Loading...
06-25-2018 (QUeensbUFY Hannon Board p /23/20 ) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 20-2018 William Miner 1. Tax Map No. 302.74-24 Site Plan No. 36-2018 Faden Enterprises, Inc. 1. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-49 Site Plan No. 37-2018 Faden Enterprises, Inc. 3. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-47 Site Plan No. 10-2018 Joseph & Cynthia Didio 3. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-7 Subdivision No. 7-2018 Marcia Parker 4. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.5-1-8 Subdivision No. 8-2018 Monsour Enterprises, Inc. 7. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-2-77 Subdivision No. 9-2018 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 40-2018 Thingvellir, LLC 12. Tax Map No. 227.6-144 Site Plan No. 67-2017 Gregory Teresi 15. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.2 Site Plan No. 42-2018 Fastrac Markets, LLC 17. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.13-1-35 Discussion 2-2018 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 24. DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Map No. 288.12-1-6; 288-12-1-8; 288.8-1-17 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. 8 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Monday,June 25t". This is the second meeting for the month of June and the 14" meeting thus far for 2018. Please note the exit signs in case of an emergency. Also if you have an electronic device or cellphone, if you could turn it off, or turn the ringer off, we would appreciate that. There should be some agendas on the back table for those of you who don't have one and wish one. We start our agenda this evening with an administrative item, which is, and we found out last week that Site Plan 20-2018 for William Miner was withdrawn, but we didn't pass a resolution to that effect. Tonight before us we have a motion to Deny Without Prejudice. So we'll start with that administrative item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 20-2018 WILLIAM MINER — REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SP # 20-2018 WILLIAM MINER Applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and create two new apartments on the first floor and two new apartments on the second floor. Project located in Commercial Intensive zone does not allow apartments. Applicant is applying for a use variance — project will be subject to site plan if use variance is granted. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non- conforming use or structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. On March 27, 2018 the Planning Board tabled the application to the June 26, 2018 meeting date. A verbal request for withdrawal has been made by the applicant/agent without follow-up letter. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN 20-2018 WILLIAM MINER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Duly adopted this 25"day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and now we move to our regular agenda items. The first area being Old Business, and we have two items associated with Faden Enterprises, Inc. that we understand are both being tabled this evening. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 36-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. AGENT(SJ: LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(SJ: 894 REALTY, LLC. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 894 NYS ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING BUILDING TO 2 CONSTRUCT AN 11,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BUILDING MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING. PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES MAJOR GRADING AND FILLING, NEW ACCESS RIGHT-IN/RIGHT OUT, AND INTERCONNECT TO ADJOINING RESTAURANT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040, 179-4-090 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE COMMERCIAL MODERATE ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 37-2018; AV 34-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.22 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.174-49. SECTION: 179-3-040. 179-4-090. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So I received an e-mail in regards to 894 Realty today indicating they would like to table that application and already on the agenda for tabling was 900 State Route 9. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. We have draft resolutions for those, and I understand we're going to table those to the first meeting in July which would be July 17tn RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 36-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. 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 demolish an existing building to construct an 11,400 sq. ft. single story building multi-tenant commercial building. Project site work includes major grading and filling, new access right-in/right-out, and interconnect to adjoining restaurant. Pursuant to Chapters 179-3-040, 179-4-090 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial buildings in the commercial moderate zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 36-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine. Tabled until the July 17, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-If I may, though, under Staff Comments, we didn't have the lighting, full lighting plan. So can we make sure that the applicant understands that we need that? MRS. MOORE-1 do have additional lighting information. So I'll put that together as a packet for the Board members. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Also, Laura, I note on the agenda there was originally a public hearing scheduled for tonight? Should we open that and leave it open? MRS. MOORE-You should leave it open. You've already opened it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it's already opened. MRS. MOORE-Just making sure that you left it open. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So we'll just note that the public hearing on both of those site plans are open and will remain open through the tabling. PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN MR. TRAVER-The next item is Joseph and Cynthia Didio. MR. SHAFER-Did we do both Site Plans? 3 MR. TRAVER-Okay. We can do the second one. SITE PLAN NO. 37-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. AGENT[S]: LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER[S]: EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 900 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW PARKING IMPROVEMENTS & INTER-CONNECT TO NEIGHBORING PARCEL. ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACING AND ADJUSTMENT TO THE PARKING AREA FOR DRIVE AISLE AND NEW PARKING SPACES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE WORK ON AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN 7 YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 36-2017; AV 35-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.174-47. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 37-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. 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 new parking improvements & inter- connect to neighboring parcel. Additional hard surfacing and adjustment to the parking area for drive aisle and new parking spaces. Pursuant to Chapters 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, site work on an existing commercial property with no site plan review within 7 years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 37-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled until the July 17, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And I'll note for the record also that the public hearing on that Site Plan is open and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN MR. TRAVER-Next we have Joseph & Cynthia Didio. Site Plan 10-2018, and we understand, Laura, this is also to be tabled. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO. OWNER[S]: SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2966 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 525 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,096 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. HOME IS 2,056 SQ. FT. FAR PROPOSED IS 2,581 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17943-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2003412 DOCK, 2003-347 DECKS, 2007-537 WOODEN WALKWAY, AV 26-2007, AV 34-2003 DOCK, AV 14-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA, LGPC LOT SIZE: .17 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.239.204-7. SECTION: 17943-010. MRS. MOORE-This is to be tabled by the Planning Board to the second Planning Board meeting. They have outstanding items with the Zoning Board to address. So if they get through that then they would be on the second Planning Board meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-In August. MR. TRAVER-In August. That would be August 28t". Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 6. (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 10-2018 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 525 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 1,096 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Home is 2,056 sq. ft. FAR proposed is 2,581 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 10-2018 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Tabled until the August 28, 2018 Planning Board meeting with information due by July 15, 2018. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: So we're awaiting final resolution by the Zoning Board,and we will leave the public hearing open. Next on the agenda we have Marcia Parker. MS. GAGLIARDI-I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, did we take a vote on that tabling? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, I thought we did. MR. DEEB-We did. MR. MAGOWAN-Did we? MR. TRAVER-All right. If we did, we'll repeat it. So we have a motion that's been made and seconded to table Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Site Plan 10-2018. And there were no comments I believe. So, Maria, can we have the vote please. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-The only question I had again, Laura, is this is also listed as a public hearing this evening. MRS. MOORE-So you would open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. TRAVER-Because we didn't have the public hearing open while we were doing the referral? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So Joseph & Cynthia Didio, if you are here for that application this evening, we will open the public hearing, noting that the project may change due to the tabling by ourselves. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-All right, and now we can move on to the next application which is Marcia Parker, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 7-2018. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MARCIA PARKER. AGENT(SJ: VANDUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 11 SPERRY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 2.07 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS — ONE LOT 0.58 ACRES (LOT A) AND SECOND LOT 1.48 ACRES (LOT BJ. EACH LOT HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE AND GARAGE AND BOTH HOMES HAVE A DRIVEWAY TO SPERRY ROAD. NO SITE CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE: 2004-106 DEMO SF. HOME; 2014-310 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 77-2012 CONST. GRAVEL PATH 300' X 6' WITH SHORELINE TURNAROUND AREA. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. LOT SIZE: 2.06 ACRE(SJ. TAX MAP NO. 316.54-8. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.07 acre parcel into two lots. One lot is 0.58 acres and the second lot is 1.48 acres. Each lot has an existing house and garage and both homes have a driveway to Sperry Road. They propose no site changes, and the area variances were granted at the 6/20/18 meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves of VanDusen & Steves representing Marcia Parker. Again I was here last week for the recommendation. I went through the project quickly and then went to the Zoning Board and got their approval after we discussed with them the same scenario with the Board. It was previously two lots back in the 60's and 70's, got merged and we're just basically adjusting the lot line to accommodate two primary structures with two secondary structures on what is now one tax parcel. So I'd just open it to any questions from the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So since our review last week there were no changes to your application? MR. STEVES-Zero changes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well we went over it pretty good. MR. TRAVER-We did. Okay. We do have a SEQR resolution we need to process on this application. If there are no further questions, we can go ahead and proceed with that. MRS. MOORE-You'll have to open your public hearing also. MR. TRAVER-Before SEAR? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we do have a public hearing on this application. And we will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we can go through the SEQR review process. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we have a, this as we, as we know this is essentially a subdivision. So no physical changes. If anyone has any concerns of environmental impacts? MR. DEEB-Nothing's changed. MR. TRAVER-Right. That was my sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just the ownership. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-No use change. MR. TRAVER-All right. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB PRELIM STG. 7-2018 PARKER 6 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.07 acre parcel into two lots — one lot 0.58 acres (Lot A) and second lot 1.48 acres [Lot B]. Each lot has an existing house and garage and both homes have a driveway to Sperry Road. No site changes are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land 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 Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2018 MARCIA PARKER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move to the Subdivision resolution. Does anyone have any follow-up questions on the Subdivision resolution for Marcia Parker? Okay. I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB PRELIM. STG. 7-2018 MARCIA PARKER A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.07 acre parcel into two lots — one lot 0.58 acres (Lot A) and second lot 1.48 acres [Lot B]. Each lot has an existing house and garage and both homes have a driveway to Sperry Road. No site changes are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 06/25/2018; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2018 MARCIA PARKER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. Next item on our agenda is Monsour Enterprises, LLC, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 8-2018 and Final Stage 9-2018. SUBDIVISION PREL.STAGE 8-2018 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 9-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC. AGENT(SJ: MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(SJ: HAROLD D. NASH III. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVIDING A 4.71 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.57 ACRE EACH, FOR THREE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. LOTS 2 & 3 TO HAVE SHARED DRIVEWAYS. LOTS ARE TO BE MARKETED FOR SALE. WAIVER REQUESTED FOR STORMWATER,SITE DETAILS AND SKETCH PLAN STAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 AND 17949-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: LUZERNE ROAD — COLLECTOR. LOT SIZE: 4.71 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 308.12-2-77. SECTION: CHAPTER 183, 17949-020. MICHAEL O'CONNOR & DAVID MONSOUR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of 4.71 acres into three lots of 1.57 each. They were granted their variances last week for Lot One for lot width and Lots Two and Three are to have a shared driveway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. For the purpose of your record I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little, O'Connor & Borie, the attorney for the applicant, and with me is David Monsour, one of the principals of Monsour Enterprises, LLC. Basically we're asking for a three lot subdivision. Lot One will have its own driveway to Luzerne Road. Lots Two and Three will have a shared driveway. If you just take a look at the notes that Staff made and we have, although I have submitted them to the Board, I can submit them now, put additional information on there showing the location of the house and septic. This is Town water. So it would be just a curb cut, curb hook up tap I guess you'd call it. We've shown a clearing area and we've shown the setbacks. We also have shown an individual driveway or driveways for each. One is a shared driveway and the other is not shared, but on each of those driveways we show a hammerhead so that the people can back out of their car into the hammerhead and then drive onto Luzerne Road. So they won't be backing onto Luzerne Road, which we thought would be one of the questions that you would ask us about. And that's as simple as it is. I apologize for the size but they came late and this is the biggest I can print on my copier. MRS. MOORE-Mike, did you end up switching the lot numbers that we discussed? MR. O'CONNOR-The one to the west is Number One. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not sure where we got that other version. Between zoning and planning we got another version that said Lot Two to the west was Number Three. MR. TRAVER-That must have been zoning. It couldn't have been us. MR. O'CONNOR-It was us. It was on our map. It wasn't on somebody else's map. This also shows the topographic features of the property. It's very flat. I think if anything there's a difference of about a foot between the front and the back. Most of the lots appear to be slanted to the back. If you have any questions we'd be glad to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Did you do perc tests? 8 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. O'CONNOR-We have not yet. It's a sandy area so we don't anticipate any problems. We'll do that between now and hopefully. MR. HUNSINGER-If anything it might be too fast. MR. O'CONNOR-It's sandy. I don't think, it's not a real course sand out in that area. MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we go to the public hearing? We'll open the public hearing this evening on this application of Monsour Enterprises, LLC. Does anyone in the audience have any questions or want to address the Planning Board on this application? Do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-1 do have one written comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-This is dated June 19t", 2018, to the representatives of the Zoning and Planning Boards of Queensbury. "I have received notice that there will be three new homes being built on a property next to me, and I would like to address some of my concerns and a request. I would like to address my concerns first; Looking at the plans, it appears that Monsour Enterprises would be taking out a good portion of the wooded area to fit 3 houses on. I moved to Luzerne Road, Queensbury to get out of the Glens Falls City (people on top of people and houses too close to other houses) and I admit, I enjoy the country life where the woods surround the houses and the wildlife such as the deer and foxes that roam the area freely because of the wooded area next and around me. Lately that is all you see on Luzerne Rd. is people ripping out the woods to put houses and storage places. Is it possible to ask not to take so much of the woods? My other concern is, the noise with tearing out the woods, building the houses and making/paving driveways how long do I have to live next to a construction zone? To address my request; with the removal of the woods and then construction; I would like a high buffer/security fence down the property line. Like people say; "Good strong fences make better neighbors". Thank you for allowing me to address my concerns and request in writing. Regards, Kenya Lashway 355 Luzerne Road Queensbury, NY 12804" And her property is at the bottom. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So immediately next door to the north? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Immediately next door to the east. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I note on the plans that you submitted to us this evening, it appears to show clearing limits actually fairly close around each house. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There's probably three-quarters of an acre that will be involved in the construction of the house, driveway, septic and yards. The parcel is 4.68 acres. So almost four acres, a little bit less than four acres will actually be left as not part of the project won't be cleared as part of the project. I will reserve the right of the individual lot owners who should have the right to clear paths if they want to create their own walking paths or some other use in the back because they'll be sitting on it, so that one acre, one plus acre, 1.57 acres, but we have no intention of doing that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that mitigates the need for buffering because looking at the map it looks like basically nearly the entire property line to the neighbor that made the written comment is going to remain forested. So, okay, and then with regards to noise and the paving, I remember, as I recall when I had my driveway done it wasn't terribly noise. I mean it wasn't jackhammers and that kind of thing. And it was in two phases and each phase was about a day as I recall, cleaning it off, blowing the stone dust and then coming back and putting down the blacktop. So I'm not sure where the noise concern is, but perhaps as you move to a, if this is approved, if you move to a construction phase, bear in mind that there are neighbors that apparently are concerned about the noise. MR. DEEB-How long does it take to build a house? (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. MONSOUR-Usually about three, four months, start to finish. MR. SHAFER-What size houses do you expect? MR. MONSOUR-They're going to be anywhere from 1300 to 1500 square feet. MR. SHAFER-Consistent with the neighborhood. MR. MONSOUR-Yes, definitely. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for the applicant? We do also have a SEQR process and resolution this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess if I could I would just make a comment, you know, since the one neighbor issued the letter and has concerns. If you could try to maintain as much buffer on that boundary line, but, you know, what you've presented I think is fine. You're aware of it. MR. MONSOUR-Yes, definitely. We'll try to leave as much as we can depending on what exact house we put in there. We can leave 15, 20 feet. MR. VALENTINE-In that same regard, a comment more than a question. From what's shown on here for the clearing limits there's not much you can do if you stick with clearing limits with a house and a septic system there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-And then the clearing limits on the Lashway's property itself is greater than what's on the three lots proposed. MR. TRAVER-Good point. MR. MAGOWAN-And it kind of looks like the clearing, unless that's a natural tree line there, you know, it looks like it might have, years ago, you know, trees kind of accidentally got removed. So I'm sure you'll do a good job and work with the neighbors and of course nobody wants to hear the banging and the compressor and that, but I've got one going on down the street now. MR. MONSOUR-It's progress. MR. MAGOWAN-Progress. That's right. MR. O'CONNOR-David's firm has done a good number of other homes and usually he does it on what I call spot lots and hasn't had any problems with the neighbors. I think over in South Glens Falls we've got one that we ended up with four lots and you have two houses up on that. MR. MONSOUR-All four are up on that. MR. O'CONNOR-Or all four are up on that. And we haven't had any problems, and those lots probably are about this size. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So with regard to SEAR, we do have a resolution to discuss. Does anyone have any environmental impact concerns on this application that have not been addressed? MR. O'CONNOR-1 do have a letter, Mr. Chairman, from DEC saying that there's no habitat on premises. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I remember last week you talked about the Karner blue. MR. O'CONNOR-Karner blue and the Blue Elfin. MR. TRAVER-Yes, Blue Elfin, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We have a letter saying that there's none on site. MR. TRAVER-Good. 8 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. O'CONNOR-1 believe we have it in the file. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. All right. I believe we have a draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-Just a note on the SEAR, it is the Long Form and not a Short Form. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB PRELIM. STG. 8-2018 MONSOUR The applicant proposes subdividing a 4.71 acre parcel into 3 lots of 1.57 acre each, for three single family dwellings. Lots 2 & 3 to have shared driveways. Lots are to be marketed for sale. Waiver requested for stormwater, site details and sketch plan stage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and 179-19-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land 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 Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 9-2018 MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and then next we have Preliminary Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STG. SUB # 8-2018 MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdividing a 4.71 acre parcel into 3 lots of 1.57 acre each, for three single family dwellings. Lots 2 & 3 to have shared driveways. Lots are to be marketed for sale. Waiver requested for stormwater, site details and sketch plan stage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and 179-19-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 06/25/2018; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 88 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 8-2018 MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And lastly we have Final Stage. MRS. MOORE-So on Final Stage there's items that need to appear on the Final plans. Some of those items are on the Final plans. However the items that still need to be identified would be the shared driveway notation. I know there's language out there about shared driveways being, there's an easement notation to that so that should be added to the plans. MR. O'CONNOR-1 have no objection to the Board making it a condition that we submit the easement for approval by the Town Counsel. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let's see, and the notation on the revised plans. I guess you mentioned there is a notation for the shared driveway. Right? MRS. MOORE-The shared driveway's shown, but I just want to be sure that the first person who buys that lot understands that that's a condition of this approval. So there needs to be language on, I know the language in the resolution is accurate,and that there may be some notation that please see easement notation as recorded at the County, something to that effect. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Did you want me to read each of these, or just go one through? So we have, on 11, shared driveway location, and notation on plan for shared driveway and then we have F. which is shared driveway easement to be provided for file and executed, and that's what you're looking for? MRS. MOORE-Yes, those should be conditions. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB. 9-2018 MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdividing a 4.71 acre parcel into 3 lots of 1.57 acre each, for three single family dwellings. Lots 2 & 3 to have shared driveways. Lots are to be marketed for sale. Waiver requested for stormwater, site details and sketch plan stage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and 179-19-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 06/25/2018; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 9-2018 MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests ranted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 3. 