Loading...
12-19-2017 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2017 INDEX ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS FOR 2018 1. Site Plan No. 27-2017 Seaton Property Holdings 2. Special Use Permit 7-2017 Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61 TABLING REQUEST Site Plan No. 64-2017 Boguslaw Bielecki 2. Tax Map No. 309.9-2-6 Site Plan No. 71-2017 Maureen Valenti 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-40 Site Plan No. 76-2017 Queensbury Square, LLC 8. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38 Site Plan No. 70-2017 Mark & Kimberly Gardner 11. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-35 Site Plan No. 72-2017 Cheryl Hackett 17. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-37 Site Plan No. 74-2017 Queensburywood, LLC 20. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-35 Discussion 8-2017 Green Mt. Development Group, Inc. 32. DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Map No. 289.19-1-15; 296.7-1-15.1 296.7-1-15.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING 12/19/2017) DECEMBER 19, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, ACTING SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE THOMAS FORD JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting. This is the first meeting for December and the 24th meeting for 2017. If you have a cellphone, please turn your ringer off. There should be some agendas on the back table if you don't have one already. We have a couple of Administrative Items before we get to our regular agenda. The first being approval of minutes for October 17th and October 24th of 2017. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 17, 2017 October 24, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17TH AND OCTOBER 24TH, 2017, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have the Election of Officers and recommendation of the Planning Board Chair for 2018 for the Town Board. We had the change in our By-laws and Procedures this past year and we began this effort last month. There was a, we had one officer, George Ferone, step off the Board. He was our Secretary. David Deeb was appointed acting Secretary and Tom Ford was asked to head a nominating committee. That committee recommended that David be considered for office for 2018. So he stands for that. Chris, I spoke with Chris and he was gracious enough to indicate he's happy to serve again as Vice Chair of the Planning Board, and I am interested in serving again as Planning Board Chair. So at this point, I guess before we vote, I'd like to ask if there are any nominations from the Board for any of those offices. Hearing none, Secretary, do you want to make a motion? MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION FOR NOMINATION OF OFFICERS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD FOR 2018 CHAIRMAN: MOTION TO NOMINATE STEPHEN TRAVER FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR 2018. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 12/19/2017) VICE-CHAIRMAN: MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR 2018. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SECRETARY: MOTION TO NOMINATE DAVID DEEB FOR SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR 2018. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have Site Plan No. 27-2017 and Special Use Permit 7-2017 for Seaton Property Holdings, a request for a tabling to February 2018. SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS TABLE TO FEBRUARY 2018. MRS. MOORE-They'll be requested to table until the second meeting in February for 2018 because they're still going through the Zoning Board process at this time. I don't have yet a resolve as to when they're going to finish up the paperwork with the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-She said the second meeting in February which I believe, would that be the 27th Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-My 2017 calendar has a few extra months in it but I didn't fill it out because I was working on my 2018 calendar. So I don't have that. RESOLUTION TO EXTEND TABLING SP 27-2017 & SUP 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS MOTION TO EXTEND TABLING OF SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the February 27, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to our regular agenda. The first item is a tabled item, Boguslaw Bielecki. Site Plan 64-2017. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. BOGUSLAW BIELECKI. AGENT(S) GAVIN VUILLAUME. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 120 LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO MULTIPURPOSE MANUFACTURING/OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS. EACH BUILDING TO BE 15,400 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT)/24,800 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) FOR A TOTAL OF 30,800 SQ. FT. FRONT AREA IS TO BE A THREE STORY OFFICE, REAR BUILDING IS TO BE TWO STORY. PROJECT TO INCLUDE SITE DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN ONE ACRE AND INCLUDES STORMWATER, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO 31 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 1999, DISC 7- 2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2017 LOT SIZE: 12.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-2-6. SECTION: 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is back before the Board for review and approval to construct two multi-purpose manufacturing/office/warehouse buildings. Each building has a footprint of 15,400 square feet. Total the area is 30,800, and at this time the Board had tabled them for them to resolve engineering issues. They have at this point. You have a letter in front of you from the Town Engineer. I did talk with the Town Engineer about this project today and those two items that are left are two housekeeping items that are, you know, testing is typically done just before construction and then they understand that they'll need to get a signoff from DEC in regards to the endangered species. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall with Rucinski Hall Architecture and Boguslaw Bielecki, owner of the property at Luzerne Road. I believe everything is taken care of. I know the folks at EDP have been working with the Town Engineer Chazen. We did get the final signoff and I got a verbal from them today that everything has been taken care of on their list. I believe there were 12 or 14 items or something. They got all of those taken care of. The signoff from DEC is coming on the endangered species. They had already been on site. Wrote the signoff letter on the one item, left off the other two. So they're re-addressing that letter. That should be all that's left on that one. MR. TRAVER-Any questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-It was an interesting read on some of the environmental history. MR. HALL-Unbelievable, huh? Knowing what that site was used for originally was, to make the Northway. MR. TRAVER-Yes, amazing. Well, I believe we have a public hearing, and I think it was left open. Was it not, Laura, from the last time? So we will open the public hearing. I'll ask, is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? No? Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Unlisted. So we do have a SEQR review that we have to conduct. I believe we have a SEQR resolution in our packet. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP 64-2017 BOGUSLAW BIELECKI The applicant proposes to construct two multipurpose manufacturing/office/warehouse buildings. Each building to be 15,400 sq. ft. (footprint)/24,800 sq. ft. (floor area) for a total of 30,800 sq. ft. Front area is to be a three story office, rear building area is to be two story. Project to include site disturbance of more than one acre and includes stormwater, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction 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. 4 MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 64-2017 BOGUSLAW BIELECKI, Introduced by David Deeb 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 Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move onto the Site Plan itself. Are there any concerns, any questions that members of the Board have for the applicant regarding the Site Plan specifically? I know we reviewed this at some length before. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-The plans show that for sight distance reasons that the two driveways that existing vegetation along the right of way has to be cleared? MR. HALL-Right. MR. SHAFER-Are we comfortable with it just being shown on the drawings or should that be a condition of the approval? It's an important issue. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. We should probably make that a condition I would say. Just to make sure that that's maintained to be cleared for safety purposes. I imagine you would do that anyway but we will make that a condition of approval. We're going to require that the vegetation be cleared. MR. SHAFER-It's shown on the drawings. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and what's the distance back from? MR. SHAFER-It just says existing vegetation along the right of way to be cleared both sides of the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Two different notes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then we can condition that vegetation be cleared on both sides of the right of way. Any other concerns or discussions about conditions other than the draft? I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 64-2017 BOGUSLAW BIELECKI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to construct two multipurpose manufacturing/office/warehouse buildings. Each building to be 15,400 sq. ft. (footprint)/24,800 sq. ft. (floor area) for a total of 30,800 sq. ft. Front area is to be a three story office, rear building area is to be two story. Project to include site disturbance of more than one acre and includes stormwater, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction 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 10/17/2017 and continued the public hearing to 12/19/2017, 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 12/19/2017; 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 64-2017 BOGUSLAW BIELECKI; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers were 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; 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) Vegetation be cleared on both sides of the driveway right of way. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Additionally (condition) L. Vegetation be cleared on both sides of the right of way. MR. SHAFER-That would be both sides of the driveway? 6 MR. TRAVER-Yes. Both sides of the driveway. MR. DEEB-Of the driveway. Okay. I'll do that again. Including (condition) L. Vegetation be cleared on both sides of the driveway right of way. MR. TRAVER-All right. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. HALL-Super. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move to the next portion of our agenda which are Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item is Maureen Valenti, Site Plan 71-2017. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 71-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MAUREEN VALENTI. AGENT(S): MICHAEL O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 112 BIRDSALL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A570 SQ. FT. GROUND LEVEL OPEN DECK ADDITION. THE EXISTING HOME IS 4,235 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 095152-209 SF DWELLING W/GARAGE; 097155-5699 DOCK; SP 4-95; AV 35-1994; AV 1455-1998; AST 561-2017 SHED; AV. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .69 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-40. SECTION: 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6- 050 79-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6- 050 & 179-13-010 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to complete a 570 square foot ground level open deck addition. The applicant has explained that it was started during a site visit they were informed they needed to come in and get a building permit as well as go through the review process between site plan and a variance, and so the applicant is here. They need relief for a 50 foot setback. Proposed is 26.9 feet and relief is also requested for permeability where 75 feet is required and 66.7 is proposed. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little, O'Connor & Borie. I'm representing Maureen Valenti who's the owner of the property who's here with me. This is an application for Area Variances, two small setback requirements and basically it's very simple. I think if you look in your packet you'll see that in addition to the Staff comments that say that there is not a significant impact, many of the neighbors have joined in, probably six to eight of them have sent letters that they are also in support of the application. They don't see where it will have any significant impact. This is for completion of a deck, this ground level deck. It's not a second floor deck. On one side line the existing setback is 111.2 feet. I think a portion of the building to the rear where the deck joins it is even further closer to the boundary line and what we're asking for is a setback of 13.5 feet. So it's a total increased setback or increased variance, if you will, of 2.3 feet, and on permeability, the present permeability on the site is 31.7. Impermeable is 31.7, and we are going to increase that to 33.3, which is an increase of 1.6, and we think that the relief that we've requested or are requesting is very minimal and will have no impact on anybody. