Loading...
08-15-2017 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2017 INDEX Site Plan No. 54-2017 Daniel & Timothy Lawler 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.7-1-36.1 Site Plan No. 53-2017 Douglas McCall 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 52-2017 David & Morgan Stanhope 5. Tax Map No. 296.15-1-1 Site Plan No. 49-2017 Garden World Associates, LLC 12. Tax Map No. 302.54-50 Site Plan Modification # 57-2017 McDonald's USA, LLC 14. Tax Map No. 302.64-48, 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, August 15, 2017. There should be some agendas on the table at the rear of the room, and we do have one administrative item for the regular agenda, and that's approval of minutes of June 20t" and June 27" of 2017. Do we have a motion? MR. FERONE-We do. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 20, 2017 June 27, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF )UNE 20TH AND )UNE 27TH, 2017, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 15" day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to regular items on the agenda. The first item being Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first one is Daniel and Timothy Lawler, Site Plan 54-2017. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 54-2017 SEQR TYPE TYPE 11 DANIEL & TIMOTHY LAWLER OWNER(SJ SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 19 REARDON ROAD EXT. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 12' X 24' NEW OPEN DECK WITH 8X10 PROPOSED STAIRS ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,100 SQ. FT. HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17943-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AST-000291-7017 DECK; AV 52-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE .77 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.74-36.1 SECTION 17943-010 DAN LAWLER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to give us the Staff view? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the applicant proposes a 12 by 24 new open deck. This includes an eight by ten stairway and the stairs, there's one drawing that shows it not flared and most of the remaining 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 drawings are flared. So the idea is that it's a flared stairway and the deck and stairs do not meet the required setback, and in this case the two adjoining houses are further back than the existing home so they have to meet the adjoining home setback which is 102.5, and they're proposing 63. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. Would you come up and give us a summary. And please state your name for the record. MR. LAWLER-Yes. My name is Dan Lawler. My brother is not here. He's a co-owner with myself have a camp on Glen Lake. As Laura was saying we'd like to put a deck on the existing porch that we have. Twelve by twenty-four. We're more than the minimum setback, I guess was 50 feet, but because of our neighbor's, there's a variance, we need to meet the average of the two. So that's why I'm here. MR. TRAVER-So the variance requires you to meet the neighborhood average which is 102? So you're looking for a variance for that because you want to be 63. Is that correct? MR. LAWLER-Yes, that's correct. Sixty-three from the lake. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is your variance required? Is it possible that you could alter the shape or size of the deck so you didn't need that variance? MR. LAWLER-Well, we'd like it on the front of the house. It wouldn't look right if it were on either side so to alter it, not really. I don't want to put a deck on the back. I'd want it to face the lake. So I guess no would be the answer for that. MR. TRAVER-And, I'm sorry, what was the distance without this? In other words, what's the current distance? MRS. MOORE-If you look at this drawing there's two adjoining homes, and the actual setback, 102, is actually goes through the house itself. So at this point there would be, no matter what application they proposed for this site. MR. TRAVER-Anything would require a variance. MRS. MOORE-Would probably require a variance. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-I have a question of Laura, actually. Laura, is the 102.5 is that in Code or is that just practice? MRS. MOORE-No, it's in Code. MR. SHAFER-It is? Okay. MRS. MOORE-And it's not 102. It's the average of the two adjoining houses. So it's not 102 all the time. MR. TRAVER- Gotcha, which happens to be the 102. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, one of the reasons for that is so that you don't block your neighbor's view, but in this case I don't think that you would be blocking either of your neighbor's views. MR. LAWLER-I did have the neighbors' approval. I did have some e-mails from both sides, the neighbors. We get along with fine with them as far as that goes. MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have those copies? MRS. MOORE-1 don't have those yet, but when you do the public hearing potentially next week we can include that information. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're leaving the sun porch on and just adding on to that? MR. LAWLER-Yes. We're leaving the porch on which is existing okay, but we'd just like to add on an open deck onto the porch. There should be pictures of the front. A picture of the front of the camp. MR. TRAVER-The house is in good shape for its age. MR. LAWLER-Yes, well we had it sided. It was built in the 30's by my grandfather. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Are there other questions, comments? Do folks have specific concerns that we would want to convey to the ZBA as they consider this variance? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the main concern is with the neighbors, and if both the neighbors are not objectionable. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you look at the line between the two neighbors it goes through the center of the house. So really what's the deck going to do now. Right? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. Well then I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-52-2017 DANIEL&TIMOTHY LAWLER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 12' x 24' new open deck with 8x10 proposed stairs addition to an existing 1,100 sq. ft. home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13- 010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of non-conforming structures shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought from setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2017 DANIEL & TIMOTHY LAWLER. Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and a] The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15"day of August, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the Zoning Board. MR. LAWLER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Next we have another Planning Board Recommendation request for Douglas McCall, Site Plan 53-2017. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2017 SEQR TYPE TYPE II DOUGLAS MC CALL OWNER(SJ RICHARD J. PROVENZANO ZONING WR LOCATION 6 NEIGHBORS WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING 1,052 SQ. FT. (2,689.3 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA) SINGLE FAMILY HOME — UTILITY ROOM, NEW ENTRYWAY AND AN UPSTAIRS OPEN DECK. ADDITION TOTAL IS 131 +/- SQ. FT. TO HOME AND A 28 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION (FLOOR AREA 224.99 SQ. FT. ADDED). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &17943-010&179-5-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION TO A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 CONVERSION OF SEASONAL TO YEAR ROUND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 33-97-22126;92426-893 SEWAGE ALT.;97461-6066 REBUILD BOATHOUSE W/SUNDECK; AV 49-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2017 LOT SIZE .36 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 226454-30 SECTION 179-3-040, 17943-010, 179-5-050 DOUG MC CALL, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, could you give us the overview on that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So this applicant proposes modification to the existing 1,052 sq. ft. home. This is a 2,689 sq. ft. floor area. There is a new utility room, new entryway and an upstairs open deck area. The utility room is 48 square feet. The front entry is 83.3 and the front porch area is 35. There's a second floor porch at 27.33 and then there's an open deck at 165. The variance is for the setback of the second floor open deck. It's supposed to be 50 feet from the shoreline and they're proposing 47.5. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? Yes, sir. MR. MC CALL-Hello. My name's Doug McCall. I'm representing Richard and Deborah Provenzano on this project. They would like to, this house was built in 1935 and inside is strictly studs and you see the chip lack on the outside. So it's never been finished. You can still see the wiring inside and the cooperated metal. So really it's an original and they want to sell their house in Vermont and move here. They're retiring and they want to retire here. So they just want to bring it to a year round home. So that really is the basis for putting the utility room off the side. You've got to have a place for utilities. It's just a crawl space underneath existing. It's too close to the lake. So that is one of the setbacks that we're looking for is just sideline relief on that side. And then the other relief is for the deck that they want to do off of the master bedroom upstairs. Just a sundeck over top of an existing three season porch. So that, just the way it laid out, I am in the 50 foot setback by a foot and a half by a three foot triangle. That's what's in the setback. Again,you know, it's not encroaching any more than, it's encroaching less than the deck, the screen, the porch below it. And the other porches, I don't think, the ones in the back are fine, right? MRS. MOORE-They're fine. Correct. MR. MC CALL-They're fine. So the Provenzano's want to turn this house into a period house. They want it to look like it was completely finished in 1934, and that's been our objective. So it's going to be a nice project. One of the nice old camps that's not getting torn down. It's getting fixed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's interesting. Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. FERONE-With the home being that old, how is the situation with the septic system? MR. MC CALL-The septic system was done in, the Provenzano's had it done, I'm not exactly sure of the date. I took that to Tom Hutchins and he signed a letter that says the septic, the nice thing about this project, too, is they're taking this house from a four bedroom to a three bedroom. So that actually we had enough septic for a four bedroom. So this is actually going to be oversized for the use. MR. MAGOWAN-1 did see that letter there from Tom. MR. MC CALL-I see you're looking at the pictures. They've already done their shoreline setback. MR. MAGOWAN-No, no, I like the buffer there and the lawn looks nice and you've got an area where it stops the water from coming down, you know, it's really, it's a cute little place. MR. MC CALL-It is. It's one of the nicer ones left. MR. MAGOWAN-To me on the deck above, you're putting it up above an original footprint so it's not encroaching on anything. I don't have an issue with that and the utility room on the side, you can't put them down in the crawl space. MR. MC CALL-No, I can't. I could possibly put a foundation under the front entry porch, but I know where it is and the water level there I know it's not going to be able to put a foundation under it that would be any good at least for mechanical. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you have a kind of like more like square. I mean, what, you have two windows? MR. MC CALL-I've got a kitchen that I really don't want to mess with. This is, worst case scenario, it might be able to make it a little smaller. MR. MAGOWAN-But 15 foot 9. Really, you know, for the setback you're really only talking that little triangular corner. MR. MC CALL-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-But I think it would be a nice improvement and it would be nice to have someone up there year round. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any concerns that we want to pass along to the ZBA as they deliberate this? Okay. I think we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV Z-AV-49-2017 DOUGLAS MC CALL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes modifications to an existing 1,052 sq. ft. (2,689.3 sq. ft. floor area) single family home - utility room, new entryway and an upstairs open deck. The additions include 48 sq. ft. Utility room, an 83.3 sq. ft. front entry with a 35 sq. ft. front porch, a 27.33 sq. ft. 2nd floor bedroom porch area and a 165 sq. ft. open deck on north side of home (floor area 224.99 sq. ft. added). Also include area interior alterations and conversion of seasonal home to year round. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion to a nonconforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested from setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2017 DOUGLAS MCCALL. Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 15" day of August, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. You're off to the ZBA. MR. MC CALL-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we go to Old Business. The next application is David and Morgan Stanhope, Site Plan 2-2017. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-2017 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2017 SEQR TYPE TYPE 11 DAVID 8T MORGAN STANHOPE AGENT(SJ JOHN R. CANNEY IV, ESQ. OWNER(SJ SAME AS APPLICANTS APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 3,604 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WITH LOWER LEVEL, MAIN FLOOR, GARAGE AND SITE WORK. THE PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 100 FT OF A WETLAND. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2007-337 BP VOIDED 9/2015; AV 45-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2017 SITE INFORMATION WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.1544 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94 JOHN CANVEY & LIBBY CORENO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this applicant was tabled at the request of the applicant, tabled to this month. The Board had requested additional information about the 25 year storm event. The information was received today. I shared this information with Craig, our Zoning Administrator, and we forwarded it on to Chazen for their review. I have not heard a response back because I simply received this information today. MR. TRAVER-Yes, one day is a bit. MRS. MOORE-1 tried. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Hello again. MR. CANVEY-Hi. This is John Canney from Carter Conboy along with Libby Coreno as well as one of the applicant's, David Stanhope. Hopefully Laura can pull up our presentation here. MR. TRAVER-And while she's doing that, can you address the issue of the engineering report? That was requested earlier I guess, that's certainly earlier than today? MR. CANVEY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So that, I mean, that's a bit of an issue for us because it's not been reviewed by the engineer. MR. CANVEY-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Was there any, can you give us an idea? MR. CANVEY-Yes, sure. So the report, in sum and substance, results in a 25 year storm event having no impact whatsoever following the development of the site. The tests were run through the Hydro CAD program by the engineer, and there was no change in either the volume or the time flow for a 25 year storm event at the site. MR. TRAVER-Can you give us some insight as to why we weren't able to get the information before today? MR. CANVEY-It didn't come out from the engineer until. MR. TRAVER-Your engineer? MR. CANVEY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-1 see. Okay. MS. CORENO-So we've had, sorry, Libby Coreno, partner in Carter and Conboy, here assisting John tonight. The reason is frankly to be very honest with the Board is schedules and the availability of the engineers and vacation during August and July. We heard through the agenda notes that the 25 year storm was needed. We made an immediate request for it, but due to existing workloads, that's the reason. So we certainly understand. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. CANVEY-So as the Board is aware, this project is at the corner of Sweet Road and Country Club Road. It's a 4.43 acre parcel owned by David Stanhope, his wife Morgan Stanhope, and his mother- in-law Pamela Casey as well as their son Theo who was born last month. Our purpose is to achieve a Freshwater Permit for a single family home on this site. The site will be developed, about .54 acres will be the total development area. The site has been, since the purchase there was a, the Stanhopes contacted DEC to get the property delineated. That delineation is before you now. As a result of that delineation they hired a builder. The builder came to the site, created a proposed build. They went in for the building permit. At the time that they went in for the building permit it was discovered by the Town that there was a prior delineation. Communications back and forth between the Town 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 and DEC resulted in a confirmation by DEC that the prior delineation done in 2007, well before Mr. Stanhope purchased the property, is the one that should apply to this project. So before you now is the proposed plot plan for the site with the 2007 delineation that's deemed to be applicable by DEC. MR. TRAVER-Now there was an adjustment, was there not, in the driveway? MR. CANVEY-Yes. Since the last time we were in before this Board the driveway has been moved. It has been moved. It's been narrowed by two feet and it is ten feet to the east. So farther down from the bike path, closer to the junction of Sweet Road and Country Club Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. CANVEY-So we were before this Board for a recommendation to the ZBA for an Area Variance. The ZBA granted that Area Variance on July 19t", allowing for a small portion of the home to be within the Freshwater, or excuse me, the shoreline setback at the closest distance of 53 feet. Additionally we have applied for a DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit. That application has been submitted. Actually a site visit is scheduled for tomorrow with DEC. Freshwater permit is required when any regulated activity in the Town occurs in wetland or an adjacent area. Adjacent areas are defined as 100 feet from the wetlands. Here we have a single family home. None of the activity will occur in the wetlands. The vast majority of it will occur in the adjacent area as a result of the high amount of wetlands that are on the site due to the delineation. As you can see on this slide here, the yellow shaded area represents the only area on the site that would be buildable without a permit. So essentially anything outside of that would require a permit regardless of where it was