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 82 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) 4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 5. 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 or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. bJ The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final 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; and bJ The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; IL The following must appear on the final plans: a) house location; bJ water connection; cJ wastewater system locations; dJ clearing limits eJ shared driveway location with notation on plans for shared driveway; fJ shared driveway easement to be provided for file when executed; Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Sorry, and so for Item 11 it's just Items E and F. The rest, A through D, you don't need them anymore because they're already shown on the plan. MR. DEEB-They're there. I didn't think that was, I didn't think that needed to be taken out. MRS. MOORE-And I'm okay with that. MR. HUNSINGER-The comment I had on the resolution is that there were waiver requests for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting plans. You didn't say if they were granted or denied. MR. DEEB-Yes. Waiver requests were granted for Number Two. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much. MR. MONSOUR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Site Plan 40-2018, Thingvellir, LLC. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. THINGVELLIR, LLC. AGENT(SJ: HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF,STEWART& RHODES, PC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 83 15 ALLEN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 24 X 26 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION, A 12 X 21 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,375 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME AND TO CONVERT THE EXISTING GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE. EXISTING HOME FLOOR AREA IS 2,440 SQ. FT. AND THE ADDITIONS TOTAL 995 SQ. FT. APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BOTH 452-2016 REPLACE DOCK; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: LOT SIZE: .58 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.64- 14. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to construct a 24 by 26 square foot garage addition, a 12 by 21 square foot residential addition to an existing footprint of a single story house of 1,375 square feet and to convert the existing garage to living space. There's also a covered porch that extends from the existing garage area to create a kitchen and mud room entrance. And their variances were granted. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Lucas Dobie, project engineer. Joel and Joan Matthews are right behind us. So with your recommendation this was unanimously approved by the Zoning Board last week. What they thought and you would think is most interesting here is that anybody else would look at the map and you can see that there's a building area, building envelope. When you have a house on the lake, most people would want to build the house towards the lake, and that's not their goal here. So where they've proposed the addition is in an area that's mostly impervious area that's already driveway and they chose that location, required area variances and setback variances so they could keep the septic field where it is so it complies with the setback from the well. So it was all done to minimize impact and there were no issues with no neighbors. They're really right next to the road anyway. So it's a very simple application. MR. TRAVER-Very good, and your waivers were granted and no changes resulted from the ZBA discussions? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Planning Board? I'm not hearing any. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this project? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I have one written comment. This is, "Dear Sirs: We are familiar with the above applicant and know without a doubt that his plan will be an asset to the community. We have no objection to his plan." This is Ed &Judy Creede from 1296 Pilot Knob Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type II. So if there are no other questions or comments, we can move to a resolution, Site Plan resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 40-2018 THINGVELLIR, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of 24 x 26 sq. ft. garage addition, a 12 x 21 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 1,375 sq. ft. (footprint) home and to convert the existing garage to living space. Existing home floor area is 2,440 sq. ft. and the additions total 995 sq. ft. Applicant proposes additional shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new shoreline 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; 46. (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) 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 06/25/2018 and continued the public hearing to 06/25/2018, 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 06/25/2018; 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 40-2018 THINGVELLIR, LLC; 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; bJ If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; cJ 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; dJ If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; eJ 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; fJ 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. gJ 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; hJ The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; iJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; jJ 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. kJ This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25"day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, we were supposed to have Town Council here and I believe they're still in a workshop meeting. So if the applicant, I can either run next door and inform our Council. MR. LAPPER-There are no opponents here. So I don't know that it's necessary. 8"» (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. TRAVER-Well, it's your call, Laura, if you want. MRS. MOORE-You've asked for the presence of Council. MR. LAPPER-When we were here last time there were two neighbors that were objecting, but there haven't been any letters and nobody's here. So it's all quiet. MS. WHITE-Do you feel comfortable with that? MRS. MOORE-I'm fine. You can continue and I'll go next door. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. We do have a public hearing on this. So we'll see what happens at that stage I guess. So then the next item on our agenda is Site Plan 67-2017 for Gregory Teresi. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 67-2017 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. GREGORY TERESI. AGENT(SJ: HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES. OWNER(SJ: LAWRENCE DAVIS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN, 1,812 SQ. FT., 3 BEDROOM HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT OCCURS ON 15% SLOPE AND INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, PERMEABLE PAVERS, WITH SEPTIC SYSTEM ON ADJOINING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING WITHIN 50' OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 31-2017, SP 33-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .215 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.184-27.2. SECTION: 179-6-060. JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And I understand that we were really just awaiting some engineering comments and detail on the retaining wall. Correct? Everything else has been basically dealt with? And we have received that information, and to my understanding the engineer is satisfied and has signed off on it and has no additional comments. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? I know we've looked at this project a number of times. MR. DEEB-Several times. MR. MAGOWAN-It's been a long haul getting here. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. If there are no other questions from the Planning Board members prior to that then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the audience that wanted to address this application with the Planning Board this evening? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-Just a note that there were public comments from March, which I believe I already read into the record. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So just to note that there were. MR. TRAVER-So we'll note existing comments. There don't appear to be, are there any new written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. So no additional public comment, noting that there is public comment already on the record, and no written comment. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 86 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type II so there's no SEQR process required. If there are no additional questions or comments then we'll move to the Site Plan resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean the only question I had is we had this long package from Caffry and Flower, Attorneys at Law, regarding the formation of the lot, whether or not it was a legal lot. Has anything transpired? MR. LAPPER-No, that was the last that we heard about that. Craig Brown made a determination before we got here that it was an existing lot. Greg tried to have this designed, because his neighbor was concerned, so there's no variances. We previously proposed variances and we withdrew that. It's a house that's appropriately sized for the lot and a driveway up on top to deal with the slope. We tried to be as minimal as possible on this. The only issue was just that the engineering hadn't been done and Mark Schachner said if you have opponents it's probably smart to get it done and we agreed with that. So Greg paid to have that designed and the stormwater underneath that with the infiltration. Chazen signed off and communicated that to Laura. So they're all set. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-You've been gracious in your compromises. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have a motion. Is there any additional comment, and is there a second? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second it. MS. GAGLIARDI-I don't think he made a motion yet. MR. DEEB-I haven't made a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,812 sq. ft., 3 bedroom home and associated site work. Project occurs on 15% slope and includes stormwater management, permeable pavers, with septic system on adjoining lot. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction occurring within 50' of 15% slopes 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 11/28/2017, and continued the public hearing to 06/25/2018, 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 06/25/2018; 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 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI; 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; 8' (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) cJ 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; dJ If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; eJ 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;- 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. gJ 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; hJ The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; iJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; jJ 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. kJ This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Before we go we'd like to congratulate Brad on his recent marriage. Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda is under the category of New Business. It's for Fastrac Markets, LLC Site Plan Modification 42-2018. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 42-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC. AGENT(SJ: NAPIERALA CONSULTING. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI- 18. LOCATION: 220 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS AS-BUILT CONDITIONS FOR SITE ITEMS INCLUDING AIR EQUIPMENT,ADA PARKING RELOCATION AND SITE LIGHTING. SITE LIGHTING INCLUDES: BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHTING - ADDING GOOSE NECK FEATURES; GAS CANOPY — REDUCTION OF FIXTURES; DIESEL CANOPY — LIGHT LEVEL ADJUSTED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-020 (LIGHTING) & 179-9420 (AMENDMENTS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP PZ 51-2016 & AV PZ 69-2016 HOTEL, DISC 2-2017, AV 18-2017, SV 3-2017, SP 22-2017, SUP 5-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.155 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.134-35. SECTION: 179-6-020, 179-9420 MATT NAPIERALA &JASON VALLENO, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this is a modification. I'm just going to read through Items One through Three. So the gas canopy fixtures were from 24 fixtures to 8 fixtures which reduce the foot candle from 33.4 to 14.6. The diesel canopy fixtures were increased to 8 fixtures from 6 fixtures reducing the foot candles from 27 to 25. The Building lighting, this includes building lighting, has not been included in 2 (QUeensbUFY Nannhig Board p /23/20 ) the approved plan. There are now six mounted wall fixtures and 10 goose neck fixtures. The foot candles at the door are 35.8 where the code provides guidance that a 5 foot candle can be used at an entrance. Again those are guidance, and there's no other changes to the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NAPIERALA-Good evening. For the record, Matt Napierala, Napierala Consulting, and with me tonight and introducing our construction manager in-house for Fastrac, Jason Valleno. Jason's been up here building the store, doing a fantastic job in our humble opinion. As Laura said, we've got three items that we're trying to wrap up as a modification to the approved Site Plan so we can get a C of O. Hopefully some of you, if not all of you, have visited the new store and hopefully it's not very often I get to come back to a Board and to say, see I told you this was going to be a good place. So