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Discussion from members of the Planning Board? This is a recommendation so there's no public hearing at this stage, and it's a SEQR Type 11. MR. FORD-It seems to be a minimal impact. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was trying to follow along your discussion, while looking at the site development data and the setback requirements. I think on the form you might have gotten them reversed. So you might want to take a look at that. Because it shows that the existing is closer to the proposed. The setbacks are smaller than the existing. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is reversed. It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-1 apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay. Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So are there any concerns or items that we want to share with the ZBA as we make our recommendation? If not we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-77-2017 MAUREEN VALENTI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to complete a 570 sq. ft. ground level open deck addition. The existing home is 4,235 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested for 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. 77-2017 MAUREEN VALENTI: Introduced by David Deeb 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 Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, should we note, so the variance knows that those numbers are switched? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the applicant will correct the documents before he goes. MR. O'CONNOR-Before I go to the Zoning Board. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Good point. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think my presentation switched them but the data sheet I think is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, my presentation where I'm saying it's going to be 1.6 more of a variance. It's actually less of a variance from what's there existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that changes everything. 8 MR. TRAVER-AII right. So we have a motion. Any discussion on the motion? Can we have a vote, please, Maria? AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. If we're successful tomorrow night with the Zoning Board, we'll be back here for Site Plan. Anything that you particularly want us to address at this point that we haven't addressed? MR. TRAVER-Regarding Site Plan? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I was not hearing any concerns. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. MR. FORD-Just the accuracy of the presentation. We were fortunate enough to have a number of the neighbors show up in support. If you want to just stand. They made the effort of coming. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you very much. Good luck with the ZBA. The next item on our agenda is Queensbury Square, LLC, Site Plan 76-2017. This is also a recommendation for the ZBA. So there is no public hearing. This is SEQR Unlisted. SITE PLAN NO. 76-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 909 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 5,460 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH POTENTIAL FOR SIX UNIT RETAIL AREAS. PROJECT SITE CURRENTLY CONTAINS 7,000 SQ. FT. LIQUOR STORE. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PARKING AREA, STORMWATER, LIGHTING AND NEW LANDSCAPING. PROJECT INCLUDES EXISTING INTERCONNECTS TO WALMART PARKING/DRIVE AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 8-2015 MOD.; SP 70-2010 & AV 59-2010 CHANGE OF USE; 2015-237 WC RAMP; 2013- 115 COMM. ALT.; 1995 SEPTIC ALT.; SIGN PERMITS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-38. SECTION: 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE & TIM SHULER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MONTY LIU, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes a new 5,460 square foot commercial building with potential for six unit retail areas. This project currently contains the 7,000 square foot liquor store. The project includes new parking area, stormwater, lighting and new landscaping. The relief that's being requested is a 32 foot setback from Weeks Road property line where a 75 foot setback is required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SHULER-Tim Shuler from McPhillips Fitzgerald and Cullum representing the applicant. Monty Liu is the principal for the applicant, and Lucas Dobie is our engineer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tell us about your project. MR. SHULER-As indicated in the application, the proposal is to construct a 5,460 square foot building. The existing liquor store is just under two feet from Weeks Road, and the relief that's requested from this Board is 32 feet from Weeks Road as opposed to the 50 foot setback required. And I'll let Lucas Dobie speak to the details of the project. MR. TRAVER-Very good. 9 MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Shuler. Good evening, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and Monty and I worked pretty hard on this project and tried a bunch of different options to fit within the Code and his design goals of creating a plaza center facing the Wal-Mart area and a nice interconnect with our existing liquor store parking and also we have an interconnect right in the middle to Wal-Mart which we worked with the Board in 2010 when we did the liquor store and it's worked out really well for traffic flow from what I can tell when I'm there, which is probably more often than I should be, but Monty likes that I guess. I just wanted to correct one thing for the record. I think Laura read in, did you say 75 feet for the front setback? MRS. MOORE-It is 75 foot. MR. DOBIE-It is for that also? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Even for Weeks Road. MR. DOBIE-1 wasn't sure if Weeks Road was a Travel Corridor or not but apparently it is. MRS. MOORE-It's not a Travel Corridor. It's still the setback for that zone. It's the zone itself. MR. DOBIE-It's the zone. Okay. MR. TRAVER-So it's 32 and the setback is normally 75 or is 75. Okay. MR. DOBIE-And the number sounds like a lot of relief when you look at it as a percentage, but we feel that by positioning the building closer to Weeks Road and keeping the nicer storefronts towards the busier Wal-Mart area that provides a lot better project and feel for the neighborhood is our whole reason for pursuing this. We did look at alternatives and we just couldn't make it work where Monty was happy and I was happy with traffic flow, the parking, that sort of deal, and the proposal, the only proposal from Weeks Road is a delivery entrance if you will, which is Monty will be, at least as the principal, will be enforcing it, as an entrance only for delivery and no interconnect to the west of Wal-Mart because I believe there's some concern with truck traffic on that end of Weeks Road. So we're enforcing with signage and that sort of deal to force everybody back through the middle of Wal-Mart back to the traffic light is the whole design goal of this, and as you may recall we were here for a food truck application. That didn't materialize and Monty figured this was a much better project here with a nice beautiful building and I've worked with Morton Buildings out of Vermont on a campground, a huge building. They did a beautiful job in an Adirondack style timber frame. So we're real excited about the project. We feel it will contribute to the neighborhood and be quite successful. We're looking for a recommendation to the Board, the Zoning Board tomorrow night and hopefully we'll be successful. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. MR. FORD-The excitement shows in the photograph you posted. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It seemed like a nice project. My only thought was I was kind of hoping that you would open Flower Drum Song again. I miss that restaurant. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the big questions I had was on the new proposed interconnect to the Wal-Mart. Do you need any kind of approval or permission from Wal-Mart to use that? MR. LIU-I think we already have an easement on file. MR. TRAVER-2010. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I knew the front one. I'm talking about. MR. LIU-Yes. MR. DEEB-Are the deliveries going to be to the front or to the back? Are you going to have entries to the back of the building? MR. LIU-Yes. MR. DEEB-Is that where deliveries are going to go? So the trucks are going to come in that way and they'll stay on that back side? MR. DOBIE-Correct. '10 12/19/2017) MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And they use the Wal-Mart to leave? MR. FORD-At the traffic light. MR. HUNSINGER-1 agree with you. It's a nice looking building. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean what size trucks are you looking for delivery? MR. LIU-Whatever size you're looking for. MR. DOBIE-They're usually the six wheel box vans. MR. LIU-Yes, a box truck. MR. MAGOWAN-1 was just wondering. Knowing you, Monty, you'd have a tractor trailer, you know, 58 footer trying to get in there. MR. FORD-They'll need that size truck. MR. SHAFER-Lucas, on the drawing between the new building and the liquor store there's a square with a note that says proposed concrete truck washout. What is that? MR. DOBIE-That's mostly for DEC projects now. So as part of the new Blue Book, the erosion control book requires standard specifications for a washout area for concrete, which I put it on there just to try to hopefully pre-empt that engineering comment, even though we're not a DEC project but we're a bigger commercial one. MR. SHAFER-Will that stay even after construction? MR. DOBIE-No, that's just a temporary thing, a dewatering area. MR. SHAFER-1 have another question. The picture in the Post Star and the one you have on the front shows these timber gables on the roof, yet the front structure elevation doesn't show those. Which is it? I hope it's the timber decorative. MR. FORD-I'll bet it will be. MR. DOBIE-Yes, on the one enclosed in the packet, when we were getting this on think on the 14th or the 15th for the submission date and he shows this big front gable coming out I believe it was 10 feet, but that doesn't work with our parking. So we said let's keep that gable and make it flush with the main eaves line of the building. So it'll be a false gable instead of a porch entrance if you will. MR. SHAFER-So there'll just be the one in the middle instead of the three? MR. DOBIE-The one in the middle and then two on both sides. MR. SHAFER-So it'll actually look like this picture. MR. DOBIE-Except pushed back. MR. SHAFER-Pushed back. Okay. So the stone pillars will not be there? MR. LIU-The stone pillars are still going to be there. MS. WHITE-They'll be in line. MR. FORD-They'll be closer in. MR. LIU-Closer in, yes. MR. TRAVER-So the variance that we're making the recommendation on is for the setbacks that Laura outlined for us. Does anyone have any concerns with that variance request or anything else that we want to pass along to the ZBA? I'm not hearing anything. So go ahead with the motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-78-2017 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a new 5,460 sq. ft. commercial building with potential for six unit retail areas. Project site currently contains 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store. Project includes new parking area, stormwater, lighting and new landscaping. Project includes existing interconnects to Walmart parking/drive area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for 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. 78-2017 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC: Introduced by David Deeb 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 Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-I think before we go any farther, looking at the informal comments, given the present sidewalk along Route 9, the application should provide a sidewalk. MRS. MOORE-Actually that's for a different project. There's Square and there's Wood. MR. DEEB-I'm sorry. I'll finish it now. MR. TRAVER-Any questions or comments? MS. WHITE-1 have a question. It really isn't too relevant, but what happened to fish n' chips? Weren't you going to do a fish and chips? It'll be one of the retail places? MR. LIU-Yes. MS. WHITE-Okay. Then I'm okay. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. MR. SHULER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to New Business. The first application we have before us is Mark & Kimberly Gardner, Site Plan 70-2017. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 70-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MARK & KIMBERLY GARDNER. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BORGOS & DELSIGNORE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 28 BAY PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMO OF AN EXISTING 3,617 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,638 SQ. FT. HOME. PROJECT INVOLVES TREE REMOVAL WITHIN 35 FT. AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, REPLACEMENT OF RETAINING WALL, PERMEABLE PAVERS, RAIN GARDEN AREAS AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TEAR DOWN AND NEW CONSTRUCTION AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50' OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA. LOT SIZE: .38 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-35. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-050 MIKE BORGOS & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes demolition of an existing 3,617 square foot home to construct a new 3,638 square foot home, and that, those large numbers are floor area numbers. It's not the footprint. I know people have questioned that in the past and as Staff we're focusing on the square footage of the total house not just the footprint in some cases. So this applicant proposes to do that. Part of the project is, this project includes three bedrooms and a two car attached garage. The project also involves tree removal within 35 feet of the shoreline. The plans show a 24 inch pine and an 18 inch hemlock. Also part of the project, the retaining wall is to be removed and re-built at a height of 1.9 feet is the exposure. The project also includes a new septic system and use the existing water line from the lake. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos on behalf of the applicant. I'm here with Tom Center from Hutchins Engineering, and we also have Tom Albrecht from Hilltop Construction who's intending to build the house. So we've brought everybody in case you have any questions. We wanted to be able to answer anything you have. I was asked to be here on behalf of the applicant. They were unable to be here tonight, but I wanted to be able to introduce the project to you. I know you have a lot on the agenda so I'm going to let Tom Center go through the technical aspects, but I'll be here to answer any other legal questions that might come up. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. CENTER-Good evening. This project is replacement of an existing house. The existing house is 11 and a half feet from the shoreline currently. The new house is proposed to be 51.5 feet from the shoreline. The new structure is only 21 square feet larger than the existing structure. We're planning on removing 1,144 square feet of impermeable house roof that's within 50 feet of the lake and we're also removing 470 square feet of patio, concrete patio that's within 30 feet of the lake. The stormwater management system is a compliant stormwater management system with rain gardens and permeable pavers. There's no asphalt proposed with this project. We've also got 380 square feet of shoreline buffer along the proposed rock wall. We're replacing an existing felled timber wall along the shoreline. We're replacing the old septic system with a new enhanced Presby sand filter system. We're also turning it so it's further away from the lake, and I'll go through the drawings real quick to kind of show each one. A few highlights. We're also eliminating a high land bridge between the existing house and the boathouse with this project. Can you go to the demolition permit first? MRS. MOORE-Which one? MR. CENTER-S-2. So starting at the front we're taking the existing garage, which is five feet from the shoreline, taking the existing garage that's five feet from the road and removing that and the structure and replacing the asphalt with permeable pavers. We are proposing to remove one tree within the 35 foot buffer. We have a severely leaning 18 inch hemlock I believe that's leaning towards the Metivier's property that we propose to have removed down there. It's leaning toward the lake and towards the direction of the boathouse. As I said before, we're looking to remove the existing timber wall which is along this area right here, replace it with a 1.9 foot high faced stone wall, and we're also proposing to take out the four cedars that are up here but we'll be replacing those four cedars with four arborvitae in the same location to provide the same screening. We're just replacing those in that area. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. What's the reason for removing the cedars? MR. CENTER-The cedars? They're fairly old and a little ratty and the owner has asked that, you know, if we could replace them with something more to their liking in regards to the arborvitaes in that same location. '13, 12/19/2017) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. CENTER-So we're replacing the same number of trees in that, with those. Can we go to S-3? So as we talked about, the house will now be 51.5 feet from the shoreline. We've proposed a permeable paver patio in this area with stormwater management underneath it. Our driveway in this location is a permeable paver driveway, and then here we've taken the, replacing the existing septic system with the enhanced treatment Presby sand filter. We're already 100 feet from the lake. We continue to be that, but instead of being perpendicular to the lake the system is much further from the lake than it is. If we can go to the next drawing. And here we've provided the stormwater management for part of the house and for the permeable pavers is in this location underneath the permeable pavers and alongside of the trench area. The patio within will have a stone infiltration underneath it, and we've provided two rain gardens on either side for the runoff from the remainder of the roof. We've also provided a buffer along the top of the retaining wall. The site all slopes down toward the lake so we have a pretty good slope there. We tried to get as much buffering as we could, and we'll, what we did here is we tried to bracket the buffer with the rain gardens so that there isn't a direct path through the lawn to the lake. So we've provided the rain gardens as kind of a primary device for the runoff from the lawn and from the roofs and also kind of brackets the buffer that we provide along the top of the wall, and there's still some remaining existing vegetation down in this corner down around this tree and there's some up in the top corner that is proposed to remain. So we do have some additional buffering that's there, some plant growth in those corners, and that's all proposed to remain. Could you go to the next drawing? And on the landscaping plan we've proposed along here six small trees or shrubs and we've provided the plant lists according to the Town of Queensbury Code for those plantings and also for the rain gardens in there. It's a pretty straightforward plan. It's actually better than the existing. The existing house has no stormwater management. It has an older septic system, has, you know, asphalt pavement and a roof that goes directly under one. We've provided a compliant system. It's a Minor Project. So it's less than 15,000 square feet of disturbance. So I believe that we've met all the requirements for the Code for this project. I'll leave it up to you folks if you have any other questions. MR. FORD-1 really appreciate the number of times that you used the word permeable or permeability in your presentation. MR. CENTER-Well we tried to incorporate, you know, in speaking with the clients, tried to incorporate, you know, green management practice, and these clients, I had them look at the Water Keeper's handbook that they provide, that they have out there for rain gardens so that they can get a feel for the different types of products that are out there, so they can understand what a rain garden looks like. It's a good book for them as a guide to use and to determine what the final product will look like. It's hard to see when you're telling them a rain garden. They're not sure what they're looking at and that book illustrates it very well. Actually this client is familiar with some of the permeable products that are out there, has used them on some other property that he has. So he's pretty well educated as to handle it. MR. FORD-1 hope particularly around our lakes that more presentations in the future will continue to use that word. MR. CENTER-Well, we do our best to try to incorporate them where they fit and make them work. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-1 have to say, Tom, you did a nice job laying this out. It's a lot of work. MR. SHAFER-Question. I noticed on the test pit and the perc tests that the ones up by where you're proposing to do the leach field, seasonal high groundwater is fairly shallow. And then on the ones down by the lake you didn't find it down to 30 inches. Is that typical? MR. CENTER-That's more of a fill, what was done here when they built this house, I think they did a lot of filling. It's more sandy fill in those areas. MR. SHAFER-Okay. One more question. On the site plan there's a note about applying to the Park Commission for a permit to demolish the existing dock and so on and so forth. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Elevation wise. MR. CENTER-The dock and the boathouse. MR. SHAFER-Well is it a gamble to do the steps without knowing the elevation of the actual boathouse? MR. CENTER-Well, that's going to stay. The steps, which steps are you talking about? MR. SHAFER-Well going to the consistency with what you want to do now versus what you might have to do with the Park Commission and the boathouse. MR. CENTER-Well, the boathouse is going to be in that same general area. There's already an existing landing area that we're coming down to. So there's not going to be any change in that area for any of the boathouse or the dock within the Lake George Park Commission regulations. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. FORD-Could you elaborate a bit about that newly devised septic? MR. CENTER-Yes. It's a Presby sand filter system, which is enhanced treatment as opposed to just a pipe and stone. It uses corrugated piping and sand. It's considered an enhanced septic system. MR. FORD-Why is it considered an enhanced? MR. CENTER-It gives you a, there's a filter within the pipe. There's additional filtering, there's additional treatment within the sand rather than just having straight up pipe and stone. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That seems to be quite an industry. New companies coming out. MR. CENTER-It's also pumped up so it's dosed to the field. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there other questions from members of the Planning Board? We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there any folks in the audience who would like to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. First of all we also would like to compliment the applicant on the design, setting the house further back from the shoreline, meeting setbacks, obviously, and the other items that Mr. Center presented to remove the impervious cover from closer to the shoreline. We do note, however, the Town has implemented important protective measures in the Town Code to maintain the important natural resources for protective ecosystem services, such as soils and vegetation. Regarding the shoreline buffer, we feel it doesn't meet the Town Code and will not provide the stabilization. The Town Code requires a 15-foot buffer. This appears to only reach half of that. So it appears that that needs to be expanded. Also the Code requires a large tree of 3" in caliper for every 50 ft. of linear shoreline. So we would encourage that unless there's a desire to get a variance. The septic system, we are seeking, I guess, or requesting a determination from the Town regarding this because we see this as a fill system and fill systems cannot be installed within 200 feet of Lake George and that there must be 3' of naturally occurring soil beneath the base of the fill and seasonal high groundwater. It was noted that there were test pits that indicated seasonal high groundwater at 19 inches. There's a note on Sheet 7 that says it's 30 inches. So there seems to be some conflict there. So we just think that that needs a determination whether that needs relief from the Board of Health on that system. So we feel that the shoreline buffer should be expanded to meet the Town Code as well as the determination on the wastewater treatment system. And also we do support this system. The Presby, as Tom said, has additional surface area, but also I think an important element is that it actually has ventilation. So the vents provide air flow and oxygen which creates a better environment for the treatment as well. So that is a good system. So thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'm not seeing anyone. So we will close the public hearing for this evening. '115 12/19/2017) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Would the applicant like to come back to the table. You heard some comments regarding the shoreline buffering. This is an issue that we deal with on a fairly regular basis regarding the Code compliance and also the issue of the trees spacing. Do you have any comment on that? MR. CENTER-Yes. We do have, it's two per, one for every 50 feet. We do have 123 feet. So that would require two trees. We do have two trees right here, and actually the third tree is also within the 35 foot setback here. So there are three trees that are in a cluster in the southeast corner. Regarding the buffer, we're on a sloped site, 15 foot. A little difficult to try to manage a buffer on a slope in this area. What we tried to do was create it in a level area. We did get close to seven and a half feet. We provided additional trees and shrubs within that buffer area, more than what's required. So we kind of exceed it in one area, even though we were a little less in the other, but we do have, at the narrowest point right here in this existing area of vegetation and boulders and what not I this corner, we do have 15 foot at the narrowest point and then it gets a little wider. So we've kept that natural