located on the site. So it is a very constrained site for purposes of building, and, you know, that's the reason we've been before you before and we're here before you today. The development area, this is a blow up of that plot plan. It provides you with some information that the Board had requested when we appeared before you in July, specifically the distance between the bike path and the development area. At its shortest distance, the upper left hand corner, it is 42 feet. That's from the bike path to the development area. I'd like to advise the Board that the development area is set out in green. However, that does not mean that that whole area is going to be cleared. There are going to be other trees, especially some of the growth trees, that will be maintained on the site. Additionally, as you can see, there's a 35 foot buffer in between all wetlands on the site and the development area. So that 35 feet will provide a buffer between those wetlands. Additionally, there is 75 feet from the western most corner of the house to the closest area of the wetland, and it will roughly equate to about 70 feet from the driveway to that same point. As the Board had requested, we did receive a report from the engineer who developed a stormwater management erosion sediment control plan. That plan involves grading at the site, sloping away from the home, and it also requires putting in raingardens to help filter out the stormwater. Those raingardens are going to be located along the long edges of the roof. Six have been proposed, one on the driveway and then five or there's going to be two on the driveway and then four at the corners of the house. Additionally during the course of construction a double layer silt fence will be put around the developed area to maintain the integrity of the site and the erosion. That's shown around the development area, the red dashed line with the x's. The standard of review applicable for a Freshwater Permit, the first standard of review is, is the activity consistent with preservation and protection and conservation of the freshwater wetlands. This activity, the proposed activity will completely protect and conserve the wetlands. Not only will it all occur outside of the 35 foot buffer, but obviously it will also not touch the wetlands whatsoever. The second standard of review is proposed regulated activity consistent with the land use regulations applicable in the Town pursuant to the State Environmental Conservation Law. The applicant proposes to conduct two activities, both timber cutting and the erection of a residence that requires DEC. DEC, as advised the Board, has received our permit and actually the public comment permit is being set to open next week. The applicant has also submitted the engineering report to be in compliance with the stormwater regulations in the Town and also confirming that there is not a requirement for a SWPPP for this project. The third standard of review is the proposed regulated activity compatible with the public welfare. We deem that it is as it is a proposed use in the zone. It will not be incompatible with the health and welfare as there are, the wetlands that are on this site are already in close proximity to road, vehicle traffic, bike path traffic and other properties that have single family homes surrounding this property in question. Additionally there's no persons that will have water rights to the property and the proposed activity will not propose, will not disturb any of the wetlands, just the adjacent area and also we'll be outside of the 35 foot buffer which is required by the Town., The fourth standard of review, is this proposed activity reasonable and necessary. As the Board can see from the site, yes, it is. If a permit could not be issued for the site there could be no development whatsoever, other than building in that small yellow area shown on a previous slide. The fifth criteria, is there a reasonable alternative to the proposed activity, which is not within the freshwater wetland or the adjacent area. For the same reasons, there's no buildable area on the site that would not require a permit under this section of the Town law. As already discussed, the 25 year storm event done by the engineer, no changes occurred in the volume or in the rate of runoff on the site with and without the improvements 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 there. So it's really no impact whatsoever on stormwater runoff. The last portion noted there were items that were inapplicable. Many of those items apply to larger projects such as signage, you know, traffic. Being this is a single family home, those types of things are not, you know, we did not believe that they would be a requirement of this Board for us to consider. So we're asking for a waiver of those requirements. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. FERONE-Between the developable area and the bike path, that's going to stay wooded? I think there's woods there now. Right? That'll just stay intact? MR. CANVEY-Yes, yes. So on the slide here, everything outside of the green shaded area will remain as is today. As the Board is aware, it's a very wooded site. So that will be woodlands up until our property and the bike path. MS. CORENO-And even then inside the lightly green shaded area there'll be selective cutting. MR. MAGOWAN-You'll leave the large trees, more or less, take out the scrubbed areas, open it up so you can see the beautiful house and its own little private secluded spot there. MS. CORENO-And we've really tried to orient the site so the majority of the yard is away from the bike path for privacy both for us and for people using the bike path. So that's why you see the majority of the yard sort of orienting to the east. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think you've really done some great homework in placing this year. I drive past it about every day and looking over there and boy it's thick in there. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like to walk it but there's too many ticks in there for me, but, no, I really think it would really look nice there. It seems like you've got everything in order. MR. TRAVER-We do have the, this is a Type II SEAR, although we do have the issue of the, we haven't heard back from the Town Engineer on the stormwater report. Although we could condition that if the Board's comfortable going forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think the concern that we talked about was stormwater runoff and given this report showing that there's no impact I would feel comfortable conditioning it on the Engineer's review. MR. TRAVER-1 know sometimes they get into arguments over the model and method they use, but assuming that that's not the case here, or even if it is, there's some elbow room. So we're probably looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it is just a single family house. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Any questions or concerns from members of the Planning Board? Are we feeling we can move forward on this? Okay. MRS. MOORE-You do need to open the public hearing because there is a public hearing tonight for this project. I do have a question or comment. Towards the end of Kevin's report, he identifies that the site should be monitored for erosion on a periodic basis. We generally do see this in the SWPPP where the applicant is required to work with an individual to monitor the site. In this case Kevin's suggesting that someone be able to monitor the site. I know in our case we work with Bruce Frank who does go out and inspect the site to confirm that the site is installed according to the site plan application. I just want to make sure the Board is aware of the suggestion of the engineer in this case who suggests that someone monitor the site. Bruce is required to do it as part of site plan inspection, but I think Kevin is looking for someone that, or suggesting that it be done by someone other than Bruce, but I'll leave that up to the Board. I just want to give some guidance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Does he have a recommendation as to who we might ask to do that? MRS. MOORE-1 mean, if the applicant is working with Kevin and wishes to utilize his service to monitor the site, that's fine. I just want to make sure that both parties are aware that that's what Kevin's suggesting in this case. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and what was the frequency that they recommend? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 MRS. MOORE-He hasn't identified a frequency. He has periodic basis. I don't have a suggestion off the top of my head. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 would imagine once everything is grown, everything is planted, the grass is up, there'd be a final monitor to make sure everything is flowing right, because after that, it's up to Mother Nature. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. CORENO-I've seen, just to make a suggestion, that after one year of full landscape growth, so that the raingardens are fully matured and are on the site to have a re-inspection at that point to ensure that they're operating as they should, but beyond that, though, probably at some point it becomes redundant, but maybe a year. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that's really fair, I mean, after everything's grown in, and not to totally maturity, but just to make sure everything's flowing, because the way our storms have been coming in, you know, who knows. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right? Anything else? We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience who would like to comment on this? Yes, ma'am. Come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAULA NORTON MS. NORTON-Paula Norton, and I just want to say that I do welcome David, Morgan and Pamela to the area. It would be great to have another trooper based in the area. So I'm all for it. I welcome the neighbors. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment? Yes, sir. DOUG SHAVER MR. SHAVER-Good evening. I'm Doug Shaver. I live on Nova Lane, which is just to the west of this property. I welcome the Stanhopes as neighbors as well. I think it's a beautiful piece of property. They've done due diligence in designing the home, both, you know, to protect the wetlands and the privacy of the bike trail, and I think it would be a great addition to the neighborhood. It's one of the few last pieces of undeveloped property. It fits in nicely with what currently is there. So I support the project. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to comment to the Planning Board on this application? I don't see any. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And proceed with consideration of the motion. This is a SEQR Type 11. So we have the engineering review. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 52-2017 & FWW 4-2017 DAVID & MORGAN STANHOPE 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 3,604 sq. ft. single family home, with lower level, main floor, garage and site work. The project occurs within 100 ft. of a wetland. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 100 ft. of a wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/25/2017 and continued the public hearing to 08/15/2017, 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 08/15/2017; 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 52-2017 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-2017 DAVID & MORGAN STANHOPE; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1] Waivers request granted: site lighting, signage, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, soil logs, construction demolition disposal 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; fJ 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. h) Engineering stormwater management design and erosion control provided today be approved by the Town Engineers,and also that the site would be monitored for soil erosion on a periodic basis during construction, particularly because of the close proximity of the distance area in relation to the freshwater wetlands and that final monitoring will occur one year after the construction has taken place. Duly adopted this 15" day of August, 2017 by the following vote: MR. FERONE-Additionally, the motion is conditioned on the engineering stormwater management design and erosion control provided today be approved by the Town Engineers and also that the site would be monitored for soil erosion on a periodic basis during construction, particularly because of the close proximity of the distance area in relation to the freshwater wetlands and that monitoring will occur one year after the home is in place. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second that. MR. TRAVER-We have an approval motion made and seconded. Any questions or comments on the motion? MRS. MOORE-Just in reference to, it would be periodic monitoring through the site and the final inspection would be a year after. MR. TRAVER-So we want to have a final inspection one year following. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 MS. WHITE-The CO. MR. MAGOWAN-Completion, the CO. MS. WHITE-CO. MR. TRAVER-Do we want to amend that motion to? MR. FERONE-Motion to be amended that final monitoring would be done one year after construction is complete. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have an amended motion. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second the amended motion. MRS. MOORE-1 guess I'm just concerned that during the construction you're going to monitor it and you're going to show, there's going to be an end date to that monitoring. MR. TRAVER-Right. No it makes sense. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, a year after the CO has been. MRS. MOORE-So there is, I'm just concerned the way it's worded that it's one time only. MS. WHITE-No, he said periodic during construction. MRS. MOORE-Okay. If that's in there then I'm okay with that. I just wanted to make sure it said periodic. MR. MAGOWAN-And then one final at the end, a year later. MR. DEEB-Periodic is kind of vague. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FERONE-Would you like the motion to be amended? MRS. MOORE-Periodic is okay. I can work with that and give guidance to the applicant and to move forward on that. So periodic and the final is at the end of construction, one year after. MR. HUNSINGER-We also need to grant the waivers. MR. FERONE-Yes. Okay. Waivers are granted for site lighting, signage, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have an amended motion. Is there a second? MR. MAGOWAN-1 second the amended motion. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other comments or suggestions for further amendments to the motion? Hearing none, can we have the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-AII right. You're all set. Good luck. MS. CORENO-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Welcome to the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under Old Business we have Garden World Associates, LLC. Site Plan 49-2017. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 SITE PLAN NO. 49-2017 SEQR UNLISTED GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES, LLC OWNER[S] SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 537 AVIATION ROAD (SILO) APPLICANT PROPOSES 400 SQ. FT. DECK WHERE EXISTING 270 SQ. FT. EXISTING DECK WILL BE REMOVED. NEW DECK IS TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING 8 TABLES (16 SEATS) AND TO ADD TWO NEW TABLES (4 SEATS). THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A NEW 64 SQ. FT. ENTRYWAY OVER AN EXISTING RAMP. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-4-080 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF OUTDOOR DECK FOR SEATING AND ADDITION OF COVERED ENTRY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 1995 ROOF; 1996 INT. ALT., 1999 GREENHOUSE DEMO., 2000, 2012 INT. ALT.; AV 44-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JULY 2017 SITE INFORMATION TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE LOT SIZE .76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.54-50 SECTION 179-3-040, 179- 4-080 FRANK TROELSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this applicant was tabled at last month's meeting because he wasn't in attendance, and I understand from communications that in previous applications that he's been before the Board there wasn't this double occurrence and so he misunderstood that he needed to come back. So he does now understand that this is a requirement. MR. DEEB-Thanks for showing up, Frank. We appreciate it. MR. TROELSTRA-Glad to be here. MR. TRAVER-We like it when agenda items show up. So, good evening. We chatted with you about your proposal. You went to the ZBA and your variance was approved. And so now you're back for SEQR and Site Plan Review. Correct? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. I believe that's true. MR. TRAVER-As a result of your discussions with the ZBA, were there any changes to the plan made other than what we saw? MR. TROELSTRA-No. Everything remains the same. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We've reviewed this pretty thoroughly. I know there was some discussion about the barrels and planters and the distance to the parking lot and some other items. Are there further questions, comments from members of the Planning Board ow that we have the variance approved? MS. WHITE-It's pretty straightforward. MR. DEEB-It's cut and dried. MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We need to do a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-You're right. All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there people in the audience that are here to address the Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-1 will close the public hearing and now we're ready for a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think you have to do SEAR. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's next, but thank you for reminding us, though. RESOLUTION RE: NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SP # 49-2017 GARDEN WORLD 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 The applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. deck where 270 sq. ft. existing deck will be removed. New deck is to accommodate existing 8 tables (16 seats) and to add two new tables (4 seats). The project also includes a new 64 sq. ft. entryway over an existing ramp. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-4-080 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of outdoor deck for seating and addition of covered entry 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 49-2017 GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES, LLC, 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. Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15" day of August, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and last but not least we have the Site Plan resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 49-2017 GARDEN WORLD 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 400 sq. ft. deck where existing 270 sq. ft. existing deck will be removed. New deck is to accommodate existing 8 tables (16 seats) and to add two new tables (4 seats). The project also includes a new 64 sq. ft. entryway over an existing ramp. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-4-080 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of outdoor deck for seating and addition of covered entry 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 07/25/2017 and continued the public hearing to 08/15/2017, 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 08/15/2017; 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 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 49-2017 GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES, LLC; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1] Waivers request granted: site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, soil logs, construction demolition disposal 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; fJ 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; gJ Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15" day of August, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You are all set. MR. TROELSTRA-Thank you very much for your time. MR. TRAVER-With the hotel coming in, you might want to come back and put another deck on. MR. TROELSTRA-Easy now. All right. I appreciate your time again. MR. TRAVER-Sure. We appreciate yours. All right, and next under New Business we have McDonald's USA, LLC. Site Plan 7-2017. This is a modification to the previously approved Site Plan. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 57-2017 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MCDONALD'S USA, LLC OWNER(SJ MC DONALD'S CORP. — RENEE REARDON ZONING CI LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES LANDSCAPE REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9420 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 75-2014, AV 88-2014 WARREN CO. REFERRAL AUGUST 2017 LOT SIZE .30 AND .71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.64-48, -49 SECTION 179-9420 RENEE REARDON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So I'm just going to read under the landscape plan. The applicant has provided photos of the current site and explained the planting plan changes. On the north side of the property the planting plan includes, from west to east, one red maple, four amur maples, then a line of evergreen shrub, this includes holly, juniper, and arborvitae. The line of evergreen shrubs is to be 5-6 ft. for the arborvitae and then the lower shrubs to provide screening to the neighbors and roadway. The previous plan had trees and shrub to remain - four of the trees in that area had been removed already. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 MS. REARDON-Hello. I'm Renee Reardon. So when we started the demolition of the project Bruce came up and I did not realize that, one, the first plan wasn't accurate as to what was un the building because the trees weren't there when I got approved last year, the trees that are depicted on the side on the approved site plan. They've been gone since one of the storms, I think Sandy, I'm not sure, at least three years, maybe longer. So he said I needed to come back and talk to you guys about any new trees because the site plan isn't the way it was when you approved it a year and five months ago or whatever. The second thing on the site plan that was inaccurate is it shows only one tree existing down in the corner. It's a honey locust. There's actually two there. You have pictures of them. They're kind of growing up under the parking lot and the canopies on them are huge. So to try to put another tree in there closer to Route 9, just won't grow. So what I'd like to do is replace, take out the honey locusts, and put six new trees in, two on the front side and four up the side, and the problem with the arborvitaes is, once we took that outback building is, everything is, they're nasty, they're dead, and they have American Bamboo through them. So they're terrible, and when the company did the plans, obviously I didn't, they didn't note that I couldn't have protected them because the water line comes through about two-thirds of the way up and the gas line comes down about one third of the way up. So half of them are already gone because they needed to be gone for construction. So really what I just want to do is put all brand new ones in there. They'll be six to eight feet. They'll be just like they are, except for very healthy, full grown, etc., etc. The concerns in that particular area, we had a couple of things. One there's power lines, everything's on poles there. So I don't want to get too high to get close to them, because what happens in the storms, and we've had quite a few of them lately, but more importantly is the property is unique because on the Route 9 side obviously it's on the Route 9 side obviously it's all business, but on the back side I have a lot of neighbors. So I need to make sure that I have something that provides privacy for them, so being able to put a whole brand new row of beautiful, well-maintained arborvitaes in as opposed to the things that are there, you saw the pictures, they're not in great shape. So all I'm asking is, can I put some new stuff in, and I'll make sure that it's really beautiful and maintained. So that's what I'm looking to do, and I did talk to the County Department, I think I mentioned it to Laura. The bottom half there, the little circle on the bottom, the Highway Department runs that. It's all asphalt right now. It's awful. I mean, it looks awful, and I've made the recommendation a couple of times. We'd be happy to pull it up and put something a little nicer in there. You're still going to need asphalt because the way the water comes down there, if it's all like mulch or something it's just going to make a mess down there, but there is a way to beautify that a little bit and put some more green space in there. So that would be at a future, if it's something they want to do. MR. DEEB-We're all for green space. MS. REARDON-Yes, more green, but it's asphalt now, but that's where the trucks come down, and it's tough because that's plowed by the Town of Queensbury and the rest is plowed by the State. So when you're looking at some of the things they propose, they're not exactly things that are good with salt, you know, in winter weather. So hopefully what I'm going to put in there now is going to last a little better. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MS. REARDON-No. I'll be open in about 50 days, maybe. MR. TRAVER-Good. Yes, they certainly are working hard over there. MS. REARDON-Yes. I'm at them twice a week so that they work faster. MR. TRAVER-Were you able to save, I know that way back when we had talked about, because it was one of the original McDonald's, were you able to save any of the tiles? MS. REARDON-Yes, I have some. We're working on being creative with them. I have a couple of cases of them, boxes of them. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. MS. REARDON-Yes,we're working on those. It was interesting. They had actually in the construction there was a space between where they were and then the next row of bricks that went on the outside. It was really strange how they did it, but they were attached to cement blocks so we soaked them for weeks, but I didn't get a lot of them off. I do have more white than red, but. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? It seems to me this is actually an improvement. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 MR. DEEB-Yes, I like it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone, sir, did you want to comment on it? No? Okay. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. RICH SPOERL MR. SPOERL-I wish you'd extend the ditch that's there, to keep the road closed. They've got it dug up for utilities. MR. HUNSINGER-It's an interesting thing, I've noticed, I don't know why recently in the last week or so, the number of super high arborvitae trees. They really need to be trimmed. They get to be about 30, 40 feet tall. You're not left with a lot of choices but to just chop it down. And it's kind of too bad that homeowners and property owners don't maintain. MR. MAGOWAN-If you're around deer forget it. They don't get that tall. MR. TRAVER-They look like mushrooms. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. You can see exactly how high the deer are. MR. TRAVER-That's right. Yes. Okay. Well, we do need other SEQR to reaffirm our environmental review of back in April of last year. All right. Does anyone have any concerns about doing a reaffirmation of our prior SEQR review? MR. DEEB-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Again, I think from an environmental standpoint we're also looking good. Okay. RESOLUTION RE: REAFFIRM NEG. SEQR DEC. SP #57-2017 The applicant proposes Applicant proposes landscape revisions to previously approved Site Plan 75- 2014, approved on 04/26/2016. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, revisions to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SP 75-2014, on 04/26/2016 adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms 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 REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN (MODIFICATIONI 57-2017 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 Duly adopted thisl5th day of August, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. MAGOWAN-So, Rene, what you were talking about right here, that's macadam, isn't it? MS. REARDON-Yes, it's all macadam, asphalt, whatever. MR. MAGOWAN-So it comes off your parking lot, you've got a little green space, and then it looks like a little curb and then macadam down to another curb down to the road. MS. REARDON-Right. The macadam is like, is the property line, that whole thing, but it just, it gets nasty and full of weeds every year, but if you took and, you could put even like a retaining wall, but if you dug about a half of it up, you could do grass. I could put a row of annuals in there. I could put a nice huge box full of flowers. You could just really jazz it up, because when you come up Route 9 and you look at it, it's ugly. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that whole turnabout thing is, I don't even know why it's there. MR. SPOERL-It's for the plows. MS. REARDON-The plows. MR. SPOERL-The plows use that whole thing to turn around and come back up the road. They go down there and they make that turn and then they come back up the road. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what do they do on roads that don't have this big eyesore? MR. SPOERL-They back it up and then they back up to the next turnaround and then go back down and go up. MS. REARDON-Because they shut it off. You used to come down there, but they shut it off. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you used to be able to drive right down there. MS. REARDON-So that's why there's a turnaround there. Or that's what I was told anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you're absolutely right. They ought to do something nice to that, because that is an eyesore. If she's willing to work with the Town, who would she talk to? MS. REARDON-The Highway Department. I've talked to them a couple of times. They're looking at it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready to entertain our site plan motion for modification? MS. WHITE-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 57-2017 MOD. MC DONALD'S 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 landscape revisions to previously approved Site Plan 75-2014, approved on 04/26/2016. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, revisions to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/20171 The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA] and reaffirmed an 04/26/2016 SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/15/2017 and continued the public hearing to 08/15/2017, 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 08/15/2017; 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 MODIFICATION 57-2017 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC. Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1] No waivers were requested. 2] Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 15" day of August, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? MRS. MOORE-Did I overhear that there's someone that's not going to be present next week? MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to announce it after we adjourned. MRS. MOORE-1 just wanted to make sure. MR. HUNSINGER-John already said he'd sit in for me. MR. TRAVER-Yes, those arrangements have already been made. All right, then motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2017, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 15" day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 19