hopefully everyone agrees with that. It's a pleasure to come back. So with that, as Laura said, there's three major items that, not major items, but three let's say checklist items that we're addressing. I think the most significant deals with the lighting in front of the store. I don't know, Laura, if you got the pictures that Sarah sent you. Essentially what happened is as a site engineer when we get our site package, we deal with site lighting and at that point in time this new prototype store, the architectural and the wall packs and these gooseneck weren't included in the lighting package itself. So the front of the store never showed up as far as the light package itself. So right now as you look at the store, and as Laura is pulling up I can pass out some free pictures of, and these are not Queensbury, but it's the same type of lighting package of what the front of that store looks like and the first one it does show the intensity but as well I want to note as you pass that along that that intensity doesn't pass into the parking lot. It is really just the safety of our customers as they come up, so that they can see the front of the store, enter safely into the store, but that light shed from those goosenecks and from that front building facade lighting does not propagate and doesn't go beyond halfway through that first parking stall. Maybe it's 15 to 20 feet beyond the face of that building and after that it dissipates significantly. So that's really the major change. The other housekeeping items really, and I know we talked about the site lighting. Under the fuel canopy we actually, under Jason's guidance, lighting vendors like to sell their lights, and, you know, we started out at 24 and Jason negotiated it back down to 8. Eight cans essentially with the different intensities. So we reduced that from the approval of about 33 foot candles down to 14 underneath the pedestrian fuel canopy. The diesel canopy, we actually did increase two cans, but again because of the intensity of those lights. The approval was for a hot spot of 27 foot candles and it's now at 25 foot candles. So even though there's more cans, the lumens are less for that particular one. So you can see now from the fixture, and this is a store that was built about two years ago, a dark sky or nighttime, real life fixture from the road frontage, the front of the store is lit but it isn't obtrusive. Frankly I think it's a quality job and hopefully if you guys have been. It's tough this time of year because it doesn't get dark until 9:30 or 10 o'clock. So I don't have real life pictures of the store that just opened up a little while ago. So the other two items, the housekeeping, the 88 spaces. On our proposal we had them on the east side of the store, as under construction and the prototype got kind of flipped around a little bit. The side doors on the west side, the canopy side, are where the bathrooms actually exist. So lessons learned is we want to build the ADA spaces to be closer to that side entry door so the design, the approval was on the east. We flipped them to the west to be better serving the accessible, the clientele. The other lessons learned, the air tower under the proposal, the air tower was essentially right off of the western entry. So the air tower being proposed was in this location. We moved it further to the east to this location, mainly because it's free air and there are times, especially when there's a backup, and we did not want to plug this entry by having that air tower too close. So lessons learned was with Jason and the operations team, let's slide that about 30, 40 feet to the east to give us more room and so we're not clogging that entry. So those are the three as built changes that we're looking for your blessing so Craig will give us a C of O. Any questions we're here. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean I guess my first question is, and you've built a number of these stores. Right? And you say they're housekeeping items, but I mean these were housekeeping when you were doing your Site Plan review and approval, right, not ignoring the Site Plan and doing it the way you wanted to and not following the Site Plan. I mean the whole purpose of going through this process is to work with each other and come up with an approved plan and then to follow that plan. So I'm curious, knowing that you have gone through this process, how could all of these changes happen after the fact and then come to us and ask for after the fact approval instead of coming back and saying we've changed our plan. Here's now how we want to do it. MR. NAPIERALA-As a site engineer who's done sites for 33 years, every single property and every single site's different. Every property line has different configuration. Every curb cut access is different. Every entry point is different, and as such, when we're developing the site, even though there's certain criteria which we're trying to follow the means and methods of how those come into play also change, and lessons learned being literally we're on Year Three, and when we were proposing we were on Year Two and so we're still learning and we're trying to make it better. There are some 0 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) situations in some of the new stores where we're like, gee, you know, if we thought of that it would have been better, and that's really what this is, and so some of those answers came about between Jason and the construction team and operations saying, hey, you know, and Brett and I as far as the upfront team, you know, we're trying to catch up. So it isn't intentional by any means. It was kind of like we want to make it better for our customers. We want to make it better and a better situation, safer for everyone. So, you know, you can call well, geez, you guys didn't have enough vision, you missed it. Well if you say that then that's true, but we think the solution that was built is the better situation and that's why we're back here, and as it comes about, it wasn't a slight of the hand type of move. I would hope you would see that these items are housekeeping items, but if you disagree then I'll take the blame for not having that crystal ball foresight on these particular items. MR. TRAVER-So as I understand it your response is that routinely when you get a site plan approval you make changes after the fact and implement it differently than what's been approved? MR. NAPIERALA-No, that's not what I said. What I said is that in this particular case there was a couple of items that did occur. I mean, I would say, again, Jason's built off of our site plans for the past three years, and for the most part, no, we've built what's put on the plans. MR. TRAVER-So this is unique. MR. NAPIERALA-This situation is unique, and again, an air pump, again, understand when the parts and pieces to the puzzle here, there's a lot of moving parts. We've got the stormwater implications where the sewer line's going, where the water lines. MR. TRAVER-Did those change, too? MR. NAPIERALA-No. These are the three items that changed, but I'm just saying, again, you try to do the best you can when you have a blank piece of paper. These items, again, lessons learned came about said, hey, let's move that air pump and it came about from operations that made the suggestion and that happened, and then in the speed of construction to get the store open the timing was such we had some conversations with Codes and Codes said it's probably best we've got to come back before the Planning Board. That process in itself is a four to six week process before we're sitting back before you by the time we prepare, make application and come back. Meanwhile Jason's out in the field opening stores, and that's a timing issue that we all have to live with and it was, frankly his advice was let's do it right. Let's get the Planning Board, you know, we asked him can this stuff be done administratively, and they're like no this is a Planning Board item, these three items, and that's why we're here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-That was going to be my comment. First of all the improvements are fine, but to come back for a modification of Site Plan what about the delay, and many times it's easier just to get it done and then ask for approval after, and I think your site is a good looking site. I think you did a nice job with it, but that's what Steve was trying to convey also, and I'm not saying that the modifications aren't warranted, but try and see what we're saying. MR. NAPIERALA-No, I certainly do. Again, you know, I haven't been before you guys a lot, but at the same time I do this not only for Fastrac, but for other clients for 33 years. So I fully understand the process and what has to occur. It just, you know, in this occurrence there were three items that we're back here before you to discuss. MR. TRAVER-Other comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I'd like to, I've been in the construction trade for 35 years on my own, and there's been many times that I've gotten prints and, yes, they look great on paper, but like you said, you know, like your air towers, all right. That to me sounds like a move you had to make. All right. It sounds to me more of a safety, more of a flow. It looked good on paper, that's what we approved. You guys saw it a little bit differently. I understand timing and, you know, to turn trucks on and off, to have guys there and send them home is not feasible. Like I said, you made the changes. You stood up to the plate, you got a hold of Craig, this is the way we had to go. You had a timing, and it's all about lighting, the intensity underneath the canopy, you know, I haven't had the chance to be over there that much when it's dark, but I have to say I really do like what you did. It really looks sharp over there. It looks so much better than what was there before and the pines and that, and taking out some of the cans, you know, I appreciate that, and like I said there's just enough light for your safety and, you know, I understand sometimes you have to make changes and it's not what you 20 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) really wanted to do and I really appreciate you making the effort to start the process while you're doing it. You recognize that, and that I thank you for, and you weren't trying to skip out on it. MR. NAPIERALA-I think as an example under our standard practice with that air tower is to keep it close to the fuel dispensers because that's what we like to do is to have those customers, you know, get to the fuel dispensers and okay I'm going to put some air in my tires or check my tires or whatever, but in this particular case because of the curb cuts onto the subdivision road that goes back to the Hotel it just wasn't a good fit to this site. So that's, typically we like to keep it there, and again, in this case when you look at it in reality it's like, you know there's a better spot for that and it shouldn't impact anything else. So that's part of it. Again,there's no excuses, but that's probably the reasoning. MR. DEEB-I have no problem with the changes. It was the process. That's what I'm saying because we've had problems in the past before on this Board. MR. NAPIERALA-I understand. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application, although I see there's no one in the audience. Do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-1 just had some questions, though, on the lighting, and I think I probably wasn't here the night it was approved. Because when I read the Staff Notes I was a little surprised that we approved lights that bright under the canopies. I'm glad they're less than what was approved because I think 34, 35 is too much, but I do have some issues with the building mounted lights. Is there any way you can reduce the bulbs so they're not as bright as what they currently are? MR. VALLENO-These are an LED fixture. Everything on the buliding's LED. So there's no way to reduce the bulbs. I mean they're one single unit. So what they put out is what they put out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VALLENO-So I mean if it was an incandescent style or a bulb style I would absolutely change the bulbs out or whatever, but if you go and look they are just a simple single unit where if you look up into it, yes, there's a whole bunch of little diodes, but they're all basically one unit. So it's either on or it's off. MR. TRAVER-Something we might have addressed in a modification. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So the only way to reduce the brightness under those building mounted lights is to replace the whole fixture? MR. VALLENO-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean I know they're bright, but from the looks of the picture, they only shine out halfway into that front, and then they're kind of down lit. They're not giving off any spillage. MR. TRAVER-That's not this application. That's a different site. That's not this application. Those pictures. MR. MAGOWAN-1 know, but it's still the same style. MR. VALLENO-It's the same fixture, the same mounting height. I mean I could tell you they're mounted at about 12 foot 4. MR. DEEB-So they're all duplicates of the other stores? MR. VALLENO-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. 2p (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. VALENTINE-So where that goes from light to darkness is the same effect you're going to get at nighttime at your store there? MR. VALLENO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-See, and that's the concern. Sure you want a bright entryway so that it attracts motorists to the entrance, but if you're at the gas pump and you have to walk from 34 down to 2 or 1, your eyes can't adjust that quick and that's why it's a safety issue, and I don't pretend to be an expert. I'm only saying what other people, experts have told us at these Planning Board meetings, and also by personal experience. So that's the concern. I mean, yes, it doesn't spill out anywhere, but still if it's too bright, it's too bright. MR. TRAVER-It's too bright, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's too bad that there's not an easy way to mitigate that. MR. SHAFER-Chris, is there a Code that deals with that question of light to dark or dark to light? MR. HUNSINGER-Not that I'm aware of, but I mean those are some of the reasons behind how the Code was written. MR. SHAFER-In my experience in designing highway lighting that was a critical factor, the bulbs, light, dark. The change can't be above a certain level, light to dark, to light to dark, to light to dark. MR. HUNSINGER-And I don't know if we have anything in our Code that addresses that specifically. MR. TRAVER-Not that I've seen. Just the overall. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and that's why we look at the, you know, the average over the min and the max over the min to get at those specific measures, and we do have criteria for what those should be. MR. DEEB-Well, you know what we could do is increase the lighting on the outer end. I don't think you'd want to do that, though. That would take care of from light to dark. MR. HUNSINGER-And as the Board knows I'm the first one to say there's a couple of projects we've approved that the lights are too dim. And I keep waiting for them to come back and ask them to increase the bulbs. No one's complained, though. Which surprises me. MR. DEEB-Yes, there's no easy answer other than replacing the light fixtures, which is, at this point. MR. MAGOWAN-See that's the problem with the LED's. They're so intense. I just replaced some bulbs on a porch. Wanted me to go with the LED's, and they're actually smaller units that go up inside the can, but they're just so much brighter, you know, and the funny thing is they're rated for 60 watts, you know, equivalent to a 60 watt, but they just seem so much brighter. MR. TRAVER-It's a different frequency of light. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. SHAFER-When we looked at this plan originally we had some questions about truck turning movements, and in your experience now that you're operating, the southerly one, for example, there was some concern about trucks coming out, making a left and waiting for the light and whether or not there was enough room to do that. What experience have you seen in the field? MR. VALLENO-I haven't seen any issues, I haven't heard anything. MR. SHAFER-So trucks can come out there and make the left from the light? MR. NAPIERALA-To the best of my knowledge, yes. MR. SHAFER-How about up on the northerly one? There was a concern about trucks coming out there and being able to see around that corner for oncoming traffic? MR. NAPIERALA-Being able to see back towards the Hotel? There's nothing higher than a blade of grass going back that way. 22 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. SHAFER-It's the angle I'm concerned about, being able to see over the shoulder. MR. VALLENO-Yes. I mean I've spent honestly six months doing that turn every night that's where I live. MR. SHAFER-No issues. MR. VALLENO-No issues. MR. SHAFER-The other thing that I noticed was that the McDonald's connection was removed? MR. VALLENO-No, it's there. MR. SHAFER-The drawing that I have doesn't show the McDonald's connection. MR. VALENTINE-There is one up at the top right corner of the plan. MR. SHAFER-Only on the 2017 map. Not on the 2018 map. MS. WHITE-But they're saying it's physically there? MRS. MOORE-It's physically there. MS. WHITE-1 didn't visit the site. MRS. MOORE-I've been there, yes, it's physically there. MS. WHITE-Even though it's no longer on the map, it's physically there. MR. SHAFER-My point is it's not on the 2018 drawing. MR. VALENTINE-No, I'm looking at the 2017. MR. TRAVER-It is for a modification though, right? MR. SHAFER-It's the full drawing, Steve. MR. MAGOWAN-The May 17, 2018, the opening is in the back corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. WHITE-Correct. No, on the 2017, June of 2017 it's on there. Is it on there? MR. NAPIERALA-On the mid-point of the plan you'll see the site approval plan and then that second sheet is the as-built. MR. SHAFER-I withdraw my question. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions or comments? Okay. We have a SEQR resolution which we can do by way of a re-affirmation, unless people feel that the change in lighting has an environmental impact. MR. DEEB-I don't see any. MR. TRAVER-I'm not hearing any concerns regarding a reaffirmation. So we can do that resolution. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING A NEGATIVE DEC. SP MOD # 42-2018 FASTRAC MARKETS The applicant requests as-built conditions for site items including air equipment, ADA parking relocation and site lighting. Site lighting includes: building mounted lighting — adding goose neck fixtures; gas canopy — reduction of fixtures; diesel canopy — light level adjusted. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-020 (lighting) & 179-9-120 (amendments) of the Zoning Ordinance, changes to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 23 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) 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 Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SP 22-2017 & SUP 5-2017, on 06/20/2017 adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 42-2018 FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; Duly adopted this 25" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and then the Site Plan Modification. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 42-2018 FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant requests as-built conditions for site items including air equipment, ADA parking relocation and site lighting. Site lighting includes: building mounted lighting — adding goose neck fixtures; gas canopy — reduction of fixtures; diesel canopy — light level adjusted. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-020 (lighting) & 179-9-120 (amendments) of the Zoning Ordinance, changes to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; 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 06/25/2018 and continued the public hearing to 06/25/2018, 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 06/25/2018; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 42-2018 FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1] WaiveFS ronnoct gFaRted/deRied: 2� (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) 2] Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; bJ 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. cJ 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; dJ The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; eJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; fJ As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; gJ Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-They did not request any waivers because the items that we typically see were already addressed in their Site Plan 22-2017 and their Special Use Permit 5-2017. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb NOES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver MR. TRAVER-So you're all set. MR. NAPIERALA-Thank you. We appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-And just as an aside with regard to after the fact approval requests, it's been a bit of an issue in the Town as I think one of the other Board members mentioned. We even had someone write a letter complaining about and asking action be taken about it, and it's not just you. So be aware of that. It's something that is sort of an unaddressed general issue. MR. NAPIERALA-We appreciate your diligence. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right, and the next item on our agenda is a Discussion Item, and that is Cumberland Farms at #3 State Route 149. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION 2-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. AGENT(SJ: STEFANIE BITTER. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: Cl. LOCATION: 3 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING ICE CREAM/SNACK BAR BUSINESS AND REPLACE WITH A 5,275 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE. APPLICANT HAS UPDATED INFORMATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD MAY BE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: (-8J UV 1377 1988; DIS 9-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 4.25 ACRES TOTAL. TAX MAP NO.288424-6;288.124-8;288.8447. SECTION: 179-9-040. STEFANIE BITTER & WENDY HOLSBERGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. My name is Stefanie Bitter. I'm here this evening with Wendy Holsberger from VHB who is the traffic consultant relative to this project. Scott Schering from Bohler is also here as well as is Peter Getsky from First Hartford. We are continuing the discussion we started in December which seems like just yesterday relative to this project. We've been doing a lot of work, which is the reason we've continued to table it and delay it. We appreciate your cooperation on that. Just to kind of recap, this is a Cumberland Farms project which will be located on the corner of Route 9 and 149. It is conceptual, as is demonstrated on that site plan board over there. The proposal would be for a 5,275 square foot convenience store, a five pump gas fuel canopy which would be in the front of the store and a three pump diesel canopy which would be to the side of the store. This is a fairly ) (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) large parcel because it actually is three tax map parcels, 4.25 acres in size approximately, and what we had proposed in December was two access points, on 149 as well as on Route 9, both full access, which was supported by VHB's traffic assessment. They've had continuous discussions with DOT since December. On March 15" VHB provided a follow up letter which answered a number of the questions that were presented during that December discussion item as well as highlighting some of the points that, the conversations with DEC as well as Warren County EDC discussions had occurred. As this Board had recognized this parcel is zoned commercial. The use that we're proposing is a permitted use and as we had discussed at the previous meeting as well as in my March 15" submission, this is a convenience store and as the sense of convenience store goes, people utilize it when it's convenient, and I'm not a traffic engineer, but I can say from my own experiences I use it when it's convenient to my travel. So it's utilized with bypass and traffic that's already on the roadways mostly, the majority of traffic is. So for example during periods of congestion when access is not convenient users are unlikely to utilize the site. That being said, just to give you an example up the street on what I would refer to as the Million Dollar Mile as you're driving north and the traffic is backed up on both sides, even though there's open access to the Stewart's across the street you're unlikely to make that left hand turn because it would be difficult to access the site and exit the site. The same is true if you were traveling north on the site, on the Mile, and traffic was backed up, you wouldn't necessarily take the left into Jolley, even though it has open access to do so because it would be inconvenient to go in as well as to exit the traffic pattern. This is what Wendy had referred to as a self-mitigating measure that people think about that in their travels and what is a convenient site to actually access. That being said, although we have discussed that the use will have minimal impacts on this location, the intersection will remain at the same level of service that it is now. We have incorporated in the site plan mitigating measures, one being that the two access points that are represented there are the furthest away possible on the site. The second is that there is Route 9 median work that we have suggested as part of the plan, and I'll let Wendy go into more detail as to what that would be. There is also slope modification with the pedestrian bridge on 149 to increase the sight distance on that road, and then the last which we just incorporated in March, were modifications within the site plan in which we pushed the underground storage tanks back as well as the freestanding sign and the canopy in the event that there are improvements that DOT thinks are necessary for that 149 intersection. Before I do and turn this over to Wendy I just want to talk about where we hope to be after tonight's discussion. Our goal here is to kind of have a firm understanding that this Board is comfortable with this layout. We understand we have to go to the Zoning Board for variances. We understand we have to go back to the Planning Board before site plan and that we want to be able to tell our client let's go for the 75's, which would be the next step, but Wendy has an important DOT element to discuss with you. MS. HOLSBERGER-For the record this evening, Wendy Holsberger from VHB. So as Stefanie had referred to, and I know at the meeting in December my colleague Alana was here and I think she went through quite a bit of detail on the study, and as Stefanie had referred to, we've been doing a lot of coordinate with the Department of Transportation, you know, up until even today we were still coordinating. We expect a letter from them in the next day or two, but they have chimed in on our access plan. They are in agreement with Route 9 as a full access with the median recommendations where we're going to pull back where the northbound two lanes are and create a two way left turn lane right in front of the driveway so that that can be utilized by patrons coming in and out of the Cumberland Farms. It also will provide some benefit to the couple of driveway right across the street from us and allow that median to be used by them as well, and on 149 the agreement that we've come to is Cumberland Farms will eliminate the left turn movement out of the site and will be allowed to have a left turn movement in and then right turn in and out movement. So that is what, in all our coordination with DOT and the review of our study and all of the detailed evaluations that we've done is the access plan that we're working on. MR. TRAVER-Well, I had a couple of questions, a couple of thoughts, and you mentioned, and I generally agree with you, Stefanie, regarding drivers that are likely to avoid pulling in there when conditions are horrible for doing so, and actually that's one of my concerns. Because it means that the folks are going to be accessing this, I mean you might remember from one of our earlier