vegetation in the upper corner and there is some vegetation where we're not proposing to do any removal. So we have it in some areas. We tried to provide the best that we could based on the lot that we have. I think it's definitely an improvement over what's there. If this were a flat site, I could see where we'd have to, and not have the change in elevation. What we tried to do, you know, with our rain gardens was to bracket it so that we broke things apart. So we may not have that buffer right down to the lake 15 foot wide, but we tried to break it up so that the purpose of the buffer is so that the water from the lawn doesn't go directly into the lake, and I think we've succeeded in that by trapping it in the level area of the buffer that we've provided with additional plantings along the top of that. So it's kind of a little bit of a tradeoff. MR. TRAVER-And then regarding the issue of the septic to ensure its functionality with the groundwater, do you have any comment on that? MR. CENTER-It's an enhanced treatment system we do and the end result is three feet of separation. We'd also, you know, like to take exception a little bit to Mr. Navitsky's interpretation because if you read 136-9B it does say no sewage disposal fill or mound systems may be located within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake George but it also says for repair or replacement of existing systems, the distance may a minimum of 100 feet, and we've confirmed this with Mr. Hatin. So we believe we've met the criteria, and it is an enhanced treatment system. That's one of the reasons why we went with this. We have the three feet of separation. It's been something that's been before the Board in different septic variances where they were looking for setback and some other reliefs. I think we have a compliant system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I just appreciate that clarification. I think that was a good discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-1 agree. MR. TRAVER-Typically the shoreline buffering and vegetation is always a major concern. It makes such an impact. This is a SEQR Type 11. So we have no SEQR act to respond to. Are there any conditions that members of the Board feel that need to be added to the draft resolution? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, Tom, can you just go through some of the comments from Chazen? MR. CENTER-Yes. I guess Number One is just a statement. Number Two, the existing home will take lake water as it does currently and both houses to the north and south also take water from the lake. So we don't have any separation issues. Across the street is a vacant lot of land. So we have no issues with separation between existing wells. Number Three, we will provide a detail that shows the 24 inches of separation between the bottom of the permeable driveway and permeable pavers. The ones for the patio are in a fill area so we will have plenty of separation there. We reduced the amount. That's why we had the trenches on the side so we spread out the storage area so we could maintain the 24 inches of separation. And then Number Four, we'll add basically he's looking for us to show the stabilized construction entrance and we'll show that on the demolition plan. It's going to be where the driveway's going to be, '16 but that's where the construction entrance will be. So we'll show that on the demolition plan. Actually this is probably the shortest list of engineering comments I've had. MR. TRAVER-And that is part of the draft resolution that compliance and signoff is required. MR. CENTER-And I think we can do that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else from members of the Board? All right. Then we will close the public hearing if I didn't already. I think I might have, and we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 70-2017 MARK & KIMBERLY GARDNER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes demo of an existing 3,617 sq. ft. home to construct a new 3,638 sq. ft. home. Project involves tree removal within 35 ft. and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, replacement of retaining wall, permeable pavers, rain garden areas and shoreline planting plan. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, tear down and new construction and hard surfacing within 50' of shore line 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/19/2017 and continued the public hearing to 12/19/2017, 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 12/19/2017; 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 70-2017 MARK & KIMBERLY GARDNER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) 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. Motion seconded by Thomas Ford. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. CENTER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 72-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. CHERYL HACKETT. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 91 ROCKHURST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE LARGE WHITE PINE WITHIN 35 FT. OF SHORELINE. APPLICANT HAS INDICATED TREE TO BE OVER 110 FT. AT 3 — 3.5 FT. DIAMETER. PROJECT INCLUDES TREE TRIMMING OF SOME TREES OUTSIDE 35 FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TREES WITHIN 35 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-2002 BOATHOUSE; AV 41-02 DECK; 2008-572 SEPTIC ALT.; 2002-950 SEPTIC ALT.; 2002-151 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.13- 2-37. SECTION: 179-6-050. CHERYL HACKETT, PRESENT MS. HACKETT-Hi, I'm Cheryl Hackett and I own 91 Rockhurst Road. I'm here to represent my partner who is unable to be here. He's out of the country. It concerns this very large tree, and this is a picture that I brought tonight to add to the fold. My neighbor just took this Sunday from a kayak out on the lake, which really depicted what's going on with this very large dangerous tree, which is leaning towards our boathouse and the neighbor's boathouse which is to the right, Mr. Seaboyer, Steven Seaboyer, who did give me a letter to deliver to you because he didn't think it would get here by mail and I asked him to seal it and I would bring it to Laura when I got here. Basically we had Martin Seaton look at it. It has insect activity and it's just gigantic. Because we are such small lots there, I'm on .22 acres, there's just no way to access a tree like that. It has to be done from over my house and Martin feels that he can reach over the top of the garage and get to it and take it out by crane, which is totally preferable to waiting until it's going to fall down. It's, I think I said this already. It's got carpenter ant activity in the bottom of it and it's just so large. If we wait and we go past this window of opportunity and it grows larger, I'm really fearing that we'd never be able to crane it out and then we're going to be in a situation where we're going to be having to rope it down, and it's just such a gigantic tree, or they said if it deteriorates they won't climb it to rope it down and then we're forced to be on a corner where we've got to wait for it to fall, and I will tell you that we've already been through that once with another tree that hit a neighbor, a boat on our dock and luckily it didn't hit a person, it didn't hurt anybody it didn't kill anybody but it did $8,000 worth of damage to their boat and they no longer, and I don't want to be in that position again. I'd like to be proactive and take this down. Bruce came out, Bruce Frank, to look at it and he didn't know that our lot is really full of trees. We have a lot of trees. He says I'm not sure that you really need to plant a tree in the replacement of this, and I'm going to ask the Board if you do approve that I can take this tree out not to make me plant it this time because I have a beech tree three feet away from this proposed pine removal that I want to survive and thrive because that provides much needed shade to our own patio, and I'm 65 years old. I've got a lot of older friends and we're over being sun gods and being out in the direct sun and this tree is really pivotal to our entertainment shaded on our patio. What I would propose, because Bruce feels that there is some involvement under the '18 bark of the beech that I think he described as a fungus and although it's not imminent that the tree is going to fail, he said that it's not going to last your lifetime. So what I would propose if we get to take this pine tree out, it's about 110 feet high, that if the beech tree fails we would like to plant a tree in that same general area. I'm not sure how that's going to work. We'll probably have to get an arborist to come and in and see how we're going to get it in the ground, the root system involvement of these two trees that would be gone, but Bruce had recommended a red maple and that's what we would like to plant eventually if we're without the two trees, but for right now if the pine needs we'd like to let the beech go because it's three feet away from the pine tree trunk. Hopefully, I think this picture that Mr. Seaboyer took for me on Sunday really depicts really what's going on on our lot the best. MR. MAGOWAN-Have you had an arborist come in and see if there's anything he can do to help out the beech? MS. HACKETT-Yes. Martin Seaton is an arborist. However, he's not a certified United States arborist. I believe he's from England. So he can't give it his certified stamp, but he said it is involved in the bottom and I asked him can you bore it and he said no. So he recommends, his letter is in here. He recommends that the tree be taken down, just because of all the parameters, because of the size of it, because if we keep going we're not going to be able to. MR. MAGOWAN-No, no, no. I mean taking that tree, I agree it stands out like a sore thumb anyway, but, no, the beech, seeing what he can do to. MS. HACKETT-The beech tree, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Next door, you said that it had some issues itself that you were hoping. MS. HACKETT-Bruce describes it as something that's underneath the bark and when Martin comes we do intend to address it because we love that tree and it provides a tremendous amount of shade. So it's my desire that that doesn't leave us. So, yes, we will address that. MR. MAGOWAN-Injecting some penicillin into it or something. MS. HACKETT-I think I asked him and Bruce Frank wasn't sure there really was anything specific you could do for the type of affliction that he was noting on the tree, but it's always had good leaf cover and so far so good. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, I think like you said it is nice and it's a good size and it offers you, it does offer, you know, some good effect, and to keep it, I mean, like I said, if that does go and you have that big pine tree, you know, how do you plant really close to it with two really major? MS. HACKETT-I think we'll probably have to get a professional to come in to put that in, if that occurs, because I don't have the expertise to know how to get a root base in there and have it take hold and that involvement. The other thing that I wanted to mention about the tree, if you look at this picture that Mr. Seaboyer took, what Martin had noted was that we have such a lot of plumage in the top of the tree that we basically have a real sail effect going on, and we all know that white pines have a very shallow root base and then we have all this plumage up there. So it's just got this force being exerted on it as a lever that is not desirable to me and I think that it's been every week this fall. I tell you I move inside my house to a different place when it's blowing that hard because it does, I'm very fearful of it, and we have a lot of trees on our lot and I think just because we've already been hit once with the tree going down, luckily it didn't hit anybody, we're quite vigilant about the health of the trees. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MS. HACKETT-I think that's it. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-1 was pretty convinced when I saw it from the road. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I grew up on Pine Point and Pine Point has a lot of trees like that. In fact, when they cut a few down to build Wilbur Dowd's house cannonballs rolled out of it when they knocked it down, from the exchange. It used to be called artillery point, and then at some point in the 1800's they called it Pine Point, but, yes, there's some old trees. MS. HACKETT-I think Bruce kept mentioning that it was the biggest white pine that he's ever seen. '19 MR. HUNSINGER-And I appreciate the fact that you came before the Board. Because too often people go ahead and take them down and don't come before the Board. MS. HACKETT-I had a couple of business concerns that said you have the option of taking it down and begging for forgiveness, but that's not the way I do things. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. WHITE-Well, that combine with the research that you did. Actually that cost some money just doing the research. MS. HACKETT-It was more the time. MR. MAGOWAN-Now did you see that video where they were doing that, they were craning the tree over the house and they didn't have the crane set up right and then the crane didn't do the right thing and the tree came down through the house? MS. HACKETT-I don't want it to take out my fireplace. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we do have a public hearing on this application. Are there members of the audience that want to address the Planning Board on this application? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MS. HACKETT-I did remember one thing that I forgot to tell you. I see in the agenda that it does say in here about the dead Iimbing of the trees outside of 35 feet, and that is not, I didn't really outline that correctly in my cover letter. The four trees that I refer to, two, three, four and five that are within 35 feet, but that's just proposing to take out the dead Iimbing where the limbs have crossed. I want to get the dead things out of there so they don't fall down, like the tree limb that fell down in the storm this past week on the neighbor's property. I just don't want that to happen while people are out there, and then there was the one live branch that still is within 35 feet, but it's right over the top of the fireplace, the outdoor fireplace, and I really would like to remove that fire hazard. So that's kind of what I had in mind. MR. FORD-Just for your own peace of mind there are licensed arborists in the area if you wanted to address the diseased tree that is going to remain. MS. HACKETT-I think that we'll be really pushed to do that because getting down, to get permission to take the pine down, we're left with one tree and it's critical shade area. It's going to be pretty important to me to keep it alive. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. MAGOWAN-It could be brought on by being in the shade, not getting enough sun, and, two, the acidity level due to the pine tree. So it might, you never know. That damn beech might grow up to 110 feet tall, too. MR. TRAVER-All right. MRS. MOORE-1 do have one letter from the public that she submitted this evening. I'll read that into the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-It says, "Dear Board members: We have received notification of our neighbors' proposed removal of a large pine tree from their property and we have no significant objection to that action. We neighbors expect each other to maintain our properties with care for potential danger and the size and condition of the pine at 91 Rockhurst is becoming a concern." This is from the Seaboyers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type 11. So no SEQR action is required. We have a draft motion. I think we're ready for that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #72-2017 CHERYL HACKETT 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 remove large white pine within 35 ft. of shoreline. Applicant has indicated tree to be over 110 ft. at 3 - 3.5 ft. diameter. Project includes tree trimming of some trees within 35 ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6- 050 of the Zoning Ordinance, tree removal within 35 ft. of shoreline 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/19/2017 and continued the public hearing to 12/19/2017, 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 12/19/2017; 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 72-2017 CHERYL HACKETT, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017 by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second it, but before I do, are we also giving approval for the dead limbs and that? MR. DEEB-That's part of the site plan. MR. TRAVER-That's part of the site plan. MRS. MOORE-Yes. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-AII right. You're all set. Good luck. MR. DEEB-Thank you very much for coming to us. MS. HACKETT-Thank you, Laura, for your help. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under New Business we have Site Plan 74-2017 for Queensburywood, LLC. SITE PLAN NO. 74-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. QUEENSBURYWOOD, LLC. AGENT(S): KENNETH BROWNELL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 871 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING RAY SUPPLY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT 16,000 SQ. FT. "HARBOR FREIGHT" BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PARKING ARRANGEMENT, RETAINING WALL, LIGHTING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF TH ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2000-519 COMM. ADDITION; 094171-3537 STORAGE & CAR STEREO INSTALLATION BLDG. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 2.13 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-37. SECTION: 179-3-040 KEN BROWNELL & TYLER GARRITY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to remove an existing 16,000 square foot or rather the Ray Supply building. I didn't have the square foot noted, and to construct a 16,000 square foot Harbor Freight building. This includes associated parking, stormwater management, landscaping, lighting, retaining wall and grading, and I also identified some specific waiver requests. One is the types of buffer zones between the uses. Applicant requests a 25 foot buffer where a 50 foot buffer is required. Under Parking and Loading, the applicant has requested to bank five parking spaces of the 80 required, and then in reference to the Site Plan approval, Letter G, the requirement for a 20 foot wide interconnect where the applicant has identified the previous 20 foot wide interconnect site plan requirement is now requested to remove that 20 foot wide interconnect. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BROWNELL-Good evening. How are you? My name's Ken Brownell with Vanguard Fine. We're representing Queensburywood, LLC, the contract vendee applicant, the developer and with me is Tyler Garrity from ABD Engineers who has completed the site plan design and stormwater for this project. We're here today to get your review on a 16,000 square foot re- development of the 871 Route 9, which is the former Ray Supply building. The proposed user is Harbor Freight tools which is a national retailer that is looking to locate in Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? I know one of the things at least a couple of us were wondering, the pictures and diagrams of the building and the colors and everything, is that still the colors? MR. BROWNELL-That's the building that was built in Clifton Park that was recently approved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BROWNELL-There isn't per se a specific design criteria from Harbor Freight. We typically use the masonry look along the bottom with an efface or drivit fagade along the top and they would probably stick with that. They put the glazing in the front. The glazing does have, it's a blackened glazing. It does most of the store. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think what some of us might be looking for is more of a subdued color scheme, more of an Adirondack style color scheme, and I'll let others comment on that. MR. BROWNELL-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And what about the issue of the, there was the retaining wall. Could you clarify that? MR. BROWNELL-I can. As part of the, the intent is to use part of the retaining wall as part of the foundation for the rear of the building. So the building will actually be built into the wall, will have pilasters driven in. As part of our building plan and submission we'll have full engineered drawings. The soils are great here. It's all sand. There won't be any issues with stabilization and prior to, the building will have full engineered drawings for the actual wall of the building itself plus the retaining wall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So you'll be taking the access road out with Wal-Mart? MR. BROWNELL-Well, part of that issue was it's a one way access road from the Ray Supply space into the Wal-Mart parking lot and the grade differential, there's a 14 foot grade differential from mid-way in the parking lot to the top. So in order to engineer that out we'd lose the majority of the parking spaces back by where the delivery area is. So engineering wise it was almost difficult to try to get that driveway there and we could have tried to engineer it along the front. We met with Laura, we talked about possibly going across and engineering it in the front and going in, but then you're putting traffic into their, into the driveway, into oncoming traffic coming out of Wal-Mart. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the history of that is when Wal-Mart expanded into Super Wal-Mart, the owners of Ray Supply were really concerned about their customers being able to take a left onto Route 9, and it was really driven by the owners of Ray Supply more than this Board or even the Town, and it was something that Wal-Mart was willing to do to be a good neighbor, if you will, for Ray Supply, but I had the same thought when I first saw that it was gone, but again I don't go into Ray Supply that often especially now that it's closed, but I do go into the Ace hardware store quite often and, you know, taking a left out of there can be tricky, but there is timing, you know, the lights are timed so that there is, it wasn't so much that it was done because of a traffic study. It was a concern that Ray Supply had that Wal-Mart was willing to mitigate. MR. TRAVER-It was basically so that people could go into Wal-Mart and exit within their system and get out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and use the light. MR. FORD-Good history lesson. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I figure I was the only one here when Wal-Mart changed. MR. DEEB-The other thing here is, and I tried to do this with the other one, poor Monty. Given the present sidewalk along State Route 9, Staff suggests that the Planning Board suggest a sidewalk or other means for safely moving pedestrians from the sidewalk to the store. MR. BROWNELL-I think we can accommodate that. MR. DEEB-Yes. I wanted to make sure of that. MR. SHAFER-1 have a question. Several of the towns in the area have a policy or procedure or reg on a project like this to have the building up front and the parking in the back. As a traffic engineer I have severe heartburn about closing that Wal-Mart connection, to have people come out and take a left and get to Wal-Mart and vice versa and come down the hill to get into your place. Putting them out onto Route 9 just seems ludicrous. If you were to move the building up front, could you retain that Wal-Mart connection? MR. BROWNELL-No because we still need the parking. We actually tried to actually do that originally. We looked at trying to put the building. It just didn't. The only way this engineered out was by putting the building back and being able to wrap the parking. We actually, for our uses we actually have more parking than we need. We really only need 60 spaces, but by Town Code what we did is we have 80 because we're banking five of them, and that was one of the issues, but in order to meet Town requirement we did that. In terms of loading also it just was easier putting the truck back in the back and not, you know, our issue in the past has been we have truck deliveries and they're heavy tools and we just don't want to put our customers. MR. SHAFER-So how many parking spaces do you actually need, comfortably need, maximum? If you were allowed to do that, could you then keep the connection to Wal-Mart? MR. BROWNELL-I'm not sure. I mean part of the issue it's a one way connection into Wal- Mart. We did a study. We're building in Vermont right now and they asked us to do a study and the impact was nominal. I mean, we can provide a copy of that study to you. We don't have the type of retail traffic that most people are going to look at this property and say you're high impact. We're not. MR. SHAFER-From Wal-Mart to your place it would be a right out right in. From Wal-Mart to Harbor Freight it would be a right out, out onto 9, a right turn, and then a right turn into your place. The concern is the other way around, left coming out of your place to go left into Wal- Mart. MR. GARRITY-We have two curb cuts because there are two existing curb cuts right now. MR. SHAFER-Right. MR. GARRITY-And based upon the traffic flow that typically comes in I think you're going to get most of the folks leaving out of the southern end of the property. MR. SHAFER-1 don't see how that helps. MR. MAGOWAN-That's how I mainly did it. Came in up above and went out down below. MR. GARRITY-Right, and you have the suicide lane that's there also. MR. MAGOWAN-We like to refer to that as the center turn lane. MR. GARRITY-Sorry. MR. SHAFER-Could you estimate how many parking places it would take to keep that connection in place? MR. GARRITY-We'd have to re-engineer the whole site, and the problem is from the grade we would lose a quarter of the site. I'm not so sure we could make it work. MR. SHAFER-But there's a connection there now. MR. BROWNELL-I understand there's a connection. The building is also 5800 square feet. It's not, this is 16,000, and that building was undersized for the lot. It's an over two acre lot. We need 16,000 feet. Harbor Freight's typical store is 16,000 feet, and it worked from an engineering perspective and we played with a lot of designs trying to make it work to accommodate the Town's requirements also. MR. MAGOWAN-I've been to Harbor Freight. I've never had a problem not parking close to the store. It's the type of store that you constantly have customers all day long. It's not like a grocery store or something where you get a rush here and a rush there, and I've stated before I think a lot of our parking lots are too big anyway. If there's not a parking spot for me to pull in then I won't pull in. I'll go at another time when I can get closer. MR. BROWNELL-And with Harbor Freight, if you're buying a generator you want to get close to the front door. You're not going to try to truck a generator out to the backside of the parking lot. MR. DEEB-So the quandary then is this interconnect and you really can see no way to solve that. Reducing store size. There are a lot of stores on Route 9 that do not have an interconnect. MS. WHITE-But they're not taking away an existing. I guess that's where my, you know, the existing stores don't have that access. This project is actually taking away a current access. MR. TRAVER-Well, and it's also the traffic pattern on that hill, they call it Miller Hill, it's quite something with Wal-Mart there, too. It's not your typical space. MS. WHITE-Especially that turn lane right in front of this project is a very busy turn lane. MR. TRAVER-It is. Yes, it often backs up right in front of what used to be Ray Supply. MR. SHAFER-And if you look at Page Three of Four, which is the existing conditions, that connection really doesn't take up a very large percent of the property, of the parcel. MR. MAGOWAN-You said it doesn't? MR. SHAFER-It does not. It looks like you might lose some of those parking spaces on the site plan to the northwest. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you go back to Page One and Four in the beginning that comes all the way back to where it says like 47 feet. Right above the 199.2 feet. You see that in the parking lot where it says 47.0 feet? That's a skinny long driveway. I've been up through there. MS. WHITE-Yes, so he's comparing it to what is proposed. MR. MAGOWAN-So you'd lose all those parking spots over here, and then you'd have to get the truck to back around, I mean the truck I guess could back around, but then it's going to drive uphill to back into the loading. MR. TRAVER-At the back of the Harbor Freight you mean? What do you think about? 1:,4 MR. GARRITY-You wouldn't be able to engineer the wall out. Even more than that the issue is where the wall is right now is going to be. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm looking at this wall. How deep down are you going? MR. GARRITY-It's 10 more just from the bottom of that slope to the cross. MR. MAGOWAN-So another 10 feet, because you drive up into Ray Supply now. You're going to be lower. Now you're making sense here, all right. MR. BROWNELL-I'm just a layperson. I don't do the engineering stuff. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. So that would increase that ramp all the way out there probably to the end of the snow storage area there. MR. GARRITY-Which you'd lose the 14 spaces, which even the five spaces, right now the way it's graded down you don't even have the, you couldn't put the wall. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and like I said, like Chris said all it was really for was Ray Supply people were worried, and I have to say of all the years I went to Ray Supply I have to say I probably only went out that entrance once or maybe I'll give you two times and that was because I went to Wal-Mart. MR. DEEB-I've been to Ray Supply a few times and I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't know there was a connector. I've always gone in and out and never had a problem. So I know it's tough to take it away. MR. FORD-There will continue to be two entrances on Route 9. 1 see this as an opportunity to improve a site. I don't see where that does it. MR. MAGOWAN-1 concur with Mr. Ford. MR. FORD-Interconnect great, but I think with a single access off of Route 9, access and exit as sufficient. MR. MAGOWAN-A single or a dual? MR. TRAVER-Well they'd have to change what's there now. You want to eliminate a curb cut is what you're saying? MR. FORD-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-Yes, go with single entrance and exit, and it cuts down on the safety issue that exists there now. It's a way of improving the Route 9 traffic patterns. MR. MAGOWAN-So what would you say, close the upper one closer to the Wal-Mart area? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what do you think of that one? MR. GARRITY-1 guess it would come down to the trucks, right? BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-Could I make a suggestion? MR. TRAVER-If you wouldn't mind coming up to the table and state your name for the record, please. MR. SEARS-My name's Bob Sears. I'm the broker involved with this project. First of all, Chris, you're absolutely right. It was Ray Supply people that wanted this curb cut, not curb cut but the driveway going up to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart didn't want to get involved. So as far as what you mentioned, Mr. Ford, what if on the curb cut furthest to the north there would be no left hand turn out of it? You could make a right hand turn out of it but not a left hand turn? That way you're not going against traffic you're going with the traffic. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like that, Bob. MR. FORD-That's an improvement over what exists there now. MR. SEARS-It would also mitigate the exposure, I think it would mitigate your truck problem. MR. FORD-But they're so close. I don't think there are two that are needed. I think one is sufficient. MR. SEARS-Well, for instance, if you drive in to Ray Supply on the south side and drive out on the south side you're going to make a right and a left, but on the north side if you drive out and you make a right hand turn, you still preserve your ability to make a truck right in. You mitigate the exposure for the left hand turn on the north side, and I think that's an improvement and that's a compromise, and it also alleviates the problem with the trucking. MR. GARRITY-You're going to force trucks to come in from the north and take a right in and work that way. I agree. MR. DEEB-What about having the north side as an entrance and the south side as an exit? MR. SEARS-Well, then you've still got, if you have the north side as the entrance, you've still got the left hand turn going against the traffic trying to get into the entrance. You're further away from Wal-Mart on the south side. MR. DEEB-I see what you're saying. MR. BROWNELL-We could sign it and put it for right in and right out only so that there's no left turns coming in that way and make sure the left turns come in the south side because it's further away from the traffic light with Wal-Mart. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean, the problem, you know, you've got more signs, but if you actually cut that curb so the only way you can come in is from the right, all right, and then that way your truck knows to go up and either One, turn around or, Two, you know, or you could go into Wal-Mart, do the loop around and come up the other light in here. I mean, not that I want to suggest that, but really just a right sweep, and then that way if the traffic does back up going into Wal-Mart, people want to make the left in, they're doing it on the south side. MR. SEARS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That sounds like a good compromise. Then your truck can get in. Thanks, Bob, thanks for coming tonight. MR. SEARS-It's worth it. It's always good to see you guys. MR. TRAVER-All right. Another issue that's outstanding from Staff Notes is the buffer. Fifty feet is required and you're asking for 25. MR. BROWNELL-We set the building back as far as we could. We have a 25 foot buffer, and part of that is the issue with the wall. MR. TRAVER-Because you're using the wall as a foundation. MR. BROWNELL-We would ask for the Board to waive that. MR. TRAVER-Earlier I had raised a question of the color scheme for the building. How do other members feel about that? MS. WHITE-Ugly. MR. DEEB-Ugly. MS. WHITE-We wouldn't let Wal-Mart do orange. MR. BROWNELL-We can come up with some schemes that maybe we could put together to address, you know, more of an Adirondack look. MR. FORD-Adirondack. Yes. 1:'6 MR. MAGOWAN-Instead of the orange band, can you do a green band? MR. BROWNELL-We absolutely, and change maybe the colors to make it look more Adirondack. We can do that. MR. FORD-There's so little orange as you drive through the Adirondacks. Only certain times of the year. MR. TRAVER-Fall. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, and it's really only a couple of weeks long, isn't it, Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-That's about it. MR. SEARS-Is your balloon orange, Mr. Ford? MR. BROWNELL-I'll come up with a color scheme. We can certainly do that. MR. TRAVER-All right. We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Are there members of the audience that want to address this application to the Planning Board? I'm not seeing any. Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 do have written comment. This is addressed to members of the Board. "I have briefly reviewed the aggressive plan presented as Site Plan 74-2017. 1 am one of 2 directly adjoining residential properties bordering the site and I am the property located closest to the proposed loading docks of Harbor Freight. Bang, bang, bang, beep, beep, beep, beep of the fork-trucks. I fully understand that you review these types of plans regularly and I fully respect your knowledge and dedication to the planning needs of our town. I would simply like to address the following: 1) Are 75+ parking spaces really needed with all that asphalt? This past Saturday, at noon, I counted cars parked at Lowe's Home Improvement (a much larger store) and there were only 114. Harbor Freight is a much smaller store. It seems that 50 or 60 spaces would be more than reasonable. Do we need another "mini" K-mart project? 2) Why eliminate any connector road? This seems against development, especially in a Travel Corridor and the Cl Zone. 3) Regardless of the building being sited to act as a retaining wall, all of the roof mechanicals become much closer to my ground level (at only 25+' away mind you). Possibly even visible from a second story bedroom window. 4) Why can't the 50' buffer be maintained for the benefit of the residences? 5) A 5' high fence with our property being uphill seems almost worthless. Not to mention the tiny landscaping being proposed on the Harbor Freight side. 6) Are they banking on our mature trees as part of their requirement to keep a buffer? 7) Part of our residential use of our property is use of our land (not just the distance to our home). The ugly non-architecturally significant concrete building is proposed to be so close. In fact, the room you are sitting in, the wall is farther away. Think about that. 8) Can you please limit hours of shipping and receiving to reasonable hours during the day and please assure idling trucks will not be allowed. A truck arriving at 3:00 AM in the middle of winter and waiting for staff to arrive at 8:00 AM will be extremely disturbing to our use. We fully appreciate our town needs retail growth and investment and the redevelopment of the former Ray Supply property is long overdue. We just respectfully request due consideration be given to our neighborhood. We realize it is a balancing act and we thank you for addressing our concerns. Thank you for listening to my letter being read into the record as I could not attend this evening because of my son's holiday concert. Patricia Pelella-Mekeel Kathleen Pelella Owners of: 19 Greenway Drive" MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. So we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-How do members of the Board feel? MR. DEEB-Can you address that truck issue about deliveries? MR. BROWN ELL-Typically deliveries don't occur between, the company issue says seven to seven. I can find out if there's a different delivery schedule. I mean it's something that I can find out. Again, they typically, trucks are there typically during the day, but they leave it open and say seven to seven. MR. DEEB-Okay. So we can condition it that deliveries be done between seven a.m. and seven p.m. MR. BROWN ELL-Trust me. We understand. We're not looking to inconvenience anybody. Harbor Freight tries to be a very good neighbor. MR. MAGOWAN-How many parking spaces do you really need? MR. BROWNELL-Sixty. MR. MAGOWAN-And how many do we have proposed here? MR. BROWNELL-Eighty with five banked. MR. MAGOWAN-So 75. MR. SHAFER-1 hate to beat a dead horse, but the response to the letters that were read, if you move the building up closer to Route 9 the buffer goes away. MR. MAGOWAN-And if you remove the handicap here all the way over to the edge of the building, and you shift that forward. MR. BROWNELL-Would we need a variance, because then you're taking away parking. MR. TRAVER-1 think we can approve that. MRS. MOORE-So if there's enough space on the property to bank them like you're proposing those five, that would be a waiver from this Board. If you're proposing less parking all together then that would be a requirement of going to the Zoning Board for a variance. MR. TRAVER-But if we have them banked, the area that's banked can't be used for anything else. MRS. MOORE-Cannot be used, correct, it can't be used for their permeability or their, right. MR. BROWN ELL-Because if we moved it forward it would lessen the, I mean because we could move the building forward. MRS. MOORE-But you'd also have to have buildable space for those parking spaces. MR. FORD-Well let's do it. MR. SHAFER-What does that mean, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Buildable space. So he can't just say that where he's not disturbing. At some point in the future if he needed to disturb that he would have to put parking in that area. So if you move the building forward and he has that, leaves that grade as is and we come to find out that Harbor Freight's very popular and we say you do need to actually install those parking spaces, he would have to remove that soil to the rear of the building and install them. I mean that's just a quick version of it. MR. TRAVER-And those banked parking spaces theoretically would be in the 50 foot buffer, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, then they would be in the 50 foot buffer. MR. TRAVER-But we wouldn't have to encroach upon that buffer unless they were called upon to be actually built. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you've already got five banked over here. Is there anything you can do over on that wall? I mean, if you had to you could always cut that wall and cut into the, or even. MR. BROWNELL-You could remove the five spaces and continue the wall. There's still a grade. I mean, you could remove that and get rid of those five banked. Then you could leave them, well. �:"gig MR. MAGOWAN-Well, what I'm saying is that if need be, all right, you could extend that wall where the dumpster area is, bring that all the way over and pick up those five spots there plus another five. That would give you like 10 or 12, you know what I'm saying? Because you're creating more green space behind the building now. So that would be like a compromise where you could bank that whole area. Is that possible? Right now build it this way, but could you cut out, you know, that retaining wall? Could you cut into that going toward the Wal-Mart? MR. TRAVER-Well, if we're looking at moving the building forward. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, well what I'm saying is we've got to leave that buffer back behind the neighbors because, you know, the 50. MR. TRAVER-Right. So that means they've got to move the building forward which means that retaining wall's role is going to change. MR. BROWNELL-The whole retaining wall. It's not just where they have to re-do the whole site, which means if you move the whole building up you still have to move part of the retaining wall and then you have to figure out what to do behind it, and you're going to have a bigger engineering nightmare. I mean, one of the issues with having that wall as a contiguous wall, and you can kind of use it as part of the structure, if you move that forward and try to leave the back for banked spaces, if you acquire, it would be required to grade for banked spaces because the what you're going to have, if you move the building forward, you're still going to have to grade. MRS. MOORE-1 guess that's my concern is that if in the future you're going to have to build them, it's going to have to be buildable space. MR. BROWN ELL-Buildable with an engineering. MRS. MOORE-Or you're giving this applicant the suggestion to have less parking and then you're triggering the applicant to go to the Zoning Board. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, now, okay, the other thing I'm thinking. MR. FORD-A lot of people do it. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got your truck coming in and you're backing up over here. So basically that's in front of Wal-Mart. MR. BROWNELL-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. You're building is going to be close to the neighbors. So how about some kind of sound barrier on the back of that wall. MR. BROWNELL-We could extend the height of it, too. I mean, part of that issue is where the building is going to be the top end of the building it's still going to be 10 feet below the back end of the property. So the intent is create additional buffer, go with a fence up on top, put some evergreens, put some kind of green buffer around it. I mean, we built this with green infrastructure, you know, or stormwater. So we're trying to adhere to the Town's Codes. So the thought was if we can create some kind of landscaping buffer back there with a fence. MR. MAGOWAN-But you're building actually roof is going to be lower than the neighbors. So all they're going to see is all your mechanicals on top of the roof. MR. BROWNELL-But that's why, you know, we originally intended on putting a five foot fence, and with a bigger fence we can put additional landscaping behind that fence. MR. MAGOWAN-And that would be a lot easier for you, wouldn't it? MR. BROWNELL-Yes. MR. GARRITY-Can we keep the buffer at 25? MR. MAGOWAN-Keep the buffer at 25 and then build up that higher and then, I mean, put the arborvitae so tight that, you know, not have them five feet of peak where it takes 10 years for them to grow together, but say you plant arborvitaes up there, you know, hedgerow with a fence. MR. BROWNELL-We're looking to be a good neighbor. Part of that is I don't want somebody to live in a house that they're not happy. That's never our intent. Our intent is how do we make it so, you know, obviously Route 9 is here, whether it's Harbor Freight or somebody else, what we're trying to do is make it a better situation. So if we have to put a fence, if we have to put some landscaping, we're happy to do that. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that would be better than trying to bank and having to do that, and I'll talk to Trish and see if I can get her to back off. MR. DEEB-How much higher are you talking? MR. BROWNELL-Well, the building is going to be from the top of where you're going to see it, it's going to be an additional 10 feet above that, and then we're going to go another eight feet with the fence, you're going to be 18 feet. MR. DEEB-So it's going to be an 18 foot buffer. MR. BROWNELL-Yes, and then you put trees, and then what we'll try to do is we'll try to figure out with some kind of evergreen so that it's green, you know, 12 months of the year. So it's more of a buffer, to try to improve what we can. MR. TRAVER-So what we're going to be looking for then is you're going to come up with a color scheme that's an Adirondack style, right? MR. BROWNELL-Yes, MR. TRAVER-Signage for the entrance and exits. MR. BROWNELL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And. MR. FORD-The curb cut. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the curb cut. MR. BROWNELL-The curb cut one way in so the trucks can leave. MR. TRAVER-Right, and the buffering and the landscaping, you're going to detail that. MR. BROWNELL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And the fencing. What else do we need? Is there anything else we need? MR. DEEB-Deliveries to be completed between the hours of seven and seven color scheme. MR. TRAVER-1 think they're going to work on their plan and come back. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I actually missed that. MR. TRAVER-They're talking about making some fairly significant changes. MR. FORD-So they're going to have to come back. MR. TRAVER-1 think so. Yes. MR. FORD-When you're making significant changes, really look at access and egress there and see if you can't do it with a single curb cut rather than what we've got now. The fact that we've got it now doesn't mean that that's a standard. MR. BROWNELL-We can take a look at it. I mean part of what we're trying to do is keep the continuity for the truck flow. If that is, as Bob said, if you make that one way in, you're going to reduce that substantially. I mean this becomes the main curb cut. That becomes an ancillary curb cut so that trucks can get in. Personally I'd rather have trucks coming in one entrance and people coming in the other entrance for pedestrian safety. MR. DEEB-I agree with that. 30 MR. TRAVER-The other thing you want to outline on your plan is the truck traffic. You mentioned seven to seven, if it can be that as a maximum that would be good to know. MR. DEEB-And the pedestrian friendly sidewalk. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the sidewalk. There was also a question about signage. MR. DEEB-I've got it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that's going to be part of the tabling motion. Okay. All right. So how long do you think it will take you? MR. MAGOWAN-Does anybody have a problem with a right in and right out on the north, if they can? What Mr. Ford's asking for, but. MR. TRAVER-Well he actually wants to cut the curb cuts from two to one if they can. They're going to look at that and maybe come up with an alternative to signage on the northern. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, two to one, but if not, if you make that a right in, right out, that way when the truck pulls back out he can go right instead of trying to swing around the whole parking lot. Because if he makes that, especially if you've got a semi, he's going to block people coming in, and if they can't get out, if it happens to be holiday season, you know. MR. BROWNELL-Okay, and we can show some signage for that also. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you have like a little divider in the middle there, you know, a little Y, you know, nobody pays attention to signs. I might be the only one, but. MR. BROWNELL-We could do the pork chop and we could do the rollover curb so that if a truck does roll, it's going to roll. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the Fire Marshal would like that too. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we'd be looking at, what, January? MRS. MOORE-February. MR. TRAVER-But I mean for him to get everything in. MRS. MOORE-In by January. MR. TRAVER-January 15th MRS. MOORE-Yes, please. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you have until January 15th to get. MR. DEEB-But the meeting would be February. MR. TRAVER-Yes, our Planning Board meeting in February, right. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, two things. One is that it would be the January 16th date because apparently January 15th is on a Sunday. So that changes our deadline date. So it's a January submission date, and the second thing is that engineering comments also need to be addressed and the applicant does have the opportunity to review those engineering comments, if you're making significant changes in your drawings and things like that that information can, communicate with me so that I can get that information to the engineer to have them review that. So that may be added to your tabling information that the engineering needs to be addressed. MR. TRAVER-Engineering comments. MR. BROWNELL-Tyler is actually working on the stormwater. Do you want him to address these now or do you want to wait? MRS. MOORE-If he wants to do a bit of a summary so the Board hears that information, that would be fine. MR. TRAVER-Well, if you're going to be making changes, I would say you might just as well wait. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That's my feeling. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, we're going to bust your chops again anyway. MR. TRAVER-So we would want to, I haven't seen a February agenda yet. I'm not sure that we have one. MRS. MOORE-1 don't have one yet. So the first meeting in February would be okay. MR. TRAVER-The 20th? MRS. MOORE-1 believe it is, and I apologize. I don't have my calendar in front of me. MS. WHITE-Yes, the 20tH MR. SEARS-Not to be redundant, but the neighbor and her concerns, the way the Ray Supply building sits now, she can see more of the Ray Supply building and also there's a back garage of about 2,000 square feet that backs right up. That's probably basically almost in her window. The way that it's going to be built, her eye level is going to go like this and the building is going to be down here. MR. TRAVER-Plus the buffering. MR. SEARS-So she's, I think, going to be very pleased with your efforts and their efforts. So I think you've done a great job. MR. DEEB-Thanks, Bob. MR. TRAVER-On the buffer, when you do the fence and the trees, particularly the number and type of trees, we'd want it pretty detailed on that. MR. BROWNELL-And we'll come back with everything. We'll give it to Laura by, we'll be there before the 16tH MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BROWNELL-I'm going to work right through the holiday. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Our tabling motion, then, is going to focus on traffic, landscaping. MR. FORD-Number of entrances. MRS. MOORE-You should also note to re-open the public hearing, so that if people want to make additional comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes. Thank you for that. Because I had closed it before. So we'll re- open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-And we'll leave it open on this application since it's being tabled to February. Now how specific do we need to be in our tabling motion? Do we need to outline all of the? MRS. MOORE-1 have seven items. Do you want me to go through those and match them up? You should give some guidance. They can get generic in general, but they should be identified. So I have the color schemes, elevation cross section, signage and curb cut, looking at possibly a single curb cut. Four is fencing, Five planting plan, Six traffic route within the site. Eight is the pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk to the building. And Number, the last one was resolve engineering comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have those? So all we need to do is just change those. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 74-2017 QUEENSBURYWOOD, LLC MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 74-2017 QUEENSBURYWOOD, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled until the February 20, 2018 Planning Board meeting with information due by January 16, 2018 so the following issues can be addressed: 1. Provide pedestrian access from sidewalk to building for safety. 