAVER-On both roads. MR. POTTER-Yes, there are signs existing which are now noted on the plan. On 149 there's one on either side of our driveway, and the same thing on 9L there's two signs. There's one by the northern property corner which is by the golf course sign, and then one on the south side of the entrance also. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That was interesting when I saw that comment. I mean, just my own personal experience, I don't remember seeing vehicles parked on the road there. I mean I've seen the store very busy, obviously, with a lot of vehicles on the property. MR. VALENTINE-Is that mainly trucking that seems to be the problem? MR. POTTER-Yes, I believe so, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. POTTER-Yes, I think it's larger trucks that may be. I know I've seen, just when I was there last week there were trucks, but they were pulling in to the lot next to us to come across the vacant lot. That's it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Which will be increasingly difficult because they're going to build over there, too. Yes. All right. Very good. Anything else? MR. POTTER-No, that was it. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and as a result of the ZBA review there weren't any changes to the building itself, the phasing of the construction or the gas canopy. Correct? MR. POTTER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. VALENTINE-Just two if I may. The one thing you were just talking about. Does that require DOT authorization for the signs on a State road? MR. POTTER-If we added signs then, yes, it would, but since they're existing, I would assume they were approved at that time. I notice there's a number of no parking signs all the way down to the golf course on 149. So I would assume, I don't know if DOT put them up. I don't believe we did. MR. VALENTINE-Then the other question I had is the fencing and the arborvitae. The arborvitae obviously is on the neighbor's side of the fencing? MR. POTTER-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Is there a plan for maintenance and replacement? I mean, fencing is put up as a buffer for the benefit of the neighbors. MR. POTTER-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-All right, but do you have, I don't know what past practice is with something like t that that Stewart's has, if in a year or so they should either die or they need to be just maintained for appearance purposes. MR. POTTER-Correct. Yes, we would maintain them. MR. VALENTINE-1 just wanted to make sure, because like I said, the buffering is for the benefit of those neighbors. MR. POTTER-Yes, a lot of times that's like part of the approval like a condition that landscaping must be maintained. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. Other questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment further on the lighting plan? MR. POTTER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I had asked you specifically how that might compare to some of your existing stores. MR. TRAVER-Like the one down here on Bay. MR. POTTER-Yes. After that meeting I did go to the site, as well as stopped at the one on Bay Road you had commented on. Bay Road at the driveways only have one light pole on the one side of it. What we're proposing is to have one on each side. So it would help light the driveway itself better. MR. HUNSINGER-When we approved the current site plan for this property we spent a lot of time on the lighting, and there was a recognition that, you know, different parts of the Town should have different lamination and this is more rural and should be a little darker and that kind of thing. MR. TRAVER-Light pollution is an increasing issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so anyway, that's good to hear, and then how does it compare to the Glen Street, your Upper Glen? MR. POTTER-1 would say it's similar to that. Actually now that we've reduced them from what we originally submitted it would be less than that. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. POTTER-At least at the canopies. Our driveways, the one on 149, the one light that is on the western side we did reduce the lighting levels on that light itself, but the remaining ones along 149 and 9L were like we originally submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Can you comment specifically about the lighting levels underneath the gas canopy? So how do you arrive at what would be the appropriate illumination levels? MR. POTTER-Well, what we have, what we originally submitted was a 60 LED fixture, which is our light that we stock at our warehouse that we put in mobile stores that towns allow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. POTTER-So we have that one fixture that we stock. So that's what we generally come in with, which gets you, you know, 25, you know, maximum of 27 foot candles or so underneath the canopy. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. POTTER-And from the concerns of the neighbor at the Zoning Board, we went back and we reduced the canopy lights to 40 LED's from 60. MR. HUNSINGER-So 40 watt? MR. POTTER-It's actually the number of little LED nodes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. POTTER-And then that dropped it down to a maximum of 19 foot candles under the canopy, and then the average went from 20 to 14 under the whole canopy itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-It's kind of a silly question, but on your front page I noticed from the other one, are those window air conditioner units or are they wall air conditioning units? MR. POTTER-It's a wall mounted heating and air conditioner combined. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I'm looking because it kind of looks like a double hung window with the little clasp up there and I'm like why would they have window units? MR. POTTER-We're trying to stay on budget. MR. TRAVER-It's actually kind of a heat pump type of device, isn't it? Does it have one of those exchangers outside or is it just the? MR. POTTER-No, it's all self located. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I've seen them. I've never really seen it look like a window with an air conditioner hanging out of it, but from now on I'll know that that's not a window that's a wall mounted HVAC. MR. TRAVER-1 see you're proposing an increase in gas prices, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wasn't happy with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. POTTER-It used to be a decrease. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's right when this was originally plotted. All right. Any other questions from members of the Planning Board? We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? Okay. We do have someone that would like to comment. We'll open that public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) BRIAN WALKER MR. WALKER-My name's Brian Walker and I reside at 13 Brookfield Run in Queensbury. My sister and I are co-owners of the property adjacent to Stewart's. First I want to say thank you to the Zoning Board and thank you to Chris and Stewart's for addressing the concerns we brought up at the meeting last week. We really appreciate that. I think that this is going in the right direction but we're not quite there yet. Unfortunately last week I didn't have time to review the drawings before the meeting. I have now had time to review the drawings and there's a few things that I'd like to make sure that the Board is aware of. If we could look at Drawing S-1 please. It's the second one in the packet. MR. TRAVER-Yes, Page Two. MR. WALKER-Right there. So you'll notice here at the back of the property there is currently a very large expanse of green space. This is an area that's brush, tall grass, and existing trees. I just want to make sure that everyone's aware that this entire area of green space is going to be gone with the proposed project. That's a, I realize we've added the arborvitaes and the fence and that's a great thing, but this, although it's un-manicured and unattended, does serve a purpose, you know, it does help to reduce the noise between the properties. It does help to reduce the light pollution and so on and so forth, but with the addition of the new store, if we could look at Drawing S-2. MR. VALENTINE-Do you mind me asking, you had said you were the adjacent. Adjacent in which way? MR. WALKER—To the west, former Walker's Logging Supply. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. WALKER-My mother and sister live at the house, and this is my mom's house right here. This is the easterly side of the house. So with this proposal and all the green space now being gone, the dumpsters are basically the first thing that we're going to see. It's the first thing that we're going to hear and in the summer it's the first thing that we're going to smell. So I would recommend that we consider moving the dumpsters to the other side of the property over here in this parking area. If you're going to build a chain link fence around it you could do the same thing over here. This is too close. I don't know exactly what the dimension is because it's not called out on the drawings. There's no dimension from the extreme corner to the property line. There's no dimension here, and there's no dimension there. So I don't know exactly what the setback is, but judging by the scale of the drawing it appears to be less than 20 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, there's 42 feet from the property line to that square box where you were pointing. You see that one line that goes straight across? Doesn't that say 42 feet? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So if you bring that down from the corner of the dumpster, you know the corner of the dumpster, not the fence but the corner of the dumpster, it's pretty much in line there. Actually it looks in a little bit. So you can comfortably say 42 feet to the line from the corner of the dumpster, if you're asking for a measurement. MR. WALKER-Okay. MR. WALKER-This dimension here is far less than that. MR. MAGOWAN-That one is. MR. WALKER-Also on the site plan I noticed that the septic system here at the top, the leach field now is going to have eight 60 foot legs, whereas the existing one has 10 legs, and I was just curious how you can expand a store and reduce your leach field area. MR. TRAVER-And that's an engineering issue that has to be approved. MR. WALKER-Understood. I also wanted to point out, if we could refer to, again looking at Drawing S-2, I'd like to talk a little bit about the stormwater retention area in the back corner of the property. There's now going to be a 10 foot deep triangular shaped hole pretty close to the property line, which, I was just wondering if there was a better way to do that. This is a pretty large 10 foot deep hole and there's not very much distance between that and the edge of the property. We talked a little bit about this before, the no parking signs on Route 149, and that's 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) great, except the truck drivers that stop for coffee ignore them. They always park along 149 in front of our shop. They usually park on our side of the road or on the opposite side of the road where the Baldwin's are going to be building their general store. I think that the plan should consider some area for trucks to park here in the front. If you're going to have truck drivers as customers you need to provide a place for them to park. Currently the plan doesn't have any area for trucks to park. So they park in front of our house, and they drive on the side of the road, and when it's soft and muddy it creates ruts. Our mailbox has been destroyed a few times. MR. TRAVER-Well that, I would suggest, is a law enforcement issue. They're not allowed to do that regardless of what Stewart's, if Stewart's was there or not. MR. WALKER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So what I would urge would be, when that's an issue, is the local police can be notified and they can start issuing tickets and it will become untenable. Stewart's cannot enforce that. MR. WALKER-I'm not asking for enforcement. I'm asking for accommodation for parking. If there was a place to park, they wouldn't park where it says no parking. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that's a little bit speculative, but I understand what you're saying. We'll let Stewart's address that. MR. WALKER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. WALKER-1 can, we pretty much have addressed most of the other concerns based on the Zoning Board meeting, and like I said before I really appreciate that. I appreciate the cooperation and the fact that we were listened to. So thank you for that. I just had some additional concerns to bring up after I had the opportunity to review the documents. So again I appreciate the opportunity to bring that to your attention as well. I didn't make enough copies of the written opposition statement, but I could submit what I have. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you can give that to Laura. She'll make it part of the record. MR. WALKER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Just before you leave the table, so was it your idea for the privacy fence and the arborvitae hedge? MR. WALKER-It was, we asked for a solution, and that was an acceptable solution. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WALKER-The privacy fence and the arborvitae will be better than what we have now, which is nothing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. WALKER-In the front of the building between the two properties there's nothing but a dead hemlock tree. So we currently have a lot of issues with people crossing over, walking their dogs, unloading trash from their car, and other things, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. WALKER-The fence will address that problem and that makes me happy. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for your comments. All right. MRS. MOORE-There's two written comments. There's one from Brian, and there's also one from Michelle. Do you want those read into the record or were they summarized in your comments that you provided tonight? MR. WALKER-They're not summarized in full. They'll be part of the record now that we've submitted a written document. Correct? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. No other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing and we'll ask the gentleman from Stewart's to come up to the table. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So, you heard the comment. MR. POTTER-Yes. I know you said the septic system was an engineering issue. Our current water usage is 800 gallons a day. The system is designed for 900. So it is sized appropriately for our use. As far as the basin, you know, separation from their lot, there really. MR. TRAVER-1 understand his comment. I'm assuming that that is going to be dry most of the time, or have a minimum amount of. MR. POTTER-It is. It's an infiltration basin. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. POTTER-So the soils that are there, it's a very fast perc rate of five minutes. MR. TRAVER-Is that going to be grassy type? I mean, it's not going to be bare ground. It's going to be, not literally a hole. It's going to be grassy. MR. POTTER-It would be grass, yes. It would be planted with grass, yes. MR. TRAVER-And what about the area, I guess it would be to the sort of north, that is, that the public comment mentioned was shrubs and unkempt area that's now going to be cleared. What's the appearance of that going to be going forward? MR. POTTER-It would be just one area. On the northern side, there's the golf course today. We've agreed to keep a number of large trees along their fence line. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So that's not going to be completely denuded of all. MR. POTTER-No, on the north side there's still, there's a number of trees, large mature trees, that would stay. It's really the stuff that has grown up in our current stormwater basin that will be removed, small poplars that have grown up. MR. TRAVER-And there's a service associated with the installation of the new septic, and then once that construction is completed, it will be returned to a natural state? MR. POTTER-Correct, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What about the dumpsters? MR. POTTER-We can look at moving them more towards where the septic system is to like almost where that, there's a tree with a light pole kind of centered there, so the dumpster. MR. TRAVER-Could you use the laser pointer to just show. MR. POTTER-Like right in this area here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. POTTER-Obviously we can't do something over the, anywhere here, which I don't think it's any better anyway because of the stormwater area. MR. TRAVER-Right. We wouldn't want to mix garbage and stormwater. MR. POTTER-So I think the grade of the area would allow for something say where that light pole is there. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Would that still be serviceable by the trucks that empty them? MR. POTTER-Yes, they would just come in, pull in. They would be at a slight angle I think, but they would pull in and then have to back up and go out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would add some distance which would reduce the visibility and hopefully the odor. My experience is it's normally a west wind, but you never know. MR. POTTER-Yes. Currently the dumpster sits right about in this area here. So they're pretty close to where they are currently. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So you don't have a problem with making that change in the location? MR. POTTER-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let's see. The other comment was about the trucks parking. I know that with regard to 149 and 9 that's really a local law enforcement issue. Do you have any, and I don't believe there were any changes in your site plan to accommodate trucks on site other than what you can already accommodate. Right? MR. POTTER-1 think it's going to be an improvement over what's there today. The area that you can drive behind the building currently is tight, you know, works for cars and pickup trucks, but larger trucks it does not. This here, you can see how it radius' out, it bumps out. So the trucks will be able to come around the back of the building and essentially be able to park. That's our fuel truck that could get back there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes. MR. POTTER-As well as there's parallel spots all along the front here where trucks would be able to park. MR. TRAVER-So your general sense, or what you're representing to us is that you would think between the no parking zones and the better accommodation on site that there should be a reduction in the issue of trucks parking on the side of the road? MR. POTTER-1 would think so. I think with the larger lot, I would think it would be maybe more inviting for them to come into the lot. I can't say that they will. Again, like you said, it's kind of an enforcement issue. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. Any other comments by members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-The gentleman from the public, Mr. Walker, commented on the drainage swale. Is there any reason why it has to be as deep as it is? Could it be shallower? MR. POTTER-1 believe the depth is to catch the water from the front of the site and then go to the back, which is all determined by the regulations for the, you know, the State has in their SWPPP. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. POTTER-So it really has to be that deep, just for grades to allow, to get the water from the front of the site to the back of the site. If there was some kind of State stormwater system within the road we'd be able to maybe position it differently and have some kind of overflow that would go into their system. There's no municipal system here. So everything has to be maintained on site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And I suspect once the grass returns to that area, after the construction, the visual of it will not be too bad. It'll look more like a landscaping feature I would think than anything else, except when it's full of water, I mean, you know, you have a major storm and it fills up. MR. POTTER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Are there other comments? This is a SEQR Unlisted. MRS. MOORE-Before you go on, the fence height is how high? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. POTTER-Six feet. MRS. MOORE-Six feet, and the arborvitaes are they a height installed at? MR. POTTER-They're proposed as a six foot high minimum. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Installation height? MR. POTTER-Correct, yes. MR. TRAVER-So we'll want to condition that. MR. FERONE-What were the size of the arborvitae? MR. TRAVER-Six feet tall at installation. All right. Are there environmental concerns that members of the Board have regarding SEAR? MS. WHITE-There doesn't seem to be too much change from the existing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I perceive it as an improvement over the old facility. I'm not hearing any SEQR comments so I guess we're ready for a SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 30-2017 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. The applicant proposes demolition of 2,292 sq. ft. convenience store with fuel to build a new 3,695 sq. ft. convenience store with a 2,360 sq. ft. canopy to have 4 islands/8 fueling positions. First phase will be store construction with associated site work, then demolition of present building & canopy to install new canopy. Project includes site disturbance greater than an acre and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 176-4-030 of the Zoning Ordinance new convenience store with fuel 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 30-2017 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by George Ferone 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 Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MR. FERONE-So do you still want that in the motion, the fence and the arborvitaes? MR. TRAVER-Yes, why don't we put that in there, at least that the changes reflected by the ZBA are in the final plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, isn't it in the resolution that it includes all plans and materials submitted as of today's date? I was just commenting, in the plan they do identify the arborvitae as being a minimum of six foot tall, and they also identify the fence as being six feet tall. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FERONE-So we're okay with that. I've got the notes on the dumpster. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Notes on the dumpster. MR. FERONE-Do we need to mention anything about this approval from the ZBA with the conditions? MR. TRAVER-That's part of the record. That's part of their conditioning. We might want to maybe add a condition that following the construction that the area of the stormwater swale and the septic be vegetated, and you said you had the dumpster re-location. I think that's it. MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 30-2017 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes demolition of 2,292 sq. ft. convenience store with fuel to build a new 3,695 sq. ft. convenience store with a 2,360 sq. ft. canopy to have 4 islands/8 fueling positions. First phase will be store construction with associated site work, then demolition of present building & canopy to install new canopy. Project includes site disturbance greater than an acre and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 176-4-030 of the Zoning Ordinance new convenience store with fuel 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 05/02/2017 and continued the public hearing to 05/02/2017, 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 05/02/2017; 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 30-2017 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP.; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers have been requested. 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; 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) 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) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) 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. g) 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; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) 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. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 1) Following construction the stormwater swale and septic tank area will be vegetated or grassed, and m) Dumpsters on the property line to the west will be moved closer to the septic area which is further to the northeast of the property. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. POTTER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 31-2017 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II ROBERT FULMER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING SFR-1A/MDR LOCATION 54 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A THREE DOOR, 1, 100 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SP 34-2007, AV 39-2007, FWW 1-2007 ALL FOR 2,050 ADDITION; AV 29-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2017 - NCI SITE INFORMATION WETLAND LOT SIZE 3.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-49 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94 MR. TRAVER-The last item we have before us tonight is Robert Fulmer, Site Plan 31-2017, and we understand that this application is also to be tabled to the June 27th Planning Board meeting. MRS. MOORE-Actually you're going to change that tabling date to July 25th. The applicant submitted information earlier today requesting to be further tabled to July 25th MR. TRAVER-July 25th. And do you have any information as to what happened at the ZBA the required this to be tabled? It seemed like it was fairly straightforward. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/02/2017) MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board was concerned about the sizes and there was also a neighbor individual who was concerned about the size and site. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and it was proposed as like a three-door garage as I recall? And they were concerned that was too large? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we'll change the date that I gave you. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we're ready for a tabling resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #31-2017 & FWW 3-2017 ROBERT FULMER MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 31-2017 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2017 ROBERT FULMER, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the July 25, 2017 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford, Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and I see Laura provided us all with our packets for the May meetings. Did everybody get them okay? MRS. MOORE-Other than Mr. Ford. He has not received his, and neither has Mr. Deeb. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we'll need to get that taken care of. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Then we can have a motion to adjourn. MR. FORD-So moved. MR. FERONE-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 2, 2017, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 2nd day of May, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 31