discussions one of our concerns, or the major concern has been the impact on disruption of traffic and potential accidents and all of that kind of thing, and your comment reminds me that the least qualified drivers to exit and enter the place are going to be doing so under the worst possible conditions. Because people that know better are going to go by or they're going to come by under different situations. So you end up with drivers that are actually potentially more likely to violate the exit patrol efforts and the safety measures that you're talking about doing. So that's a concern, and I think in my mind, and I'm sure other Board members will have comments as well, the major concern I think is, I mean the whole area as we've discussed a number of times is problematic and is well known locally to be kind of a nightmare driving, but to me the major problem is the 149 piece, and one of the things that I wondered, and I know that this is a different approach than what you're doing, but is it possible you could have all the access on Route 9? And the reason I say that is if I'm coming up, let's say I'm coming up 149 headed west. Instead of having all the problems, or potential problems in dealing with 26 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) that entrance that you have on 149, all I would have to do, if I see your store, is go around the corner and pull in, and that would resolve, I think, and again we'll see what other members think, but I think that would do a tremendous amount to improve our concerns with regards to the traffic impact because it's really that 149, 1 mean all of it is bad, but the 149 piece is really, you know, because we know that we have lines of cars going over the hill and out of sight, and that problem would be mitigated because if somebody really wanted to pull in, it would take them another five seconds to go around the corner and pull in and exit the same way. MR. MAGOWAN-As long as the traffic's not moving. MR. TRAVER-Right, but then they wouldn't be able to pull in anyway. MR. VALENTINE-Well you could do the same by just having a right turn in only on 149. MR. DEEB-That's what I was thinking, a right turn in only. MR. MAGOWAN-You said right in right out on 149. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but people are not going to do that. They're going to pull out that way. MS. HOLSBERGER-The 149 access is going to have left turns in and no left turn out movements. That will be the restriction is the left turn out movement. That's in our discussions with DOT was their biggest concern was the left turn out, as far as the left turn in, and again I know there's some times when, in the summer when there is more congestion. That's been acknowledged. We've looked at that and we've studied it, but there are a lot of times that there's not that congestion. So I mean we have to look at like the 365 days of the year. MR. TRAVER-1 understand. MS. HOLSBERGER-So there's a lot of days where, you know, I've been up here, and of course now paying more attention than I had before, and there's times, I was up here last Friday, coming back from Vermont, and it was 4:30 on Friday, and when I got to the 149 intersection I was the third car and the light turned green. So again I know that your concerns are during that recreational time and understanding that the corridor does act differently during that time, and that congestion happens and it's no different than any other driveway in the corridor. There's delays and there's queuing throughout the corridor. The advantage that our site has is that by having two, being on a corner and having access on both roadways it does allow for more options. Your concern about drivers and their abilities, I mean that's a really hard one for anybody to respond to. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. HOLSBERGER-I mean from an engineering standpoint I can't really respond to saying that there's drivers and what their ability level is. MR. TRAVER-1 understand. Sure. MS. HOLSBERGER-We have to design for what the, and our analysis does show, we've been out there and we've looked at the queuing and really the driveways are 350 and 375 feet from an intersection. Like having a commercial facility with driveways on both sides is very common at a signalized intersection. So that's like a key corridor wherever you go. I mean you can go down the street and every, you know the signals along, a lot of roadways are having that which they all deal with queuing, and it's a matter of how does that work and how, you know, we look at the facts and what makes it work. The fact that these driveways are 300, there's not a lot of places that I work on that the driveways are 350 feet away. So that is a lot of spacing, understanding there's some unique characteristics to this area, and we understand that, and that's why we did do a sensitivity and we did an analysis where we increased the volume, but oddly enough during that recreational time the morning peak volumes are actually lower. So when you have the, you know the other times of the year when it's a non, I keep calling it a recreational because it's the summer and most people are up here for fun not for as much commuter travel, you know, so the volumes actually in some of your day is actually less. So we did some comparisons in that March letter where we showed the time of day, because I know there were some questions about what time periods we're looking at and showing, you know, why the AM and the PM peak hour really showed the maximum time period. So, you know, we've definitely taken a hard look. We've done extra analysis here. We've been working with DOT for months on their review and discussions and conversations. 2 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. TRAVER-Well that proposed modification that you're discussing with DOT on Route 9 1 think would help a great deal. So that's a very positive thing, but we have, you know, the no left turn exits are not uncommon around Town, and people pull out of them and make left turns every day. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, they just don't work. I don't think they work well, and I think back to when we did the site plan for the Mobil station on the corner of Quaker and Route 9. So I used to us that station all the time, seven o'clock in the morning and I would take a left hand turn out of there onto Aviation Road. There wouldn't be another car on the highway. It was never a problem, but we still imposed a no left hand turn. There's times, you know, it's just too bad drivers, people, don't use commonsense, and I come out of the Northway Plaza very infrequently onto Quaker Road, because it seems like every time I do there's somebody making an illegal left hand turn. You can count them going into Lowe's off Quaker all the time. I mean all day long people are making illegal left hand turns into Lowe's and out of Lowe's. They're just problematic. They're hard to enforce and people choose to obey or not obey. MR. TRAVER-And the smart people when it's crazy are just going to say, you know, I'm going to come back another day, and so it's the worst people most likely to ignore the left hand turn. MR. HUNSINGER-1 agree with Ms. Bitter. I mean, and I said that when we did the Dunkin Donuts on Glen, and the concern there was the queuing line for the drive up, and I said am I the only one when I see a long line that I go somewhere else? MR. MAGOWAN-Not for Dunkin Donuts. They seem to want to wait. I don't know why. MR. HUNSINGER-And I'm not going to wait to get in line to get gas either. MR. DEEB-Along those lines, and I see what you're saying, but you're probably one of the more reasonable persons that would be driving. You referred to not being a destination spot, and if it got too busy people would most likely avoid that. I don't see where we can speculate whether these people are going to avoid it or go. I don't think that that's a valid reason, because we don't know. People are crazy. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but see in the same way you can't speculate on those people, either. I men, some people, like you said, look at Chris, he's a good guy. He's going to follow the rules, you know. MR. TRAVER-Until he doesn't. MR. VALENTINE-Well I was joking here, but I said is it in the ITE Manual somewhere about personalities and drivers? I mean there's nothing there. MS. HOLSBERGER-We didn't say here's the ITE trip generation and we're going to take a discount for the busy time. That's not part of the analysis, but there's some reality to a convenience market. I mean it's called a convenience market because it is convenient. So we're not saying that no one's going to go there, but we're saying there will be people, if it is busier, and that's why competitors go across the street from each other because they know that it's why there's pharmacies on different corners of intersections because they know that that competition, you know, works, to have them that close, you know, if it wasn't that way then the CVS and the Rite Aid would be on different ends of the towns but that's not where they go, and that's no different than when there's the Jolley and the Stewarts that are almost right across the street from each other right down the street. So in this corridor, very short area, there's three different choices for getting somewhere. So to some degree, we're not saying that it's going to be this miracle and parting of the waves that there's nobody going to go there it it's not totally convenient, but there is some reality to that, that when it's convenient. MS. BITTER-That's my expert experience. MR. TRAVER-No, I'm sure you're right, and I would hope that that would be the case, and I suspect that it is for the majority of the people. Again, the concern I think is for the people that don't know any better because they're going to be the ones that are most likely going to be causing a problem. I mean that's not your issue. You can't design for that. MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Can I chime in a little here, if you don't mind. First of all I'd like to start off by saying Stefanie, and for Cumberland Farms and for what you have done here from what you came here with the first discussion item is really, is much better. I like it a lot better. I like that you're working with New York State on Route 9 to open up. I like how you spread it out, and like I said, you know, 28 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) rightfully so, we cannot, I can't base my decision on people that don't follow the rules and regulations and signs. I could tell you a quick story. Down in Saratoga, the New Country, I bought my truck there in 2000. 1 was down there one time, and, you know, you use to be able to turn off of that road across from Lowes, you know, right off of 50, and I guess they've changed it around since the last time I was down there one time and I pulled down in there and it happened to be a State Trooper pulled me over and asked me what are you doing, and I said I was committed, I have a big truck and I said I committed, I went through it, I didn't realize until the last because I've been coming down here for years and it's changed, and he reminded me that it has changed and put your New York State license on the front of your car, on the front of my truck, but, you know, my concern would be the people at the last minute let's pull in, and the only thing that concerns me with the one on 149 is by the time the people get to that light on 149 to head east, it's the pedal to the metal because you're just totally frustrated, and then you're going to have someone that's going to stop to try to make a left, and I know that the traffic does back up coming on 149. 1 would like to really see a right in, right out there, you know, so people can pull in, come out of the queue, gas up, get what they want, and if they want to get back out in the queue make a right and then that way we're not stopping the flow of traffic coming around that corner. That's the only thing I see is that would be another stopping point for the cars that are already frustrated coming up 149. With the proper signing that they can go back out on Route 9 and get back in and go straight or make that left. If you can pull that off, I think I can sell it to Queensbury. MS. BITTER-This is my concern with that, is how would a driver know that that was a restricted access and they're already on 149? MR. MAGOWAN-Well obviously you're going to have to start putting up signs on the Northway and have multiple signs coming up. MS. BITTER-1 already have an answer for you for that because I asked the same question. That was my concern is you're going to just naturally take that turn and you're going to put your blinker on and turn left at that access and you're not going to be able to access it. You wouldn't know as a driver unless you were in the community, but our main concern here is the recreational traffic. MR. VALENTINE-After their first time when they get caught. MS. BITTER-Well, you're worried about the recreational folks, because Chris has got to know how to pull into the Cumberland Farms. You're worried about the, the person that's going to put the pedal to the metal is the recreational folks. It's not going to be the folks that know how to get in there. MR. MAGOWAN-No, and I agree. For what you've done, this is, to me, you know, a 98% improvement, you know. We're never going to get a perfect situation until that whole corridor. And even if you put a suicide lane there, if you want to call it a dummy lane to turn into Cumberland Farms so people can go around you, the problem is is people are going to start stacking up there for the double, to make the left, you know, because they're always inching. MS. HOLSBERGER-And those are things that, I mean we did look at options like that. There's also the pedestrian bridge is a bit of a constraint there as well because it's there and we can't move that. So I mean what DOT looks at is if you're stopping to take a left hand turn, you know, that back up that you might create while you're waiting to take that left, is it going to impact that intersection and that spacing that we have which is a lot for having a corner parcel because it is big for a corner parcel. Usually we're dealing with, you know, driveways 100 feet, 120 feet. We're like over 300 feet away and that's why, you know, we're saying that the left turn in will move. Will there be times that a person might have to wait and there are courtesy gaps and I know we don't count on that in our analysis. There's no like click that we say okay let's put a percent for courtesy gaps. That's not in the analysis. So the numbers we show don't account for that, but there's the reality for that, too, and there's congestion and I'm sure, you know, you see it at other intersections that where the driveway is is where there's only one lane to cross. If it was closer to the intersection then there's two lanes to cross. So we're in a good spot. We have a lot of distance, an that's why, you know, an obviously Cumberland Farms' concern is accessibility like getting in and like Stefanie referred to if you make that turn and then you decide to go, if you can't make it are people going to try to make it. How would they do that? And everything we're doing shows that it's a doable movement and again I know we're focused on that three months where it's, you know, a little bit more congested, but there's a lot of times where that queue is not there and the congestion's not there and that impact isn't there to have that driveway. MR. VALENTINE-When you look in this with the DOT, going back to the Route 9, southbound, there's not a center turn lane in there? 