2. For signage at curb cuts to be addressed. 3. Color scheme with Adirondack theme. 4. Deliveries between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 5. Retaining wall and fence with landscaping. 6. Signage for entrance and exit. 7. Engineering comments to be addressed. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. MR. BROWNELL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda is a Discussion Item. Green Mt. Development Group, Inc. Discussion 8-2017. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION 8-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. GREEN MT. DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: 0. LOCATION: BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE THE THIRD (FINAL) PHASE OF THE "CEDARS SENIOR LIVING" PROJECT. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN RECONFIGURED FOR ONE 32 UNIT BUILDING RATHER THAN THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL COTTAGES CONCEPT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD MAY BE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 25-2002; SP 25-2002 MOD.; AV 36-2002. TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-15; 296.7-1-15.1; 296.7-1-15.2. TOM JARRETT & TOM GETZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, and with me is Tom Getz, the CEO of Green Mt. Development. We're here to propose Phase III of the Cedars Senior Housing Complex on Bay Road right across from the College, and Laura's going to pull up, she's got the 2002 current set of plans up on the screen. It's one of the drawings we put in our package for discussion tonight, and Phases I and II, II and I were built in the early to mid- 2000's. They're a total of 124 units. At that time, in the early 2000's, the density was calculated as 157, which was unfortunately an incorrect number, and there are a lot of errors in that calculation that Laura and I discovered, but the financial feasibility of the project was based on that number, and we'd like to propose 156 now, one less than that original density calculation. Unfortunately with the re-zoning that occurred on this property we're only allowed 147. So we need a density variance of nine units. Originally in 2002, the remaining Phase III was a proposal for cottages scattered throughout the site, and for a variety of reasons they were not built that way, including the fact that we had to reserve a wastewater area in the rear of the property. Since then we've made connection to Bay Road, the sewer system, and it's also connected to the water system. So that land is all available for development. However, if we build cottages back here, now we do have a lot more impact area on the site and a lot more roadway, but they would have to build dining complexes either in each cottage or a major dining complex back here in the rear. They'd prefer to use the dining complex that serves Phases I and II right there in Phase I. It works very well and I think you could accommodate all three phases there very easily. So, could you go to the next slide, which is what we're proposing? For a comparison. So the proposal that we are looking at is this building footprint right here, 31Y compared with the original cottage which was set further back into the site, further north on the site. Right now there's an access road right here, and we would move that access road to this location, eliminating a few of the parking spaces here and adding parking in the rear. I'll move to that plan in a second. The big advantage of this plan not only is the proximity to Phase I building right here, but also the fact that we have much less footprint, much less development footprint on the site. MR. MAGOWAN-So that's right here. Right? MR. JARRETT-Yes. That building right there is the one you see on that plan. MR. MAGOWAN-And you're just going to scrap all that in the back? MR. JARRETT-Yes. We would be maximizing the density on the site right now with just one building, and we need a density variance to do that. We need nine units more than what we're allowed right now to do that, but that would be it unless the owners buy more property. MR. TRAVER-So you're looking for 156? MR. JARRETT-We're looking for 156. We're allowed 147 under our calculations. MR. TRAVER-Good. MR. JARRETT-Part of it is there's a change of zone in the rear of the property. It's a residential zone as opposed to the office zone. When you shake all the numbers out we're allowed 147. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically most of your residents are back along this side. MR. JARRETT-You mean the existing homes? Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The Country Club Road is over here. MR. JARRETT-Could you go back to the prior plan there, Laura. Yes, the homes are back here. Actually there's a connector back here. This is owned by Green Mt. Development, this connector back here. So the homes are back here. MS. WHITE-Can you show us on here where the proposed building would be? MR. JARRETT-Right there. MS. WHITE-There we go. Okay. And the seven, those are not happening? MR. JARRETT-Would never happen. Now in addition to the density variance, we need a variance for separation to the wetland. And all this gray area is wetland on the property. So frankly no matter where we build, even if we built these cottages, we would encounter some wetlands, and they were proposed and reviewed by this Board in 2002 and 2003. 1 don't know, we didn't find the minutes to those meetings. We don't know what the discussion was, but presumably that concept was fairly well received. Are you shaking your head no, Mr. Secretary? I'm speculating a little bit. Maybe I'm overreaching a little bit, but I'm hoping it was received reasonably well at that time. We now would be impacting not directly any of the wetlands, but indirectly we'd be closer to the wetlands just in this location. If you go to two plans later, I think it's the presentation plan, okay. This is just a rendering of what we're proposing right now and it shows the existing wetlands in this blue green color, and we are a little over 40 feet from the wetlands on either side, we've tried to center the building so it's even with the wetlands. We need an access road around the sides and rear of the building for fire access. We are proposing parking there. Now interestingly we have a lot of parking on site right now. A lot of it's unused. We're going to propose maximizing that use here, supplementing it with parking here. We can add parking here if we need to and bank some parking here that shows on your plan. MR. TRAVER-Well it certainly seems like it's a lot less impact than your original plan. MR. JARRETT-We feel so, yes. Which is in keeping with what the Town's trying to do and what DEC is pushing everybody to do. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a conservation. 4 MR. MAGOWAN-And not everybody there has a car. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think you accomplished a lot of what the goals are of the conservation subdivision plan. Because you're clustering development on Bay Road. MR. JARRETT-This would be a three story structure. We're minimizing the footprint, yes. MS. WHITE-So it's in keeping with the existing two buildings. It would be in a similar size, similar style. MR. GETZ-Yes, it'll look the same as the existing buildings and the existing two they're both 100% low income senior with supportive services. This would be the same thing. It would be the low income senior coming through. These are both financed through the low income tax credit program. We'd be doing the same thing on these. So it's adding those affordable units, and the reason for that location is the seniors, they need access to the services. They can't walk to them. So in order to give them the access it's got to be close to the building. MR. HUNSINGER-How hard is it to get the tax credits? MR. GETZ-It's competitive. Projects like this score really well in terms of, you know, it'll be 100% tax credit, and being able to provide the services is one of the biggest things in terms of being competitive on those projects. If you don't have that it's a lot tougher. MS. WHITE-How many jobs created, approximately? MR. GETZ-Under the construction phase, but in terms of actual operations, no. The only additional jobs, the supportive services on site would increase, but those are not employees of ours. Meals on Wheels provides meals. So there'd be additional meals. There'd be additional transportation. So it wouldn't be our employees, but there would be additional services provided. MR. SHAFER--How close do you come to the wetlands? MR. JARRETT-The buildings are a little over 40 feet on each side. I have the numbers on the chart there. Obviously the roadway's closer, but we would propose protection and no impact to those wetlands. Because we would route stormwater to the rear and we're going to move as much stormwater as we can via an existing collection sewer system to a pond that's over here behind Phase 1, and then build rain gardens out here to the north, as far from the wetlands as we can get. MR. FORD-How about permeable surface on that loop? MR. JARRETT-On this loop? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We would consider that, certainly. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-And the last two files in there I think are pictures of the structures that Tom was starting to allude to. That's existing Phase 1, and that's the entrance that's proposed for this new structure. MR. TRAVER-Well it looks good to me. I think it's an improvement over the original design. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Utilities, again, we're going to connect to municipal water, municipal sewer. Stormwater we will meet Town and DEC standards. Lighting will be minimal. There will be some safety lighting and some exterior lighting, but a lot of it will be off the building and we'll minimize it wherever we can. MR. TRAVER-What about the impact on the sewer capacity? We've heard a lot of discussion about that. 3115 MR. JARRETT-It's all earmarked. We met with the Supervisor and Chris Harrington several months ago. It's earmarked. We're all set. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. MR. JARRETT-That was one of the hurdles that we knew we had to deal with. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-So we need variances, and obviously we're here for discussion. We want some feedback from you, and then we will proceed to formal design and approach the Zoning Board as well as you for Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean if you're comparing this new proposal to the concept, I think this is superior. MR. GETZ-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, in terms of overall impact. Like I said, you've accomplished a lot of the same goals that we have in conservation subdivisions. You're clustering the development closer to Bay Road. You're minimizing the infrastructure. You're minimizing the impact. You're maintaining wetlands. You're maintaining woodlands. I see a lot of real positive things with this. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MS. WHITE-Do you have a demonstrated need? MR. GETZ-Yes. We've been 100% occupied for 10 plus years with a long waiting list. Demand for these type of units is huge. We rarely have turnover. Is this the same type of stuff as, within Saratoga County, Belmont Development on the Buffalo does a lot of the 32 unit with the tax credit type of stuff? Is it the same? MR. GETZ-I'm not sure. This is actually, we focus in Vermont, New Hampshire. So we have about 800 units. We develop affordable senior. This is our only New York project. So I'm not sure on Belmont. MR. HUNSINGER-But the rent's based on income, a certain percent of their income? MR. GETZ-No, it's a little bit different. So that is the, if it was a HUD Section 8 project, that would be the rents they pay based on their income here. Our rents are restricted. Each year affordable to somebody makes 50 or 60% of the area median income. So rent limits are published each year based on the tax credit program. So we just cap what we can charge and qualify residents. MR. FORD-Here's an opportunity for you to build an exemplary facility in New York State. Seize it. MR. JARRETT-Well the first two are theirs, of course. MR. GETZ-To finish it off. MR. JARRETT-They would add to it to finish it off. MR. MAGOWAN-Nice icing on the cake. MR. TRAVER-Any questions for us? MR. DEEB-You've always been environmentally conscious, and I want to commend you on that. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. Anything other than positive feedback? Not on me, on the project. MR. TRAVER-The only thing that was raised that I heard really was the idea of permeability due to the proximity of the wetlands. MR. JARRETT-The permeable pavement. We will consider that, yes. 36 12/19/2017) MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we're all set then. Thank you very much. MR. JARRETT-Great. We will be back. Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-All right. Is there any other business to come before the Board this evening? I don't know if you're going to be here on Thursday or not. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But we wanted to express our appreciate with a card for your long service. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You're very welcome. MRS. MOORE-You still need to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-1 move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER, 19, 2017, Introduced Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 3.7