29 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MS. HOLSBERGER-That's what we're proposing and that was in our original study. MR. VALENTINE-So this doesn't reflect that, right? MS. HOLSBERGER-Right. Well, I don't think it's in, it's in our newest plans which I mean literally we're working on them today. So in the traffic study there is a schematic of that. The traffic impact study did show an aerial that had that striping modified. MR. VALENTINE-So then all that's going to be required here is that you keep on the same pavement, just re-striping in this area? MS. HOLSBERGER-Right. So it's basically shifting because right now there's a transition, you know, at the site. So right now in front of the site is right where the northbound transitions to two lanes and then if you're southbound it's transitioning into a left turn lane. So we're really going to shift. MR. VALENTINE-But it's after that driveway when you're southbound. MS. HOLSBERGER-Right. So we're going to shift that transition area to widen. So we're basically going to take the left turn lane from at the signalized intersection, you know, and turn that into a left turn lane and then transition to the two through lanes northbound farther. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean what is that two lanes for anyway? MS. HOLSBERGER-Well, it's like up the hill. So it's like the slower traffic. MR. MAGOWAN-Most of the trucks are making a right on 149. MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes. So it works out very well for us because it's a very little impact for that and exactly what we had to talk to DOT about is our, you know, are you okay with shortening up that double through lane for that. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a great move. MR. VALENTINE-You noted before the topography of that entrance there. What do you have for a grade coming out of the site up to the intersection? MS. HOLSBERGER-Route 9 or 149? MR. VALENTINE-Route 9. MS. HOLSBERGER-Route 9. 1 don't know if you know the driveway grade for the site. MR. VALENTINE-1 don't. MS. HOLSBERGER-1 mean it would have to meet DOT standards. MR. VALENTINE-It's not flat. MS. HOLSBERGER-Not necessarily flat, but it will have to meet DOT. MR. MAGOWAN-It gets steep more where it turns into two lanes, back in here. It's where it turns into the two lanes here. MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes. There definitely is topography changes on the site, but DOT will require us to meet their standards, you know, where that intersection is. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean with this design here I see that really it's not, this is not going to really affect the traffic problem that we really have. Do you know what I'm saying? It's going to be that recreational time. It doesn't matter what goes on that corner, and what is there now. I mean what is there now is the same thing. During this recreational time when it's the busy rainy season in the summertime is really when the traffic is the most. MR. VALENTINE-Well it's definitely not a destination point. So you've got stacking in three different directions. If they go to get gas there, fine. They probably weren't thinking about it. It's not like I'm getting on there, getting off Exit 20 to go get gas at Cumbies, you know, they're there already. 30 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MS. HOLSBERGER-And the volume's split. So really south of 149, you know, the volume's twice as much as it is. So we're actually in the area where the volumes disperse. Like actually a little bit higher on 149, you know, so you're like 16,000 cars a day and then you split. So then you're like eight and nine and something. So it's, you know, we're really in a lower volume area. I know it's at an intersection so it might not feel like it but we're right where the volume splits. So in front of, you know, all the outlets the volume is twice as high as it is on either of our access driveways. MR. TRAVER-John, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. MR. SHAFER-You met with DOT. MS. H 0 LS BERG ER-Correct. MR. SHAFER-You will need two new driveway permits for this project if it goes forward? MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes. We'll need permits for the new driveways, and then we'll also have permits to close the existing curb cuts. MR. SHAFER-And they will approve this except for the left turn out of 149 eastbound? MS. HOLSBERGER-That's what they've said, that they've conceptually verbally approved it. They're writing their letter. Hopefully we'll have that this week. MR. SHAFER-Did they have any suggestions other than that? MS. HOLSBERGER-As far as? MR. SHAFER-Changing access or more specifically I guess do they have any longer range plans for improvement of that intersection? MS. HOLSBERGER-The conversations I've had with DOT, because one of the things when we're doing a study is obviously we want to know what could be planned. I actually worked on the Route 20/Exit 20 study several years ago. So I'm very familiar with that study and the recommendations that were made in that report, and I'm aware of the study that's currently underway which has very similar potential recommendations in the corridor. My understanding is that right now I don't think the Department of Transportation has any funding specific for that Route 9/149 intersection. When I had discussions with them, because we have, in understanding that there may be improvements that obviously there's a desire or there's a second round of corridor studies being done. So somebody wants to have funding to do something in this corridor. There's no doubt. So one of the things we're trying to do is we looked at, we put a roundabout at that intersection. We put two extra lanes, what if you had double left turn lanes and Route 9 was widened for just the two lanes and coming from west to south, where that would put the roadway potentially, and that's where we've done some on-site changes where we've said okay let's make sure that our canopy's not in the way of that and make sure that our underground storage tanks aren't in the way of that. MR. SHAFER-When you looked at a roundabout, could you get it to work? MS. HOLSBERGER-We did it very conceptually as really just putting a, you know, the diameter on there. Obviously the grades that were talked about, you know, like on Route 9 and the Super Shoes driveway is very short so that that's a challenge as well, but we really did it from a conceptual level to see, you know, impact from a site in laying out our site. My conversation with DOT they didn't necessarily foresee a roundabout at that intersection. Not to say that study wasn't in their, and I'm talking to a couple of people there. So I'm not speaking for the entire Department by any means, but the people that I've talked to have said that, you know, they're not necessarily saying that there's a plan on their end for that. MR. SHAFER-And you've observed the long backups up the hill on 9 and all the way over beyond the RV Park on 149. MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes, I have seen. MR. SHAFER-Those are caused frankly by the pedestrian crossings in front of the shopping centers, in front of the outlets. Because when people cross everything comes to a stop and if you observe the signal during those instances, you'll get one car through a green phase, one. From Route 9 you'll get one car from 149 because everything is backed up right to the intersection. 38 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. VALENTINE-You're back to behavioral modification. MR. SHAFER-No, well they're required to stop for the pedestrian crossings. So you're never going to solve, they're never going to solve the 149/9 problem until they figure out to move traffic more down through the outlets. MS. HOLSBERGER-1 mean you can add capacity to that signal, but if there's delays on the corridor it's not going to move it. It's not going to move anything. MR. SHAFER-One of my questions is do you have any data on how often the backups occur up on 9 and on the RV Park on 149? Is it five days a year, fifty days a year? MS. HOLSBERGER-1 don't have that kind of statistic. I know obviously we understand that there's a change in the traffic system during the summer months in that corridor. So I have studied this corner like pretty extensively, more so than some of the other studies that I do. I do know this corner. I've spent a lot of time up here. MR. VALENTINE-Spent a lot of time in traffic. MS. HOLSBERGER-Yes, but I don't know like is it five days a year, or 10 days, and I'm not even sure the corridor study is to that level. MR. SHAFER-You guys have done a great job in the architecture and on the layout and at any other location this would be a wonderful, wonderful idea. We have had people tell us, of course, anecdotally and by observation, that this is the worst intersection outside of New York City. That's what we're faced with here and trying to figure out how to make this thing work. MR. TRAVER-The good news is that there've been some plans made for some of the stores, particularly on the east side of that Million Dollar Mile or whatever they call it these days, that are intended in part to reduce the pedestrian crossing of the road. The bad news is they're also bringing in some new stores and that's going to increase traffic, they hope, to year round levels. So the time that in previous years you've only seen during those few months in the summer, the people that are developing that area, continuing to develop it, want very much that to be year round. So the traffic problem is likely to get more consistent, I suppose it's good, but the bad news is it's going to be more consistently very busy. MR. SHAFER-Did DOT bring up the idea of westbound 149 heading north to get on the Northway at 21? Instead of, because as you know the problem is through traffic being run down by the outlets. There's no reason to do that. MS. HOLSBERGER-And for this particular study that discussion was not had. I can tell you that that is something that in the previous Exit 20 corridor study it was an idea that was tossed around about adding different way finding signs for the State routes to try to split some of that traffic. Because I said, and like there's definitely, right where we're at is the split of where the traffic. MR. SHAFER-The fundamental question is when cars are backed up on 9 and 149, how do cars get out of your driveway? That's the problem I have, and I know you've use the term courtesy gap, which I never heard until this project. MR. TRAVER-1 don't think that term is well known around here. MR. SHAFER-In 40 years of traffic engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could do anything to encourage DOT to keep truck traffic off of 149, this particular Planning Board member would. MS. BITTER-1 don't know about that. MR. SHAFER-Well on that point, when they did the dredging in Fort Edward, as you know, they made them go down Ridge, the trucks. MS. HOLSBERGER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they used to use Exit 17, and then when Fort Edward and Hudson Falls were all torn up for the sewer projects people started using Route 9. 2 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. MAGOWAN-Before GPS came out and everybody found the quicker route. MS. HOLSBERGER-Right, and one of the concepts that's, you know, being tossed around and was tossed around before was having a back access, a secondary back access road, and that comes with mixed reviews because, you know, it's like the retailers also want the traffic. So it's a tough discussion. MR. SHAFER-The answer's very simple and that is to put a bridge over 149 and a new interchange on the Northway. DOT could do that in a flash. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, what's your flash, 30 years? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Michael, their construction program is two billion dollars a year. MR. VALENTINE-You've got to consider New York City also. MR. SHAFER-Pardon? MR. VALENTINE-You've got to consider New York City's in that, too. They don't do it by regions. MR. SHAFER-Yes, they do do it by regions. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but not the total, the aggregate. MR. TRAVER-Well I don't think the applicant wants us to table this until they've done that. We've got to come up with. MR. SHAFER-But wouldn't we do better if there was a long term solution for this problem? MR. TRAVER-Absolutely, and we have discussed that many times before, and not just because of this project but others as well. MR. VALENTINE-Well the Department has always said that they would not base their transportation program on local land use decisions. So they've sat here and said that they're not going to do,they'/re not going to make improvements to a system here that has a problem because of, you know, development in that area, land use in that area. MR. SHAFER-It's a simple traffic problem, Michael. It's a traffic engineering problem, and that's what they're in business for. I used to work there for years. MR. VALENTINE-1 understand that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's a funding issue. MR. SHAFER-And accidents, and traffic volumes. They were always the key factors in setting construction priorities. MR. DEEB-And to that, too, that's one of my concerns, too, is the increase in safety and accidents, which I think is going to increase with this, and I'd hate to see something happen that we'd regret. MR. TRAVER-Well they're looking to get, this is a discussion item and they're looking to get some guidance from us, whatever we can grant them. So maybe we should poll the Board and see how people feel about this updated design, just to give them some feedback so they can, because I mean it's certainly, and I was the first one that started it. I mean it's easy to say yes but and could you do this, but could you change that, but I think that we need to give them some kind of guidance going forward that would be constructive, to give them some kind of help on versions. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want to come up, Bob? MRS. MOORE-No. This is a discussion item. MR. MAGOWAN-There's no public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Believe me there'll be plenty of opportunity for public hearing. So how do Board members feel about this updated design? They've put obviously some time and effort into it. I would 33 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) like to know what DOT says regarding that turn lane on 9. 1 still wish, and I understand the desire for the 149 connection, but I still wish everything could be off Route 9. 1 think that would be one way to cut way back on the problems, but that's not what we have in front of us. MR. VALENTINE-When I first looked at this site, when I first heard that there was a plan coming in, I've dealt with both of these women, I've dealt with another Cumberland Farms that we disapproved at another location. I've dealt with both of them on applications before, and I gave them my opinion in the very beginning and it was not favorable at all, but I look at, having had discussions with people at DOT, discussions with both Wendy and Stefanie, and I look at what's on here, knowing with 149, all right, there is that option, that other alternative there, but in having both of those moved as far as they possibly can, and that's why I was looking for the grade picture on Route 9 to see what that is. I look at this as it's been months, upon months, upon months looking at this, talking to people, reviewing it, doing what you can. I think it's at a point right now where, I think it's something that can be presented here and ready to go with it. Does it have issues? Yes, it does. The corner, any corner parcel, especially when you hit State routes, has issues. Access is something, I think it's open for discussion as far as re-looking and saying we have full access on both points, and that's something we've got to discuss. MR. TRAVER-And with regards to the remaining issues that you see in your analysis, can you give them any feedback on how, potentially how, what the options are, potentially address those issues so you'd be even more comfortable with the application going forward? MR. VALENTINE-Well, I think the main thing was, I think I already have given you both feedback on it as far as what I'm looking at. I think the main things have been addressed by moving both driveways to their furthest limits. Providing a center turn lane on Route 9, that was one of my main things in looking at it to begin with. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-And I'm not sure. 149's tough. MR. TRAVER-It is. MR. VALENTINE-Because of the fact you don't have a center turn lane there, and I don't know if it would be of any benefit, like you said, with that traffic, northbound traffic turning east, and having a center turn lane there to make a left turn in, and I'm not sure if that's, you know. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think if you put it there it's going to be used. MR. VALENTINE-Both ways. MR. MAGOWAN-It's going to be used both ways because people are just going to get frustrated. MR. VALENTINE-Right. I think we're dealing with a lot of other issues that are outside of the control of these guys that are just. MR. TRAVER-Certainly. Okay. Brad? MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said earlier, you've come back, you've put in, you've done a lot of homework on this. You've listened to what we said, moving the tanks back, you know, for the future on 149. If anything ever happens, from what I've looked into and from what I've talked to the people, you know, the problem is that that whole corridor, from Exit 20 Great Escape all the way out onto 149 is a State, County, and Town issue and whatever we do it's going to be a lot of money and nobody wants to lay it out, and we have a long road ahead of us figuring this all out. What you have done, like I said, people say how can you allow that on the corner. I don't think it's going to be that big of an effect. Occasionally you're going to have the nincompoop there that wants to try to make a move and we have that all over. So I really like the design. There's enough land here to do that. I really like the Route 9. If you get the State to get a letter for that turn lane out there and, you know, no matter what you do there down on 149 people are going to do what they want to. Pork chops don't work. Well they do and then they don't. If you're going to want to do it, people are just going to do it. I've seen them do it at Golden Corral. I've seen them at everywhere you have a right in, right out. If they're going to want to turn left, I've seen it up here at the Diner. That you can't control. That's the police and insurances there. I think you've done a great job and I say let's move forward on it and I'll take the hit from. MR. TRAVER-Chris? 36 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, You started off the whole discussion with the comment to Brad's rhetorical question, how do you allow this to happen. It's a permitted use. So given the site, as Mike said you know you push the access and egress as far away from the intersection as possible. Anything that we're going to be talking about is going to just be, you know, further mitigation, and the only other option is the no left in on 149. 1 think from a traffic perspective I think you've taken it as far as you can, and now we're going to talk about Site Plan issues which we really haven't talked about. We've only really talked about transportation. So I think that's where we're at. I think we're ready to talk about Site Plan. Lighting, green space, but I am concerned about the slope going up from the site to Route 9. So you can see to get out, but that can be engineered, too. MR. TRAVER-David? MR. DEEB-I just want to tell Stefanie I admire her tenacity. She said she'd be back and that she was going to come after us. MS. BITTER-1 don't think I said come after you. MR. DEEB-Well, your tone suggested that. I hate to be a Devil's Advocate. I'm just not ready yet. I really have a problem. I'm worried about safety. I'm worried about, I'm getting closer, but I'm not quite there. MR. TRAVER-Is there anything they can do in the way of changing the design? MR. DEEB-I think you'd have to have an act of God to do something with this. MR. TRAVER-That's a tough one. MR. DEEB-But anyway that's where I'm at at this point. I'm not saying I can't change my mind. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I'm in agreement that what you've done, it's a worthy effort and you've obviously put a lot of work in it. I think it's an improvement over the original design. My discomfort is with that 149 area, and I understand wanting to generate the movement. It makes perfect sense. I think if somehow, whether it be an act of God or whatever, if you could eliminate that connection to 149 then I think everything would be, recognizing that you'd have to reconfigure 149 to try to get the same ability to get people to access, but I think in a short time people are going to find that it's easier to just go through the intersection and pull in off Route 9 than it is to try to fight with the people on 149. That's my concern because I think that's where most of the potential for accidents is going to be as well, not that 9 isn't going to be a problem, too, but 149 that's just nuts that intersection there. So that's my comment. MR. DEEB-Just a comment to that is, and I don't want to speak for you, but I think people are going to go on 149, if they don't see an entrance, they'll bypass it. I mean how are they going to know that there's an entrance? I just think that the purpose. MR. TRAVER-Well that could be done with signage or even landscaping. MR. DEEB-But the purpose of a corner lot is you want an entrance and exit on both sides. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I understand. MR. VALENTINE-But going back to this right in and right out. MR. DEEB-Yes, but there's things you can do. MR. TRAVER-Well I'm just saying that's my main remaining concern. MR. DEEB-Okay. Jamie? MS. WHITE-So I have the same concerns. I feel like they've mitigated against stupidity as much as possible and ready to move on. MR. SHAFER-Yes, I agree with most of the comments. I think, Stefanie, you said it at the beginning that you're plunked down into the middle of a multi-faceted issue here that is not of your making. This is really a DOT issue at 149 and 9. You've done an awful lot up to this point in time. I guess I'm still uncomfortable with how cars are going to get out during those recreational periods when back :» (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) up is all the way up past the RV center on 149 and way up the hill on 9. And I'm not up on technology, but is there some kind of technology that you could put in the drive lanes or even on the main lines that would create gaps? Because I'm not comfortable with the term courtesy gaps. I don't trust drivers very well anymore. So is there, I'd need one more degree of comfort in getting vehicles out of your site during those terrible recreational periods, and I don't have an answer for you but that's my concern right now. MR. VALENTINE-Could I make a question to John's point, though? Isn't the left turn movement restricted out of here? So you don't have a left turn onto 149. MR. SHAFER-You have a left turn in. MR. VALENTINE-Well, yes, but, okay. You were saying when you leave the site. MR. SHAFER-Well they'd be coming out turning right, coming out on 9 in both directions. When it's backed up on 9, how do the cars get out of the driveway? MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's going to be a problem. MR. SHAFER-So if I had a little bit of help from that perspective I'd be okay. MR. MAGOWAN-1 have to tell you, though, a lot of times I'm working at the lake and I come down that hill and it's booked all the way up from 149 down to 20, I'll make that left onto 149 and head down and come over, back to the city from Bay. Just because I know. MR. VALENTINE-1 did it Sunday morning. It was one o'clock Sunday and instead of continuing to go south I took the left onto 149 and went up to 9L. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-Can I comment? MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go ahead. Just if you have any observations, noting that you're an alternate, it would be constructive. This is a discussion item and the applicant wants as much information as they can get. MR. DIXON-Yes, on 149 1 agree. I think that would be the most potential for problems. I've traveled that quite a bit and I know that it can be a bit of a problem. If, coming west on 149, if it was only a right turn in, I would be more comfortable with that and have it only a right turn in and the entrance and exit that's on U.S. Route 9, 1 don't know if you can even go farther north on that one or not. I don't know the property there. I thought that was all New York State, but if that was to be re-routed around there and get you farther up away from the intersection. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Is that helpful? MR. VALENTINE-There is, can I throw in another thing? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. VALENTINE-To John's point, he talked about and others have talked about it, saying that there is, I think Brad talked about County, State and local and part of the thing we're dealing with is saying okay where's the money coming from. One thing to keep in consideration, not just for this project but I think if we come up against this again where we have State roads or State and County, is if we know ahead of time enough, see there was just a round of funding for what they call TAP and CMAQ, and CMAQ is used for roundabouts and the Town could have made an application under the CMAQ funding that's due tomorrow, that would be something to consider. The Exit 20 corridor study called for a roundabout at this intersection. MR. MAGOWAN-1 heard there was too much traffic. MR. VALENTINE-Well the thing with the traffic there is that it backs up at other locations which is not going to get you anywhere with the roundabout there, but it's a consideration as you go forward and we get into these intersections like this again. Do we consider that the Town works with it or pushes the County itself or the State to say pursue funding for it, something that would be necessary? Since that Exit 20 study has been around it had to be known that something was going to come here eventually and maybe there was a need for it and it just looks like something that, instead of kicking 6 (QUeensbUFY Hannhig Board p /23/20 ) the can down the road, that's just something that just didn't happen, but that's just another additional thought. MR. TRAVER-Yes, noted. Thank you. All right. Any questions for us? Any last comments from members of the Board? All right. MR. DEEB-I guess we'll see you again, Stefanie. MR. TRAVER-Have a good evening. Thank you for your work. That concludes our agenda. Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 25`h, 2018, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 2511 day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 37